Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[1] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [2], reverts user Galassi [3], reverts Galassi again [4], reverts Izak [5], reverts Soman [6], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [7], reverts Galassi [8], reverts me [9]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[10] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[11] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[12] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[13] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[14]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's revision history, it looks at though the difficult POV-pusher is Smeat75 (though he/she is not alone).

This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[15] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!

After Galassi reinserted it, Iryna Harpy reverted it again, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Galassi (talk): Rv Not only are the refs contentious, but have turned the lead into a non-lead WP:POV travesty. See talk page."

Maybe Smeat75 should be given a topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I see a tendency by a tag-team of Direktor and Producer to insinuate that Communism is a Jewish invention. Both of them refuse to seek consensus, and cherrypick quotes to push a POV, disregarding the errors in citations which would normally disqualify these citations as RS.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Galassi disagrees? Well, Galassi, seeing as how you're the resident edit-warring proxy for Smeat75, with virtually no involvement on the talkpage, pardon me if I don't collapse out of shock.

Galassi's involvement on the article cann be summed up entirely as "revert Director whenever you see him editing". -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Toddy1 above - that was cited to a RS that said Karl Marx was a baptized Lutheran and I am far from the only one saying that on the talk page. I kept saying that sentence about Marx should not be in the lead because it was not discussed in the article, against WP:LEAD. Anyway that doesn't matter as Pharos did a lot of work and expanded the Marx information to a neutral and accurate version which I would certainly not have quarreled with, moved it out of the lead and into the body of the article and Director reverted every word, that is why I am here.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75, you have conveniently omitted the fact that you'd blanked other RS and overwritten it with as simplistic statement regarding Marx's Lutheran baptism, plus added that he was a 'classic antisemite' based on a single source all compressed into a single sentence. The source for the 'antisemite' allegation was WP:CHERRY based on this Professor of law's credibility having been established within the scope of the area of law, whereas the RS you selected was essentially a personal opinion piece by him which has been widely criticised.

I am in agreement with Toddy1's evaluation. You seem incapable of being able to approach the subject matter in a rational manner, and have demonstrated no interest in even attempting to. You persist in pointing your finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you as being part of a conspiracy of some sort or another, even where there has been no working relationship between contributors prior the recent outbreak of disparate interest groups/POV pushers. I am of the serious opinion that you should be topic banned. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 has no regard whatsoever for discussion or consensus, he just thinks those who revert his content blanking should be banned from annoying him. I mean, if he posts enough sections on ANI demanding his opponents be removed from his presence, someone's bound to sanction them, right? I imagine after this, it'll be the turn of Pluto2012, Iryna Harpy, Producer, and all the rest who are opposed to his (frankly nonsensical) edits. Really though, this is basically Smeat75 "dealing" with his inability to push his edits into the article. Neither discussion nor edit-warring helped, how about another "Ban Director!" section? -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[16]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit that was removed was introduced without consensus, amid active opposition on the talkpage. The posting editor didn't seem to read the discussion and/or didn't care that elaborating on that topic is opposed on grounds of being miles outside the scope.

I'm sure Pharos was merely doing what he thought was best for resolving the matter, i.e. "resolve the issue by elaborating on it in enough detail". Unfortunately, elaborating on the issue in detail takes us outside the scope. The best thing to do is to leave it out. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note for an admin- I got an edit conflict which I tried to fix and think I inadvertently removed a couple of other comments. I don't know how to try to fix that without possibly messing things up more, can someone look into that. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(Restore EC removed comment) I do not see a consensus for the changes noted by Smeat75. I suggest an RFC be opened, and Smeat75 consider WP:DEADLINE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 2:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Further comment: This edit summary [17] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to state that the irony of Smeat75's ANI title is too much to keep a straight face over. Given the recent ANI-turned-fiasco over this same article where he declared, "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..., his/her purported interest in 'improving' the article smacks of disingenuousness. My involvement in the article has been limited to keeping an eye out for POV pushes, and I believe I've clearly stated my position more than once as to Smeat75's interest as a WP:COI desire to redact the article into oblivion[18]. The nature of changes to the lead alone were pure POV turning the article into a parody of an encyclopaedic entry per my responses on the talk page [19].

JoeSperrazza, while I can appreciate that you are a neutral editor, I think you may see my concern with envisaging a reasonable, rational RfC if you take a look at the very, very recent ANI, and at the article's corresponding talk page. An RfC can only be viable where those seeking consensus are genuinely interested in developing a good and informative article are the mainstay of such an RfC. Holding an RfC at this point in time will only encourage yet more protracted, convoluted and plain disruptive tracts of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by interest groups antithetical to the existence of the article intent on wearing down good faith contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on that. Smeat 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" [20] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I promote extremist "memes" and push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". [21][22] He criticizes others for their wording of sourced information yet his only alternative to throw it straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". [23] Smeat clearly lacks the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and continues to try to associate other users with malicious statements or views in an effort to portray them as anti-semites and get his way. He even employs legal rhetoric and claims that he's stopping users from pushing "libel". [24] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In this edit Smeat75 changed two posts by DIREKTOR, and deleted one by JoeSperrazza and one by Toddy1. He said at 19:48, 19 April 2014 that this was due to an edit conflict. I do not see how that can be true. DIREKTOR you may wish to restore your posts to what they were before Smeat75 changed them.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it was due to me trying to fix something that had happened due to an edit conflict and if I had been trying to do something malicious I don't think I would come back to the page and leave a note to say I accidentally removed some comments, can someone look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought of looking at the diff, and changing things back?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did look at it and decided that I did not trust myself not to mess things up even more if I tried to change it back, which is why I left a note asking an admin to look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Smeat75. If you look at the article's history page, it's hard not to see the systematic censorship by Director. One example is the section titled "Critical reception and conspiracy theories" discussing analysts of antisemitic conspiracy theories related to the concept of 'Jews and Communism'. Director unjustifiably deleted links and] information from that section, most specifically Template:Antisemitism which he deleted multiple times here, here, and here, claiming the article has to be "part of a series on antisemitism" in order to be included, which every experienced editor (an he's one) knows is wrong, and I have even explained that the article is clearly related to the subject and it's exactly the right place for its use. Yambaram (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Director just continues repeatedly reverting others' contributions (not by me, I have had more than I can stand at that article for a while) with edit summaries such as "opposed to this" - reverts sourced material by Soman - [25] by Soman again - [26] and again [27] - reverts Pharos [28] and pays no attention to any discussion on the talk page (not from me there either in the last few days).Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, reverts another user today [29] with an edit summary "Rv. This recent addition ... is opposed." - translation, Director does not approve of it. "Discuss your edit on talk please." - there would not be any point in doing that, if Director answered at all, he would only say it was not going to be allowed. Why is he permitted to control the content of the article in this way?Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat I'm sympathetic to some of your concerns regarding this article. However, this seems to be a content dispute. Also it appears to me that the very existence of this article bothers you. I understand that too, but apparently that has also been dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any admin action helping the conditions over there, although if the edit warring continues I would consider locking the article so they can either discuss it or do nothing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that, as in a lot of situations, the article simply needs more eyes focused on it. I have to say that I was surprised the article exists, and after reading it I am even more surprised. It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. But I just simply am not seeing a user conduct issue here, as far as I can see. Perhaps I've missed it. No, to me there is a deeper problem, which is that one has an article at all of this kind. I thought the top illustration was especially repugnant. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just tagged the article for neutrality, as I feel that is the principal problem with the article. Let's see what happens now. I have never edited this article before, so I don't know what the dynamics are. I do know that there is a clear neutrality issue that has not been very clearly articulated. If there are indeed user conduct issues, perhaps they will now emerge. If not, they won't.Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I will not plead ignorance to why there are contributors who are overly sensitised to the the subject matter of the topic, Coretheapple, I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists... ... It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute." (sic) There is certainly no lack of research to suggest that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only arguments against its existence I've found (including attempts to delete it over the years) are based on perception of communism as being evil, plus censorship based on such articles touching on ticklish topics.

Examining different groups, including the identification of high profile names and brilliant minds behind communism as political/economic/philosophical theory, as being people of Jewish descent (who are still the principal thinkers with whom contemporary, active political parties who have never broken their ties) is less spurious than a ponderous number of Wikipedia articles. If there is any semblance of 'disrepute' in question, I would suggest that it is English Wikipedia's predominant bent towards 'Capitalism → (Representative) Democracy → Not corrupt → Great human rights record → Good vs Communism → Totalitarianism → Corruption → Bad human rights record → Evil' that stands accused of being irrational. Following this line of perception leads to equally badly thought out and emotive reactions as seeing this article as being about 'commies' of Jewish descent → anti-Semitism. What brings Wikipedia into disrepute is knee-jerk reaction self-censorship. Working of the assumption that the article in question is, according to preconceived misinformation and misconceptions about political theory, ipso facto anti-Semitic doesn't even aspire to have anything to do with rational thinking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by referring to "attempts to delete it over the years." The article was created 27 February 2014, which was two months ago. The rationale for deletion is not that we are sensitive to offending the Jews, but that no reliable sources write about the subject, which is required to meet notablity guidelines. Anti-semites of course write about the subject in fringe literature, that has been mention in reliable sources. and accordingly we have an article Jewish Bolshevism that describes that particular conspiracy theory. Incidentally, anti-semites also connect Jews with capitalism, particularly money-lending and liberalism, so your association does not work. Wikipedia did manage to delete "Jews and money." TFD (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I've only just noticed this response you've left for me. Firstly, you'll have to forgive my typo. It should have read as 'over the year'. Secondly, I would suggest that you read my comment with care. Using a leap of faith argument, you seem to have twisted my appraisal of the English speaking Western world's predominantly anti-communist conceptions drummed into us from the moment we comprehend media coverage of politics (and heavily reflected in numerous articles on the subject of politics, economics, interpretations of world events here on Wikipedia by which media sources are deemed reliable on the reliable sources list) into a spurious attempt to tar me with the anti-Semite brush. Your 'incidentally' remark is the association with my point that doesn't work. I sincerely hope that isn't what you were implying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists.." Sure, here's what I'm trying to express: I'm surprised the article exists. It is grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's developments - There is a statement in the lead "The philosopher Karl Marx, regarded as the "father of Communism", was Jewish by ancestry, hailing from prominent and historic rabbinic families on both sides." Exactly a week ago user Pharos expanded the main text with more information on his background and a book he wrote about Jews. Director took it out, you can see the squabble we had about it on the talk page. That is the exact reason I opened this discussion at AN/I. Today Pharos reinstated it with an edit summary " re-add Marx subsection opposed by exactly one person - now with strong reference linking On the Jewish Question to Communism" [30], DIRECTOR reverted it with an edit summary "Rolled back non-consensus addition" [31], I put it back with an edit summary "Discuss on talk page!" [32], he immediately took it out again with an edit summary "I did discuss and do discuss. Until there is consensus for this addition I will revert it without fail."[33]. By "consensus" he means "when he approves", which will be never. As Pharos said in the first edit summary, exactly one person, (Director), opposed it a week ago and the same person vetoes it now. It makes me want to edit war and attack the page, yes, it does, it makes me very angry, I have to try to restrain myself, I just do not know how people can read what is going on over at that article and do nothing about it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat75 that there are user conduct issues. I said otherwise above but after experiencing the talk page for a couple of days I've changed my mind. But let's be realistic: these user conduct issues are not going to be addressed. The fundamental problem with this article is content. There was an AfD in which a majority of editors favored deletion, which indicates, if nothing else does, that this article has a serious existential issue. Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How can an article have existential issues, Coretheapple?

The outcome of the AfD, as you would well know, is dependent on policy and guideline based arguments, not the number of votes based on objections of an emotive, POV nature. Those who would like to see the article developed in an genuinely encyclopaedic manner are not those who are ensuring that the content is a travesty. Take, for example, Smeat75's recent 'contribution'[34] where, out of the blue, he introduced that Marx was a classic anti-Semite as a neutral(!!!???) version for the lead. If you understand it to be "... grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace." in its current form, I suggest that you go over the history with care and acquaint yourself with which contributors are responsible for it turning into a 'disgrace' before jumping in and tarnishing the reputation of contributors who were not responsible for the aberration that's emerged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Even a casual reader can see that this article has massive POV issues. Smeat75 is a bit overemotional but he is working very hard to fix its enormous and I think self-evident problems. You seem to view the problems as assets and the efforts to correct them as problems.Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Iryna Harpy - That was an exact quote from Alan Dershowitz, an expert on anti-Semitism. I wouldn't say it was "out of the blue". I should not have put "neutral" in the edit summary, I admit. It was during an edit war that has started up again over that sentence on Marx that Director bans being expanded upon. Coretheapple restored the information added by Pharos since my last post here, Director took it out, I just put it back, no doubt he will remove it again. That change you are referring to from me lasted about two minutes and almost nothing I have put in or taken out of that article has been allowed to remain so you cannot blame me for turning the article into a "disgrace".Smeat75 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is almost as much of a shambles as the article. A perfect example is that Smeat75 was just accused of canvassing in this very discussion! Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence of canvassing here by that editor or anyone. Clearly the article requires outside attention and lots of it, no matter how that might discomfit the editors that have been dominating discussions there and enforcing their will on the text. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to ask an admin about that. Was opening this AN/I really canvassing? Would informing WP Projects about the article be canvassing? Also I have just been accused of making personal attacks - [35]. There are two editors with very similar user names DIREKTOR and PRODUCER and they back each other up often in edits and on the talk page. If you refer to them in the same sentence they will accuse you of implying they are the same person and threaten you with being reported so when I refer to them together I make it clear that I accept they are two totally different editors and then I am told that I am making personal attacks and being sarcastic.[36][37]--Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was asking a rhetorical question when I said "Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence..." No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. You may want to keep a private record, off wiki, of the various conduct issues that have taken place on that page that amount to WP:OWN, such as false accusations of "personal attacks" for raising content issues and the "formal warnings" that I see emanating from one of the regulars there. One of these days you might need to quote those diffs. Hopefully this article will be put out of its misery long before then.-- Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. - that seems clear. I suppose some of them must have read this thread, but not a one says a word, makes any comment or offers any guidance. They are all waiting for it to just go away I suppose. The talk page of the article is awash with threats of "I'll report you the next time!" "you should be reported" etc over and over, as if such threats of being taken to this board are somehow terrifying, in reality all that happens is that comments sit here until someone closes the thread as "no consensus".Smeat75 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

These kind of appeals for "help" to targeted like minded users are flat out canvassing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at that discussion will see that in the next message I posted there [38] I said "once again I ask you, or Jimbo, or anyone who sees this, to try to help us.Smeat75 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

At that discussion I first said "I hope there will be lots of editors... who see this, go on to look at the article, and decide to help to improve it, or change the title, or delete it, or whatever, but it definitely needs participation from a wide part of the community" [39] and then that specific person expressed his view so I said "come and help us then". I don't call that targeted, or canvassing.If I am wrong maybe an admin will tell me so.Smeat75 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that I had previously left a message on the talk page of a user who in that same discussion had expressed a strong opinion that the article should not be deleted but the title might be changed, which is a different opinion to mine, asking that he would look at the article and "make suggestions for what should be done" on the article talk page.[40]. I just think the article would benefit from more eyes on it, whether they agree with me or not.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also I asked at the NPOV noticeboard if others could look at the article and see what they thought of it, when an editor expressed an opinion I said "come and help us then" there too - [41] If that is some dreadful infraction perhaps an admin will let me know.Smeat75 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not to forget flouting the article's talk page (per WP:TALKNEW) by creating an unacceptable section[42] entitled "Attention new editors to this article and talk page" featuring an equally inappropriate call to arms diatribe as the purpose of the section. You're welcome to keep trying to justify the trail of 'just asking' around you've engaged in but, as has already been noted several times in responses to that section in a variety of contexts, if the number of forums and tone used doesn't add up to blatant canvassing, it most certainly adds up to gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What form of mediation would you suggest, Howunusual? The point is that there is nothing to mediate. Smeat75 started an ANI naming another contributor as being the source of the problem with an article that Smeat himself has POV issues with. Smeat's problem with the article is that Smeat is of the opinion that the article shouldn't exist. He has now found himself bogged down in defending himself against his WP:COI involvement, to which he has added violating WP:CANVASS in order to attract as many like-minded Wikipedians as possible, dragging the content of the article down even further than the lower depths it had been degraded to as a result of being turned into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

There is no question of mediating between this, that or the other party involved. This should have been an ANI looking into Smeat's activities, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, you, like everyone else you are entitled to your own personal POV, but please do not project that onto the rest of the universe you do not like, and hence kindly avoid the melodrama and violation of WP:SPIDERMAN. The ones who instigated this edit war and have run it all along are Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and they have recently faced a block for that, albeit a short one, but well-deserved. So cut the drama and if you wish to edit the article in a calm WP:NPOV manner please do so, otherwise your emotionalism borders on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and fomenting the very WP:BATTLEGROUND you accuse other hard-working editors of doing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales discussion and blocks & warnings for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER

NOTE: See the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#"Jews and Communism" article that drew attention to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who were both blocked, questioned, warned, and unblocked over their tactics at the Jews and Communism article. See User talk:DIREKTOR#Blocked indefinitely, User talk:PRODUCER#Sock puppetry or other close relationship and the admin who did it User talk:Jehochman#User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So, people using Jimbo's user talk page because they can't get what they want through normal channels, and an admin running in and blocking one side on completely false grounds. This thing is rapidly approaching ArbCom territory. When will people learn that running to Jimbo serves no purpose but to increase drama? Fram (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fram, and feel free to join the debate, even better, please try doing something productive like improving or editing the Jews and Communism article, it sure needs help, I assure you your POV over there would be most welcome. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't need the abuse and complaints that invariably follow such articles. The previous discussion about this article that I tried to have with you here (or at AN) recently was more than enough to give me a flavour of the actions there. The frivolous blocks by Jehochman, based on some discussion at Jimbo Waleses, and seemingly unconcerned by discussions at general noticeboards and the like, have only reinforced my extreme reluctance to join the debate. But thanks for the invitation nonetheless. Fram (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I understand you fully, but not all of us can just sit some things out. Methinks though that if someone were writing about anyone's own ethnicity or coreligionists and their associations with a controversial political ideology they too would not have the luxury of sitting it out, at least I think so. Nevertheless your concern is appreciated. You know, I never voted to delete this article. My request was and is very simple, no denial, face the truth but put it in historical context for example perhaps merge it with History of Communism so that it makes sense, not an easy task. And as this debate has dragged on and on, I have often asked myself why User RoySmith (talk · contribs) the non-admin who closed off the original debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism handing victory to a minority (the vote for deletion was 22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14), making it a "non-admin closure" that was actually never noted, and who allowed this unholy mess to grow like a cancer has never bothered to participate or peek in to watch his gift to WP grow like a festering sore, at least in acrimony between editors. Imagine this article could have been deleted, nipped in the bud, or as I suggested it be redirected and merged with History of Communism, then none of this would be happening now. All the acrimony and argumentation would be channeled into more productive work of genuine article improvement (hopefully). By the way, unlike DIREKTOR or PRODUCER, my style in more than 11 years on WP is never to run to ANI to get my way, no matter how rough the debate because I always feel users should come to some common understandings and work things out on their own. That is why there are talk pages for articles and for users kindly provided free of charge by WP with unlimited gigabyte space on its servers to hash things out by their mature selves. I take my editing seriously and will almost never involve myself in a subject I know nothing about. Anyhow, I am praying and hoping that the acrimony will stop soon, we all know this is not a healthy environment to be on WP. Hoping for the best. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover

NOTE to participating and closing admins: The final two days of the Jewish Passover holiday are from Sunday night April 20th, 2014 to Tuesday night April 22nd, 2014, that will make it very difficult for Jewish and Judaic editors to participate properly in this discussion during this time. The post-Passover days are also a traditionally very harried time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Some initial observations

I haven't had time sufficient to investigate every aspect of the voluminous (and highly vitriolic) back-and-forth above, but I did read Talk:Jews and Communism#Secret police, again in it's entirety, read most of the article and investigated the edit history a little, and its left a strong impression as to which side probably represents the Lion's share of the cause of acrimony there, if what I've seen is indicative of the history there. Initially, reading the first half of this thread, I had a severely amped-up variation of that uncertainty and ambiguity you often have when you try to assess a discussion that has moved from article talk space to a procedural page, there were so many endlessly recursive accusations and counter-accusations involved. But I didn't have to get very far into thread before I began to see severe WP:Battleground behaviour on the part of Direktor and Producer. To be fair, the entire thread is contentious and I actually feel very divided by the content call that was being made there myself and can relate to elements of the auteur duo's arguments as much as those of their (more numerous) opposition. However, what sets them apart is the tone of their arguments. Producer especially comes off as incredibly caustic and personally affronted; from the very start of his involvement in this thread, he seems utterly incapable of reconciling that someone else would disagree with him and he is quite upfront about the fact that he views this opposition as absurd nonsense. That opposition mostly keeps their collective cool and are (relatively) dispassionately removed as they assert their argument -- which it bears repeating, I have middle-ground views on -- and Producer and Direktor remain hostile throughout, and both employ a technique of histrionic threatening of getting a higher power involved on multiple occasions.

Frankly, they are so alike in their indignation, that, taken with other circumstantial evidence, I'd be fairly certain they were mutual socks, but this SPI says that is not the case. Still, they seem to move and take action together and in the case of the discussion I observed, their action seems to be defined first and foremost at displaying outrage at being disagreed with. Perhaps this is simply a case of their being very passionate about the material in question or that baseline discussion there has just become superheated in general -- though given the descriptions given by some of those who have had to edit with them in the past, I doubt it's just a simple matter of either of those factors -- but in any event, there definitely seems an element of WP:OWN at work here. I can't speak to the behaviour just yet of most of the other parties involved in the discussion above, since a majority of them were not involved in that thread or only commented briefly, but at present time I'm seeing Lucas and Spielberg as significant contributors to the bad vibes on that page, regardless of whether their other edits (and reversions) on the article itself are or aren't warranted and regardless of how much they have made themselves available to talk on matters. Frankly I think other contributors there could probably be forgiven for wanting to avoid them at all costs; I wouldn't want to attempt consensus, compromise, and collaboration if I knew such hostility was a given from word go. That's my (admittedly initial) impressions of the situation on that article and talk page, from an uninvolved editor who has no interest of ever getting involved in that quagmire of recrimination. Snow (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Been claimed I push extremist "memes", "lies", "slurs", and "libel". [50][51][52][53][54] Had users criticize content based purely on feelings of being "disturbed" or "uncomfortable". [55][56] Been associated with people who use rhetoric such as "Joos!" and "commies" when I only see these terms of this sort coming from users who supposedly criticize it. [57][58] And had to repeat many times for users to discuss and use the talkpage and not edit war with one liners in summary boxes or throw attacks on the talkpage.[59][60] It gets old, one gets tired of repeating themselves, and given the environment that I am in I'd say I've been pretty patient and calm all things considered.

To add to all this I had then been indef blocked on a hunch by Jehochman (an admin who is personally involved in the discussion and considers the article "ugly bigotry") with an apparent "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. Had him throw a clear CU finding under the bus in favor of believing that some elaborate conspiracy is in play and when asked for evidence as to why I and another user had been blocked, had him "point to long discussions to justify [his] actions" (as one admin put it) or later claim he's "too busy" to do so. [61][62] Only until numerous editors told him how ill-advised such an act and reasoning was did he decide to undo this. [63][64][65][66][67] In the midst of all this I had serious false accusations thrown out liberally at me in the full knowledge that I can't defend myself in any capacity whatsoever while blocked [68] and had backpattery be sent to those responsible for winning the "battle". [69][70] Now I note that you've commended one of these users for this effort despite only having an "initial impression" on the matter. [71] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to point out though that if they are at times hostile or caustic, it is secondary to having to deal with other editors who...let's be honest here...give every impression that they are there to sabotage the article because they were unable to get it deleted at the recent AfD. I know from experience that it is extremely frustrating to work with others who don't have the same goals as you do, i.e. article improvement. Having different POVs is fine and is to be expected, that's how some of our best articles hit the WP:NPOV sweet spot by having many voices contribute. But here, what it looks like is Producer, Direktor and a few others approach it as "here's a subject that is notable, let's write about it", while others are of the "this is vile antisemitism that personally offends me, what can I do to minimize that?" Tarc (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER refers to "users [who do this or that] ....without any fear of sanctions on their part" and gives a string of diffs, they very first one which is of a user who was blocked because of their edits and actions with regard to Producer and is asking, in vain, for their account to be closed permanently because s/he does not want to participate on a site where one cannot challenge anti-Semitism [[72]. That user has retired from editing this site and I can certainly understand that. I have lost track of how many times PRODUCER has referred to me feeling "disturbed" by a particular aspect of that article, as if that is some sort of trump card showing the irrationality of what he faces, I am not ashamed of feeling disturbed by blatant anti-Semitism. I would point out that that article was quiet yesterday with user Pharos making a lot of edits that no one objected to. Today with Producer's return edit warring has started right back up again. PRODUCER and DIREKTOR should both be removed from editing that article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the possibility exist that that user's claims of antisemitism were found to be a bit...lacking in convincing-ness, if not outright false. Same with the sockpuppet accusations. This project has various forms of dispute resolution and means to deal with problematic editing and editors, but the problem is that most editors do not willingly submit themselves to the authority of others around here. So we have several editors over the years make the sock accusations against Producer & Direktor, the SPI is filed, the SPI is closed with no evidence found. Yet 4 years later, editors still toss the accusation around. Presumably this Atlantictire filed a complaint somewhere such as ANI about the antisemitism he/she perceived, yes? It appears that the complaint was found to be less-than-convincing or credible, thus no action taken against Producer and/or Direktor. Yet the accusation is still tossed around. Do we see a pattern yet? The thing is, very, very few editors enter into our various means of dispute resolution with the honest intention of listening to a 3rd party arbitrate the disagreement; instead, they enter into DR with the expectation that their p.o.v. will be validated. And when it isn't the outrage begins. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making any comment about whether it was right for Atlantictire to be blocked or not, I am just pointing out that PRODUCER said users are free to call him names without fear of sanctions and gives a long string of diffs, the very first one which is of a user who was blocked for calling him names, among other things. Did he think no one was going to look at those diffs to see what they said? It is an obvious lie.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well y'know, I could declare right now that I don't want WP:NPA invoked to protect me and say "ok Smeat75, you are free to call me an asshole whenever you like, I won't do a thing". That's all well and good for me and for you, but other users and admins may not be so wild about that atmosphere being allowed to exist, and act accordingly. Now that I read through more of those diffs, I do remember who Atlantictire was now, the infamous "eat my fuck" guy, who was discussed here. You can't go around being that nasty, other people will step up and squash that every time. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, once again, I am not defending Atlantictire or making any comment about whether the block was justified or not, I am pointing out that PRODUCER has posted an obvious, blatant, very clear lie on this page. "I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[73]' He says people can call him names without any fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who was blocked for calling him names, among other things, it is a transparent lie.Smeat75 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Did Producer file the complaint that led to Atlantictire's block? If the answer is "yes", you may have a point. If the answer is "no", your continued smears, calling this editor a liar, are running afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. He says people can call him names without fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who has been blocked for calling him names. Contradiction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people CAN call him names, but his error was perhaps in the declaration of "no fear of sanction will come to you", as that was quite beyond his control. That doesn't make it a contradiction, it makes it a "making a claim that one cannot enforce". Again per my example above, I can tell you to call me whatever names you like and I won't care. But 3rd parties may indeed care and take action; my words to you are not binding on them. And yes, in the future I could envision indulging in a slight bit of glee at your misfortune as Producer did, as after all, you are responsible what comes out of your own mouth, or fingers, as it were. No one but Atlantictire was responsible for Atlantictire's words and deeds. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll just say this. I don't know what the deal is with the editors who created and defended that line of garbage some called an article. You don't create an article called "Jews and Communism" without knowing the history of the antisemitic canard. Especially when you have a line up of all those sources. As for PRODUCER being offended by my comments about the article, I could give a shit. There was clear intent on creating that article, and anyone who knows the history of the "Jews and Communism" canard knows this. I don't care how many well meaning editors work on that article, as long as it's titled and themed as "Jews and Communism", it should be deleted. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to file another AfD, esp after the last one ended not in "keep" but "no consensus". Perhaps more editors will see it as un-salvageable this time around. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to think that more editors would see it as salvageable this time around, giving the evolution from the initial version by the participation of new "well-meaning" editors (such as myself!). However, I do think that possibly the title and some of the scope issues could use some more thought, and would encourage people to participate, and not to be standoff-ish and wait for another AFD (which hopefully we can avoid!).--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you want to "fix it"? Would you want to fix an article titled Negros and Crime? How about Homos and Pedophilia? That article was created the same way those articles would be. Looking through sources, trying to find connections, and taking those connections and adding them all together. Which is what we call on Wikipedia, original research and synthesis. And the articles would be created for the same reason, the original author would have to know there is a racist/antisemitic connotation to the topic, but would delve into subject by using the same kinds of sources the racists/antisemites would use. Just search "Jews and Communism" with Google. Any non anti-Semitic results on the first page? No. How about the second page. No. There is an insipid meaning to the phrase, and I wish those who know about it's meaning and what is trying to be accomplished would step up and stop it. Instead of trying to "fix" something that cannot be fixed. Time spent trying to fix it could be used in getting rid of it. It's an insult this was not deleted in the first place. The results were obvious and the closer made a piss-poor decision. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not going to offer any defense of the original version of the article. And neither am I going to defend the name, which is pretty bad, and which can probably be changed. However, I am convinced by my reading of numerous sources that the Jewish experience with Communism in the 20th century (including Soviet Antisemitic activities) is a notable topic, and we should have some sort of article on it.--Pharos (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, on my first page in a google search for "jews and communism" I get Stanisław Krajewski's paper "Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists, in Poland, Europe"(cached version) which is cited in the article. I'll note that it ends with the statements "Talking about it must not be left to antisemites. Sensitivity and good will is needed to understand the story of Jewish communists." If only editors could relax and find the sensitivity and good will to collaborate on the topic. Maybe a dedicated article isn't needed, maybe there are better ways of handling it, I don't know or particularly care, but people should try to relax and focus on building encyclopedic content. It's not a badge of shame. It's just history, a tiny part of the "information of everything". Maybe one day, everyone will agree with Ben Katchor's view that "racial identity is just a dangerous fantasy" (from his interview with Derek Parker Royal) and there will be peace and goodwill throughout this land of Wikipedia, but for now it would be better if people stopped taking shots at each other. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Tarc said: certain editors involved over there give every impression that they're out to sabotage the article: their proposals and positions are suggestive of a disdain for the quality of the article, while disruptive users like Smeat75 have gone out of their way to render constructive discussion on that page as difficult as they can, through frequent flaming and (otherwise-useless) attack threads. This was well demonstrated by Producer. Pharos is indeed a notable exception in that regard, and hats off to him. But that's just part of the problem.

The main problem is that editors refuse to abide by the Wikipedia editing standards. In spite of my best efforts, WP:CON and WP:BRD have no meaning on that article whatsoever. Editors (Pharos included) insist that their ability to gang up and revert-war authorizes them to override opposition on the talkpage.
And that is indeed the core issue here: while there's edit-warring there can be no civil discussion, while there's no civil discussion there can be no resolution to the outstanding issues. This is all that needs to be done (at least for starters): WP:CONS needs to be enforced. With blocks, if necessary, for anyone who violates the policy. Or rather goes on violating it.

Uphold policy. Simple, really. And I do hope admins will help. -- Director (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a good concept to generally focus on during periods of contention, but from what I've observed, cavalier editing attitudes and even edit warring are less an issue than the general inability of parties to give ground and work collaboratively once discussion has started. On a separate point, if you are having to "enforce" consensus on more than half of the active editors on the talk page, it's likely you never achieved it in the first place. Snow (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not if half of the "more than half" arrived later and only started complaining after weeks have passed (once one of them brainstormed another in the series of "lets delete this now!" ideas). -- Director (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I"m afraid this type of attitude toward "latecomers" is pretty much the definition of WP:OWN. You perhaps don't mean to be doing this, but that is certainly the effect.--Pharos (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DIREKTOR the tone and stance you adopt are just too harsh. You come across as too much of a "boss man" when WP requires an ability to get along with a range of editors with who are only human beings with a wide range of abilities, time on their hands and other qualities. Editors are not "worker bees" who if they do not "punch in their cards and salute 'the boss'" at WP are fired or censured en masse. That is not the way to go about things. You must also show more respect for the obvious high level of intelligence and education of all editors who have gotten involved so far. For obvious reasons this is a highly emotional and sensitive topic to many people. Not every person from any ethnicity and religion would take kindly to talk calmly about the relationship of their group or coreligionists with a highly volatile topic such as the divisive and controversial communist ideology. One cannot pour hot water on humans and then say hey why are you screaming, cursing, and doing all sorts of things. While you and PRODUCER have obviously mastered some material about this topic, and your unique highly collaborative method of trying to enforce this topic from your own POV's that in in the long run is an illusion/delusion and impossibility, as you can tell, because there will always be others with opposing POV's and you will just have to get your minds around that just as you would like others to be respectfully accepting of yours. I think that the following post by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) [74] gives the rest of us who have not had the pleasure of working collaboratively with you and PRODUCER very important insights into your methods and modus operandi. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Background to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER provided by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#"Jews and Communism" article: I must say that I share some of the concerns regarding behaviour of Direktor and Producer which were expressed here. I have had years-long debates with them regarding the Chetniks issue and I felt on my own skin their partisan attitude towards editors that oppose them. The main problem was that they grabbed the articles with the intention to maximally expand their collaborationist activities and shaddow the resistance ones, so that is why Producer is aware and mentioned it, how "his" articles about Chetnik commanders must be the favourite ones ammong right-wingers. They basically refused to acknolledge some basic facts such as an existing animosity that existed between Serbs (majority of Chetniks) and Germans, as they were historical enemies and had just fought a nasty war (WWI) two decades earlier. We even had a 2-years long mediation which concluded that the nature of the collaboration between Chetniks and Axis was opportunistic (as they both fought the communist Partisans of Tito). Direktor even today doesn´t acknolledge any resistance efforts to them. What they did was picky-cherring numerous sources, and it wasn´t difficult because Chetniks lost the war, so the official communist Yugoslav history labbeled them as collaborators and was pretty much a tendency followed by many authors, as there was no interest in defending the loosing side. They refused to acknolledge the complexity of the issue and often used numerous tricks to eliminate opposing editors, and with some admin help, aften succeded. I was very bitter with WP because of it and because of the failure to stop such an agressive attitude in such a sensitive issue. Numerous editors simply ended giving up because they noteced that entering in conflict with the two would only bring fristration and trouble. Now I see that same pattern they applied in Jewish subjects, and it didn´t passed unnoteced as in Serbian one does. However, I don´t beleave any of them is really anti-semite or racist. They do however have some bias: both are Croatian and in Croatia the word "Chetnik" is strongly associated with the Serbs that fought Croats during the 1990s, so their edditing pattern regarding that issue is probably influenced by that. Also Direktor is leftist, Yugoslav Partisans sympatizer, so I think the subject of Jews and Communism for them was more about communism rather than Jewish people, however they should change the agressve pattern they often show in numerous discussions.

Dear IZAK, you shouldn't be so modest about your neutrality and the good faith with which you deal with other hard working contributors. Apparently, there are many of us who should be thanking you for showing us the meaning of civility. I've found your courteous, yet straight-talking approach to be most edifying[75]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais is a highly biased "background" provider, to say the least. Quite simply, I imagine he still hates my guts for insisting that Wikipedia not cover up Chetnik collaboration with the Nazis and their ilk (you know, stuff like this). In fact if I recall, the affair ended with him getting topic banned or something for tendentious editing. Personally I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for any of his "opinions" on my character. -- Director (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to dignify Fkp's biased complaints with a response, but seeing as IZAK is citing it as some definitive proof it should be known it is him not I that had ARBMAC sanctions placed for disruptive editing in the area. [76][77] I've collapsed this "evidence" as this discussion is already convoluted enough as it is. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, I don´t "hate you" because of you having your own opinion on the matter (everyone is entitled to disagree and opposing views should be welcomed to form consensus), I disagree with your methods of discussion and dealing with opposing editors. You make it allways a matter of win/loose and you use all partisan methods to win. Also, I don´t know how you talk about my sanction when you have a full page of sanctions and blocks. I dare to say that my topic ban at that time must have been the most exagerated TP of all time and I ended up banned because you and other users made the environment there so nasty and toxic that admins simply gave up to the easiest solution to your folcloric complains (at that time you made so many reports and you and Producer knew pretty well how to present the complains in order that when one came there to defend himself, admins unfamiliarised with the matter were already convinced by you).

Beleave me or nor, I actually came here to defend the two of you against the anti-semitic accusations. I am familiarised with your region and from years-long experience with you I know that you are a Croatian from Split who is a leftist, so I know that racism and anti-semitism was never even near you. The problem allways starts when some users oppose some of your edits and you start a full-scale war. It has been repetitive in many subjects around wikipedia. Here for instance (Talk:Yugoslav_Front#Alternate_proposal_2_.28National_Liberation_War.29) you clearly push a POV title in which the fight of your "Tito Partisans" would be the main subject, when you are not supported in that by absolutely anyone and all except you recognise the complexity of the war there. You simply deny that monarchsts also fought to liberate the country from Axis and had it as goal. I don´t agree with your attitude here on WP. This Jews and Communism was just another exemple where instead of working towards compromise you just entrered in war with another group of editors. And I think you didn´t even had the necessity to have conflict there, you could have just compromised easily there. But no, it is not your way, you like it more to fight, then enter into reports, make ir all escalate from one incident into a full-scale world war. FkpCascais (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

your observations are very interesting - your experience of direktors attitude and hostile superior-tone, chimes with mine actually, -also I remember reading George Orwell and his wondering about how fair the treatment of Draža Mihailović was- Sayerslle (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed :) The entire subject of Draza Mihailovic Chetniks is very complex. However we had Direktor and his team grabbing the articles and writting them the way they wanted, which, as everyone can see, is all about "Chetniks posing with German troops" as if that was smple as that and only that mattered. I don´t want even to recall the horror that those 2-3 years of fighting with Direktor were. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, Fkp. It would be nice if you tried to keep your pro-Chetnik agenda out of at least some of the disputes I happen to get involved in. -- Director (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as note, I am not a "pro-Chetnik" editor, I simply recognise the complexity in which they found themselfs during WWII. I actually got involved into it when I noteced that you and Producer grabbed the pretty much neutral and objective articles about them and started labeling them all over as collaborators. I opposed you, and since them I got used that you allways start saying how I am biased pro-Chetnik editor in order to discret me. Just another exemple of your disruptive pattern in discussions, as you quite often do this to editors opposing you. I will now leave this discussion to others. FkpCascais (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you FkpCascais (talk · contribs). By the way, what does "Potočnik" mean in English? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the 7th most common surname in Slovenia and doesn't mean anything in particular (other than being a rush - that is, the plant - and is probably an allusion to an occupation or region from whence an ancestor hailed from). Perhaps he admires Janez Potočnik, or it might actually be his surname. If it were tied to any unpleasant personages or allegiances, I'm sure you would have heard about it by now. Hope this helps. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a tribute to visionary Herman Potočnik. Nothing malicious or sinister. --Potočnik (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Updates: DIREKTOR & PRODUCER are warned by Jehochman, while PRODUCER changes his user name to Potočnik

It is only fair that this discussion be updated of User Jehochman (talk · contribs) admin's parallel guidance towards Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) (the latter now known as User Potočnik (talk · contribs)):

• User talk:DIREKTOR#Diffs [78] [79]
• User talk:Potočnik#Ownership and battleground mentality [80]
• User talk:Potočnik#Your username (where DIREKTOR suggests [81] that PRODUCER change his user name and PRODUCER complies) and is thanked [82].

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My guess at the name change request is probably they were both tired of various sock puppet accusations since they have been going on for over a year. I don't find it terribly odd that they would try to deconflict that since they seem to be interested in overlaping articles, and any article they actually agree on they immediately get accussed of sockpuppetry. I would do something similar if someone was named Divanir or something close to my handle and constantly started taking flak over it. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Izak's posting of the name change here as if it was some kind of "incident" looks pretty WP:BATTLEFIELDy to me. BMK (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it's kind of silly at the very least. But he may be worked up after Direktor told him not to edit the article anymore, after identifying him as a "Jew" trying to dissociate Jews from Communism. Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! That's a bit blatant. Apparently Jews and Communism is about "Communism, not anti-Communism" so it is not permissible for IZAK to include text showing Jews who opposed Communism—that article is only to show Jews who caused/promoted Communism. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're expressing Director's opinion about the scope of the article? To my mind, an article entitled "Jews and Communism" should be about the relationship between Jewish people and Communism, include any anti-Communist efforts made by Jews. Any other limitation is totally artificial. BMK (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of anti-semitism are getting quite tiring. We don't need a Wikipedia secret police. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No. What we really don't need is antisemitism. And what are you referring to when you say "Wikipedia secret police"? What could that possibly mean? Dave Dial (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor has been engaging n antisemitic rhetoric, then bring it to the appropriate board for sanction. Just calling other editors "antisemines" over and over and over, without proof, can and should lead to a bit of a WP:BOOMERANG. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of antisemitic behavior. The article itself, as it was created, was just a copy of the Jewish Bolshevism article. Only without telling readers it was a conspiracy theory. I just linked to a comment above that was over the line. That editors accept such as a matter of fact is the most egregious part of this whole mess. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see evidence of anti-leftist behaviour, myself. Apparently no thinks it is a problem to equate communism with 'evil'. That doesn't matter. Content. Not contributor. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I've seen these types of red herrings before. So if someone points out that there was/is a Nazi/White Nationalist conspiracy theory involving "Jews and Communism", they are just anti-communists suggesting communism is somehow "evil". Not pointing out that that Hitler used this conspiracy theory to rile up the masses in his efforts to exterminate Jewish people. Just as if I stated that there are Homosexual conspiracy theories, I must be against homosexuals? Or perhaps those defending articles attempting to legitimize conspiracy theories regarding "Jews" wouldn't be so quick to defend those in other areas. At least that is what it seems like. I mean, it's not as important as Wikipedia using the term "wife of" to describe someone or anything. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If you did not read my comments below, you cannot expect me to take you seriously. As I said, I was not commenting on the content of the article. Merely on the behaviour of certain editors. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't need antisemitism, nor do we need a cabal accusing editors of being antisemitic repeatedly. It isn't productive.RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

did you even look at what was written at the talkpage? i agree with beyond my ken -to say an article titled 'jews and communism' is only to be about links between jews and communism, and then wikilawyering about how anything else isn't to be discussed because in the one book that is the source for the article its only about links(or something, I couldn't get my head round what TFD was saying really) -if an article is to be called 'jews and communism' then it seems to me that it can and should take in very much more than what was in fact the aim of Goebbels 1930s Nazi propaganda - to fuse Bolshevism and jews in the public mind. what are 'antisemines' tarc? is that a word? Sayerslle (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask this again. What are you referring to when you say "Wikipedia secret police"? What could you possible be referring to? Dave Dial (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about the article content (I've been watching it for a very long time, at this point, but haven't edited it). I was speaking about attacks on other editors. As for 'secret police', I was referring to the tendency, it seems, for certain editors to go on an anti-Semite witch-hunt, rather than dealing with content. I believe we have a policy in this regard, titled WP:NPA. RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• What makes this article peculiarly difficult is that Jews and communism is an obviously notable topic, (or group of topics, for there are quite a number of different aspects and subtopics) with an immense literature, but a good part of the primary literature and some of the secondary is biased against Jews and against Communism.. It is an anti-semetic canard that the Jews are evil because many of them are Communists, or that Communism is evil because many of the prominent figures were Jews. In either case it relies upon the readers assumptions that either the Jews or Communists are so obviously vile that anything can be damned by sowing an association with them. (From the POV of a communist it could equally be seen as an anti-communist canard.) And from the POV of a Jewish Communist it could be seen as a tribute to both Jews and Communism. This is an aspect that must be discussed, but should not overwhelm the article. Historically, it has been the case that anything that deals with the Jewish participation in anything is capable of being used as anti-semitism: if the thing is good, the Jews are debasing it; if questionable, it proves the nature of the Jews. Anything connected with Judaism can be used in this manner, and almost aeverything has been so used. I can understand that in anti-semetic régimes, Jews would protect themselves by trying to avoid any discussion about Jewish topics by non-Jews. I am also aware of a historical fear among Jews that regardless how good things may be now, a period of persecution will return--and it has often been a rational fear. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: A very well-thought out response. It is nice to see some logos amid the pathos. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: Indeed, your comment was extremely edifying. I certainly was not aware of the Jewish historical narrative and feel confident that the majority of us are equally as ignorant of it. You did, however, forget to mention the number of Jewish contributors/editors who have been 'identified' by some 'body' as being unequivocally self-loathing Jews or classic anti-semites (it appears to come about where particular content input is deemed to be undesirable). Could you now explain what your point actually means in terms of the content of Wikipedia. In real terms, which areas of Wikipedia should be proscribed and how does the Wikipedia community determine taboo subjects from pleasant and nice content? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Dave Dial's comment at 00:02, 3 May 2014 - first Director said "IZAK is a religious Jewish person" and "should leave" [83], an admin expressed alarm, so Director amended that comment to "IZAK, himself being Jewish, is pushing a right-wing agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact." [84], another admin told him that was not an improvement, it "is typical prejudice of the worst kind - and basically a textbook case of it... it's disturbing" [85] and then Director removed both comments. I find it astonishing that anyone can think Director should be editing that article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We need help. The article is ghastly, Jehochman's warnings do not seem to have been heeded, and attempts to improve the article are met with volumes of hostility. The sourcing is very thin, since old and anti-semitic sources address the topic while modern historians view it as a relic best passed over. One or two blocks or topic bans would do wonders; until they happen, this will continue to be a blight -- an increasingly conspicuous blight -- on the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Direktor's battlground behavior continues unabated.--Galassi (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Recurrance of disruptive Nazi-related editing by User:Hoops gza

User:Hoops gza has previously caused problems by adding individuals who do not meet the criteria for List of Nazis to that page and Category:Nazis, even going so far as to remove those criteria from the page and claim that they'd been added by a random editor (rather than by the creator of the list article, to prevent its deletion). He has also created an absurd number of redirects in non-English languages on the English WP, arguing that the rules against this didn't apply because the topic was special (the Holocaust). He's at it again. This time he's also creating obsessively-specific categories such as Category:Nazis executed by Albert Pierrepoint. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Let me get this straight. I added the Category:Nazis to people who were verifiable Nazi Party members (you can take a look at the German Wikipedia's de:Kategorie:NSDAP-Mitglied to see how this is done). Ergo, they were Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this before, at length. Are you saying that you cannot remember this discussion, that you do not understand it, or that you refuse to accept it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I can say for certain that Hoops gza was incorrect at List of Nazis, the article's creator was Dr. Blofeld, and Dr. Blofeld was the person who originally added that language. The statement that Hoops gza made in this edit summary is nonsense (easily seen by anyone checking the article history). However, that edit war ended over a month ago, so it's not really worth bringing up anymore.

I'm also not sure what's problematic about those redirects, I don't dispute that there are "rules" being broken but I can't see where they are.

The category you mentioned above is at CfD, so the fate of the category should be settled there. The guideline for creating categories is here. I'm not quite sure, however, what determines whether or not a category should exist, and therefore what would be an excessive number of frivolous and/or redundant categories. To my eye, I don't really see what's wrong with these categories, I've seen some pretty crazy category creation sprees be reported to this board but this doesn't strike me as one. To look at all of the existing categories that Hoops gza has created, see this list. -- Atama頭 21:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

His edit-warring is relevant because he's just restarted it.[86] [87] The garbage redirects demonstrate his disregard for Wikipedia rules to suit his own agenda. The frivolous/obsessive categories are merely supporting evidence of his disruptiveness. And his comment above ... is simply baffling. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And now he is asserting that the discussion never took place. [88] For someone who engages this freely in historical revision/denial to be editing articles about the Holocaust is cause for concern. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried communicating with him; he just ignores me, off in his own alternate reality. Could someone at least suggest what I might do about this problem editor? Reverting his edits is getting tiresome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

More uncommunicative reverts.[89][90] More garbage redirects.[91] Please advise me on whether I should continue to try to deal with this problem editor (and if so how), of if I should just stop wasting my time asking for help and let him do whatever the hell he wants. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He is definitely a problem - and doesn't play nice with others. If ANI doesn't do anything (and I think a topic ban may be in order) than an RfC may be the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Laughable, man. Because you two are experts on the topic, right?Hoops gza (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also weighing in here that at August Landmesser he has resumed doing something that was discussed on the article talk page in March with no one agreeing with his position - for him to deny the discussion occurred is concerning, as is his position regarding the List of Nazis articles (which also arose in that discussion). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Hoops gza for 72 hours, noting that there was also a related AN3 report currently open about this case. Not sure if that will be sufficient to get the point across though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it humorous that the header at the top of the Nazi category page says "It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." The number of pages on individuals in that category greatly exceeds the number of subcategories or non-individual articles. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also welcome comment on his exhaustive creation of redirects (e.g. random phrases from "I Am the Walrus", or 2nd wife of Herman Goering and permutations thereof, or Holocaust in other languages even those with non-Latin alphabets with no apparent connection to the subject, etc). I know what Wikipedia policy is (not to do this), but I'm not sure if it's considered disruptive or not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried looking at Special:Contributions/Hoops gza to see examples of "walrus" redirects, but there is a lot of hyperactivity there, including the creation of a bunch of redirects and a category that appear dubious to me, so I gave up. If anyone familiar with the norms of such creation has the strength to provide a few examples, perhaps a topic ban would assist. In view of the "Ergo, they were Nazis" comment above (on top of the discussion at Talk:August Landmesser#"Nazi" from March), I would support a Nazi-related category topic ban to prevent future disruption and misuse of the category system. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user's last 500 edits to the article space, the Walrus group appears to start with Expert texpert at 22:11 on 27 April; there's also a group of redirects to A Clockwork Orange (disambiguation) starting with Ultra-violence at 20:24 on 26 April and a shorter set of redirects to Full Metal Jacket starting with This is my rifle this is my gun at 03:39 on 27 April. I think the redirects to Göring's wives (1st wife, First wife, Goering, Göring, etc., etc.) to "dad" and "mum" of Mozart and Beethoven (composer's names both in short form and spelled out) and to misspellings of Thames and the different permutations of abbreviations and non-abbreviations for Natzweiler-Struthof are excessive, but I don't see a similar problem with the Porajmos categories; it's legitimate to distinguish that specific genocide. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all of his redirects (and other edits) are problematic. But so many of them are utterly useless. Some examples from 27 April include Pornagraphic priestess [sic], Crabalocker fish wife (also "fishwife"), Expert, texpert, choking smokers (also without commas), and I am the egg man, they are the egg men, I am the walrus (+5 variations on punctuation). On 26 April, there were about 70 Clockwork-Orange redirects using phrases containing "ultra violence"/"ultraviolence"/"ultra-violence" (some of which don't even appear in the film or the novel), almost 50 redirects from variations on the names of Moatzart, Wolfgang Amadeus [sic] and Baytoven, Ludwig van [sic] and awkward phrases referring to their relatives. On 25 April were three dozen creative redirects to Erwin Rommel. In March he created redirects within WP-EN from مرگ انبوہ (Urdu), ഹോളോകോസ്റ്റ് (Malayalam), হলোকস্ট (Bengali), 홀로코스트 (Korean), and dozens of other non-English terms to Holocaust, as if there were circumstance in which they could be useful. (When this was challenged, he replied "I think that this one warrants having the foreign languages, for some reason."[92]) He's mostly just wasting his own time with these, but they set a poor example of how redirects are intended to be used. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging Johnuniq since examples were provided, and to prevent this from being archived; I don't think the discussion reached a conclusion. His block ended and he's started a new discussion at Talk:List of Nazis. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• The current strategy at Talk:List of Nazis#Criteria, Round 2 appears to be to persist until all objections to their changes are overcome, and their contributions from two hours ago ([93]) shows the creation of 37 redirects to Clockwork Orange pages. The pointless discussions and redirects are no help for the encyclopedia. What topic ban should be proposed? Something like "Hoops gza is indefinitely topic banned from all edits or discussion regarding categories relating to Nazism, and from the creation of redirects based on misspellings"? Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Since when is there anything wrong with holding a discussion on a talk page? I'm not persisting on anything, it's just that the original discussion was inconclusive, so please calm down. You're overreacting.Hoops gza (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just stop creating any redirects, for now. Most of the ones you've created today are similarly useless, or of very little value. Failing to take discussions like this one seriously will likely lead to a wide-ranging topic ban. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48's incivility

Hello, it appears our friend HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again. His contributions for the past several days include a smattering of personal attacks directed at Christian Wikipedia users at multiple. Here is a selection of them.

• "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words" and " Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now." (Directed at two separate users in one diff) [94]
• "Silly comment. I'll try asking some random people next time I'm in India or China. 'MOST' people don't live in places like the religious parts of the USA." [95]
• "Not good Christian behaviour at all" [96]
• "Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. Pretty sure Easter's not a holiday in India, or China, or any Muslim country. That's taking a lot away from 'global'" [97] and [98]
• "The mere fact that a self-declared conservative Christian editor shut it down hasn't exactly hasn't exactly cooled things off. It's now been re-opened, but peace shouldn't be expected any time soon with that blatantly POV pushing editor still active there." [99]
• "And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post." [100]
• "But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." [101]
• "How sad is it that the discussion has now been shut down by an editor whose User page tells us very clearly is a conservative Christian?" [102]

Those are all edits within the past three days. Let's also remember that HiLo48 has a lengthy block log and was previously topic banned from WP:ITN for extreme incivility directed at American editors. There was also an RFCU on HiLo from October 2012, which includes a detailed table of past disputes where editors brought him to AN, ANI, etc. I suspect there have been more threads like those filed in the past 18 months.
In the interest of fairness, I do have a lengthy track record with HiLo, dating back to our past encounters at WP:ITN and am involved in two of the discussions I've reported HiLo for above, though none of those comments are directed at me. But enough is enough. How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it? Calidum 00:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia comes up with an unarguable definition of "incivility', this discussion is pointless. Anything based on an individual's definition, one that might differ from somebody else's, means nothing here. There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss. I expect more abuse and alleged mud from the past to be hurled again now. As a lone voice against such dirt I have no hope. This is just another attempt by our user above with the unreadable name to silence an effective critic. My thoughts on AN/I are well recorded. I probably won't post again in this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• "There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss."

You don't have to address every comment but you might at least try to provide an explanation of your remarks rather than claiming to be the victim here. This is your chance to offer some defense for being incivil. You might not have crossed the fuzzy line of incivility from whence no one returns but it does look like you were baiting other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree. This does not appear to be so much uncivil as an opinion of other behavior and the need for some to find fault in that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it?" As many times as people mock others for other reasons... such as being gay. And seriously...I do not feel you have demonstrated that it was actually mocking.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is, in fact, uncivil behavior. The simple fact is that if HiLo48 had made the comments he made above about any other religion, this discussion would already be academic on account of his having been beaten up with big words and warned not to ever do it again, at the very least. The fact that other people mock others and get away with it is irrelevant: this is attacking another editor on the basis of their religion and casting aspersions that they are incapable of being netural because of their religion, and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am actually surprised by how much I disagree with you here, but go for it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have only just realise this thread existed, and I had not idea that HiLo48 had been making all these comments about me. Yes, I closed the discussion, and my closure was reverted by the person who started the discussion. I believe my closure was within the spirit of WP:BOLD, but I accept that the community wants this discussed once again, and I have contributed to the discussion with a !vote, which HiLo48 responded to with "Your opinion carries no weight at all here now". Anyway, I think HiLo48 is attacking Christians here, and these sort of attacks should be dealt with as we would deal with blatant sexism or racism. Finally, I should like to point out that the comment that HiLo48 has made on multiple pages about how I am a "self-declared conservative Christian editor" is completely false. I identify as a Christian on my user page, but nowhere do I identify as conservative. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let me be blunt here, from the above, you are clearly incorrect with:"is completely false" as you do admit to declaring you identify "as a Christian on my user page". So...Hilo's comment is not completely false, just mistaken. I have seen many people on Wikipedia confused with conservatism over such issues and it may not be the best way to deal with others but it isn't a huge leap, just a small jump, which could well be the opinion of the editor for other reasons.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I identify myself on my user page as a Christian, but not as a conservative Christian. While the inference might be understandable, for HiLo48 to explicitly state that I self-identify as such is wrong. And making false statements about other editors like that should not be tolerated. Is it "completely" wrong? It is in the sense that the statement was clearly and explicitly referring to how I self-identify. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it isn't being called a conservative Christian that bothers me, but that HiLo48 specifically referred to me self-identifying as such. In any case, this isn't really what the thread is about. The bigger problem is the assumption that I am not able to edit in a neutral manner, or - even worse - that I am not even trying to. StAnselm (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to be deciding what this is about and I am not sure you are actually correct, but let me say this much, when you make a declaration on your user page you are opening up an entire can of worms you must be prepared for. Just as I have been told that declaring my sexual preference (I am VERY gay) is something I must be prepared for. Criticism is not an attack and I really do disagree with Bushranger here. Assumptions of bias are not what I consider to need admin intervention but that all depends on the extent.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is extensive, in this case. None of my disagreements with HiLo have resulted in anything other than his imagining some fictitious bad-faith POV pushing on my part. I think it says something about his willingness to assume ulterior motives that "Christian" can mean nothing other than "conservative Christian" to him. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] I said I probably wouldn't post here again, but these selective claims by StAnselm and their supporters demand clarification. The first two, very conspicuously placed user boxes on StAnselm's User page say "This user is a Christian" and "This user is a Calvinist". That's a lot more than the above defensive claims. This user has gone out of their way to tell us that they are not simply a Christian. Perhaps my summarising that as conservative may not match StAnselm's view of themselves, but I happen to work with a lot of self declared Christians who would definitely see StAnselm's position as conservative. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

But you jumped to the conclusion that, for me, "Calvinist" means "conservative". And now that it has been pointed out to you that this is false, you should withdraw your personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jumping to conclusions is not a personal attack. If the editor made the assumption in good faith (yeah...I bet you don't assume their good faith do you?) then, if they are mistaken, that is it.....a mistake, however, as I read the Calvinist article, I could also agree that it is easy to make that mistake...if it is a mistake. Conservatism is a rather broad term, as liberalism is.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, WP:BOOMERANG, yes. But the relevant question for anyone familiar with the track record is, how long are we supposed to tolerate one editor who sees sinister crypto-Christian, crypto-conservative cabals around every corner? How many non-existent smoke-filled rooms must I be accused of hanging around before he stops making the accusations? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In the benighted part of the colonies I come from, Calvinist groups like the Presbyterians are rarely afforded even the second half of the "conservative Christian" designation. YMMV, I suppose. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to get completely off topic here, but while we're on the subject of userpages, it should be noted that HiLo's has contained the following mission statement for the past 18 months: "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative interpretation of the Bible." [103] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:BATTLE, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Calidum 04:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you are making an accusation without any demonstration of its accuracy....right?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've had the self-identification on my user page for several years now. I would have thought that declaration of sexual preferences would be a good analogy. I would regard it as totally unacceptable for anyone to assume that Maleko Mela is unable or unwilling to edit LGBT-related articles in a neutral manner. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC

If you cannot see your own bias...you may need it pointed out on occasion, which is the EXACT REASON I limit my editing on LGBT topics. Got anything else Anselm?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen nothing actionable to the point of a block as of yet, but I do think HiLo needs a good talking-to. His comments to Anselm were offensive and uncivil, and I fully agree with Bushranger's observation above. Anyway, he's been rather nice to me so far this go round, but we have crossed paths before. His problem isn't so much that he is habitually uncivil (I suspect a great deal of that is simply tongue-in-cheek), but that I've never seen him assume good faith on anyone's part, ever. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo48 needs to make fewer ad hominems and should assume more good faith on the part of the faithful. There's nothing wrong with fighting against bias (systemic or otherwise), but it can be done in a more respectful way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember any significant crossing of paths with HiLo and I'm not a Christian, so I think I can be pretty objective when I say that those comments are uncivil. They are thinly veiled jabs, mocking. HiLo, you say on your user page that NPOV is important, and I take you at your word. Then you need to realize your own bias here and perhaps pull back to a safe distance. We all have biases, and if we are wise, we realize when we have reached the limits of our own objectivity. This is the kind of stuff that will get a person topic banned if it were to continue. You need to find within yourself the ability to see through other's eyes here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not Christian either, but I am a member of several projects and help collaborate with Christian editors. What I see above is not all entirely uncivil. Some of it could be seen that way and I won't argue against that. But what I will say is that the OP was accusing the editor of attacking editors for just being Christian and that is something I don't see demonstrated. Sure, it is easy to say the remarks are uncivil, and I can see why there would be a perception of such, but I do not see this as an attack against Christians in General. Editors should not be discussing the contributor. Just comment on the contribution. So in that way, Hilo is clearly in the wrong. But I also feel the OP here has too much of a record with the editor and may well have past encounters over shadow their view. Christians editors are very much like Gay editors. They have to remember that not everyone is Christian and that being an openly declared Christian or gay editor does not mean others cannot comment on what bias they may be perceiving. To me this filing is a lot like one bias against another. I do agree that Hilo only endangers their own editing privileges when they focus on others and not the content.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be going off-tangent but I think it's a mistake to lump editors who share one characteristic in common as acting in a similar way. For one thing, most editors do not have userboxes on the User page declaring their personal identification so it is very likely that the majority of Christian, atheist or gay editors do not "mark" themselves as belonging to that particular group. So, any generalities one makes is based on encounters one has with a small subset of any particular demographic group. And, as sociology shows, there is usually more variation among members of one group than between members of different groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I follow what you are saying, just that in this case the editor has clearly decided to declare their affiliation and preference and are also very involved in editing, not just Christian articles, but other religious articles of different faiths. I trust their good faith, but that is not going to be the outcome or perception of everyone. The main reason we have these user boxes is for declaring your interests so that others can look at edits that are associated with the declaration. In the case of Hilo's comments, they don't appear to be generalizing but being a bit specific about the Christian interests of the declared editor. Sure, variations are going to occur, but here the issue seems to be that one editor feels attacked for their declaration and having it mentioned (far too many times perhaps). But the mention of one's close associations as declared are not the issue. The issue is the persistent and rude manner in which Hilo makes these comments and comes across as attacking the individual for the faith when, in fact, they may not be attacking but simply criticizing the editor over issues related to the subjects they edit. At any rate this does not appear to actually be a case where the editor is being attacked just because of their faith.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a much clearer definition of conflict of interest than it does for incivility. The former explicitly mentions religion as an area where it should be applied. For a long time I've been tying to work out why it simply isn't. The only conclusion I've come to is that it's obviously part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What part of COI applies here? Since you mention that the policy mentions religion, I'm guessing you're referring to WP:EXTERNALREL, but I'd like to be sure before I respond.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Section break (HiLo48)

(e/c) HiLo may not intend to be incivil or to hurt anyone with his comments, but intention is usually not the most important factor in such issues. The very fact that his name is well known in these parts, and usually not for the best of reasons, says that - putting the most positive blush on it - he is not aware of his own strength when it comes to a propensity for getting into hot water. It would be a sign of his good faith if he could come here and simply acknowledge that some editors have been hurt by his comments, whether or not he intended that hurt. That would be a good step. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Intent is the very issue here not just accidently hurting someone's feelings. People get hurt over very straight forward civil remarks. Seriously. I had someone yell at me and then state on their user page that they were quitting Wikipedia over a comment I made about what I perceived in a suggestion they made during a dispute on the Homosexuality article. There was no attack on them and was speaking directly about the suggestion they made about the content. They blew up and accused me of a number of things that were really off base. If we were to start issuing sanctions and warnings over the hurt feelings of others.....there would be no one left to edit the encyclopedia.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good parallel, Mark. You are talking about one user being offended by your comments and you view them as being unreasonable. It's much different when multiple editors are having the same kind of negative encounters with a single editor that revolve around the same diatribe of how lousy and biased Christianity is. If several editors are having abrasive experiences with another editor, you shouldn't fault them for being easily hurt. The difference is that your example was a solitary incident, there are not a lot of people saying they are quitting Wikipedia over your comments. That's not the case in this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, one-off incidents like that will happen. But HiLo is not part of any one-off incident; there's been a whole swag of them involving him at the receiving end of criticism. I read this page from time to time , and I don't recall ever seeing HiLo say words to the effect of "I wasn't out to hurt anyone, I was just telling it like it is. I'm sorry if I hurt people, and I'll try in future to word my remarks and make my points in a less personally hurtful way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

People in the past got upset with my swearing. (In some cases I didn't even regard what I said as swearing, but whatever.) I don't swear here now. Or at least I try not to. It's obvious that the linguistic environment in which I live and work is one that many here would find unacceptable. Swearing is simply part of normal discourse. I now put a lot of effort into trying tot use a form of language that doesn't come naturally. But this isn't about swearing. Also, several people who have brought complaints about me here are no longer with us on Wikipedia. (Boomerangs fly in unusual ways.) Their complaints were never valid. This is why I have concerns about AN/I being primarily a place where old mud can be thrown again and again and again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Goal: Always stay in the top three tiers

My concern is that the comments having a chilling effect on participation. When someone is constantly making slightly uncivil comments that appear to have a particular bias, yet they each slide under the block radar, neutrality dies a death by a thousand cuts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what makes the most sense to me. Little cuts that are constant can cause a great loss over time. Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Does not the same apply to the problem created by the fact that our articles on religious topics naturally attract a majority of editors who are adherents of those religions, some of whom cannot help applying their inevitable biases in favour of those religions? Our systemic bias means that Christianity will be the religion with the biggest problem of that kind. Neutrality died long ago on some of those articles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, that is a concern and having editors who are skeptics/other to participate in those articles can be highly beneficial to our goals of neutrality. That only works, however, if the editors are commenting about the merits and not about each other. You are a very experienced editor, but Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (shown right) comes to mind. Personally, I still refer to it regularly to remind me to stay on the merits. I haven't questioned your ability or intent, only your methods. I understand it gets frustrating at times (which might indicate it is time to edit something less contentious for a day or two), but you have to see why I'm concerned, and why it looks like bias to others. You can't correct someone's bias by being equally biased in the opposite direction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I think this hits the nail squarely on the head.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48's incivility is unacceptable. You could replace the word "Christian" with any religion or ideology and the problem would still remain. And, in any case, the criticism he presents has nothing to do with religion but with politics. I would like to see him given a final warning and told that if he does it again he will face a long block. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Define "incivility". HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Incivility is the opposite of what you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it Hilo, you cannot attempt to right the wrongs that you perceive. We are simply not here as editors for that. You should really disengage from these topics voluntarily for a while because whether you agree or not, this will only lead to either a topic ban (which sounds more and more appropriate here) or worse, a block. I think admin has been very patient with you. At some point the patience is going to wear off.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, and probably will pay less heed to the disaster area of our religious articles for a while. I'd just like to see some independent, rational responses to the attacks on me in the initial post in this thread. Let's look at the second point in that litany of alleged sins. My apparent sin began with he words "Silly comment", and it was. I won't ever apologise for that kind of post. Several of the other evils I have apparently committed fall into the same category. If other editors post rubbish, I will point it out. Sorry about that. So what will be done about the falsehoods and silly allegations that have been written about me here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is actually pretty simple. I am sure more than a few editors have taken note of the fact that an allegation was made against another editor that was never properly demonstrated. In other words, the OP made a complaint that another editor was attacking them based solely on their religious beliefs. That was too strong an accusation for this case/filing. But you can let it go now. A boomerang is also unlikely.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? False allegations were made against me. Crap posted at AN/I is part of what makes it a disaster area. The last person to bring me here is now on an indefinite block, but the fact that my name was brought here is still part of the evidence brought against me this time! And so will this be, and most of the allegations are absolute rubbish. There MUST be some consequence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're mistaking me (the OP) with St. A, but I never claimed HiLo's comments were directed myself. I merely said he was directing them at Christian editors in general (of which I am one). I even specifically said in my original statement that I've had lengthy record with HiLo, but none of the comments were directed at me.

As for my complaint, I think it's obvious every editor here agrees that HiLo's comments have crossed a line. So I'm not sure why you're saying my allegation was never properly demonstrated. Even you Mark/Maleko wrote that "Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing." Calidum 00:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) OK, I struck out the mistake, but you are clearly in the wrong in accusing another editor of attacking anyone based purely on religious faith or Christians in general and you are also wrong about EVERY editor feeing that Hilo's comments cross the line. I don't. I made it clear that in discussing the editor it opens the door for that perception, but I do doubt that simply being uncivil is a reason to complain as if anyone is being persecuted. That is seriously outrageous and you never demonstrated such. All you have are some comments that don't all cross a line of incivility.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. A majority of commenters believe that HiLo has crossed a line, as I alleged in my complaint. Why you have chosen to defend him is beyond me, but don't pretend you're not in the minority here. Calidum 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And there's some more of this crap. My concern was NEVER with Christian editors in general. It's with editors who openly proclaim their Christianity, and then, at least in my eyes, post in a way that shows more concern with promoting Christian views than creating a great, impartial encyclopaedia. Please retract the falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be closed as it is likely to spin out of control pretty soon.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When do I see consequences for falsehoods written about me? Or does such crap again stay on AN/I forever? If it does, how do you guys expect me to treat the editors responsible nicely in future? I still believe what I said was true, even if some didn't like it. What has been said about me is simply not true. (Although I expect that here.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The only spinning I see is by HiLo and Mark. The fact remains that HiLo's summaries ARE problematic, and it would be helpful if he took the advice given here to heart, as that is the easiest path to resolving the concerns. The OP isn't blocked, I have no idea where you got that idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well excuse me. I am not spinning the fact that this thread was an accusation made against an editor that was never demonstrated to be accurate. It accused Hilo of attacking Christians in general. If you feel that much has been proven than why are you waiting? You have the power to block. The only reason I even intervened here is because this is about one editor feeling others are being persecuted for their faith and this is absolutely a false charge never shown to be accurate. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "The OP isn't blocked". I don't remember that being an issue? Also, I should mention that Hilo is not one of my friends on Wikipedia and that I am actually arguing with those I do consider to be friends. In other words...I have no particular opinion for or against Hilo. my opinion is based on the OP complaining about something I do not see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Spinning as in making HiLo out to be a victim here. I respect your difference in interpretation in his comments, but I have to use my own. As I've said, the edits are problematic, interpreting them for myself. That I'm not "block-happy" and prefer calm solutions is far from a secret. They are personal in nature, they twist the knife in a way that gives the appearance of a religious bias, whether it is intentional or not. I've already said this above more than once, that he needs to stick to the merits. I was hoping for an acknowledgement of such, but disappointed when it looked like it was being spun around into him being a victim. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) So, as you can see your words and interpretations of what I am doing is insulting and offensive to me, and I know it was not your intent. No, I am not trying to make Hilo the victim, but at the same time I will not allow someone (anyone) to be accused of such a vile thing without CLEAR evidence. There is no clear evidence. I have already agreed with you above but my point in requesting the closure of this thread is that is has gained no consensus to the ORIGINAL complaint, that Hilo was attacking Christians in general. If that is how you interpret making Hilo the victim then perhaps you are reading more into my words and comments than are really there. If you are readfing my comments Dennis I am sure you would see that I agree with you that Hilo should "Stick to the merits". I used the wording that he should discuss the content and not the contributor and that by doing so it opens the door to the perception of attacks, but I really don't see this as an attack as I have seen these same discussions replacing "Christian" with "gay" and to me that seems like a double standard if it is OK to discuss gay editors in this manner but not Christians. As for making a victim, the OP seemed to be doing that not me.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't ok to discuss gay editors in the same manner, but that kind of falls indirectly under the logic of WP:WAX, so it can't be used to justify singling out any group. I was just hoping to get the point across so I don't have to propose a topic ban in the future. It wasn't about consensus as much as understanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in more than spirit as I have also suggested a topic ban may well be appropriate here, but I see these types of things happen all the time. I don't think singling out any one for their declarations as appropriate, but to me many of the comments were not singling out someone out for that alone, but for their edits. Much like another editor here did to me when I mentioned my being gay, they then singled out that mention to use against me in this argument. That didn't offend me or make me feel I was being "singled out" just for being gay...I declared it as part of the discussion. That is very much what I see happened here. It also doesn't help that the editor this centers around, StAnselm is very active in the areas they have declared as being a part of. So, yes, bias is a factor here and in many ways I agree with Hilo.......just not in the persistence. That goes beyond how I work, or what I tend to agree with as I generally disengage and find great relief in such.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had singled out a group, your comment might be valid. It's not. My criticism was of individuals. The OP has sucked you in. I do feel like the victim here now. But that's normal here at AN/I. Given tat you seem to be basing your demands of me on some content that wasn't true, it's rather difficult for me to agree to anything at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to find that Dennis doesn't get "sucked in" by things on this board. What he and other admin do (and even I tend to) is give as much rope as possible. You might not want to grab hold of that rope.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And do what? I truly have no idea what is being asked of me. It cannot be to never do all that was listed in that first post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I must now point out that, rather than help answer that question, Dennis chose to find further fault with me down below. He isn't trying to resolve this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim that you didn't single out a "group" holds no water. This edit [104] and the phrase "I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." is unnecessarily offensive to more than one person, and was directed at more than one person. I can break them all down but I shouldn't have to, this one I just picked at random. The point is, when your edits are disruptive, your motivation isn't my first concern. I only care about keeping the playing field level, keeping the articles neutral, and keeping the peace, all while using the least amount of tools. Above, I've shown you specifically how to avoid future problems, with the bonus of it making you more persuasive in discussion. Ignore it, or put it to good use, the choice is yours. If you can't understand it, I can't help, as I've explained it as much as I know how already. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Oh, I suppose that was about a group, but a very small one (obviously not all Christians), and I still believe in what I said. I am struggling to see the offence in it. But I am happy to learn about cultures different from mine, where active, even confrontational discussion of religious values is very common. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You went straight to the heart of their belief system by suggesting that "their god" would or would not do something based on the edits here at Wikipedia. That is the line that was crossed there. I don't see that as an attack, but as a very inappropriate criticism of both their beliefs and their deity. I have seen this before and many times it gets pushed to the side or just ignored but I myself have made a point about others criticizing other beliefs or those held as holy. Surely you didn't expect that to go over well.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wanted them to think about what they were doing. I don't believe it was very ethical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to review: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.".--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We WERE on Talk pages. I see little point in taking it further. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sad to see this, as I've found HiLo active and fairly constructive on WP:ITN. To my mind, the most problematic diff is the first one listed at the start of this notice; HiLo cannot assume good faith on the sole ground that the other editor is a Christian editing an article on the Genesis creation narrative. That's out of line, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That deserves a response. It wasn't just the fact that the other editor is a Christian that was the problem. That would never be a problem on its own. I work with a lot of very religious people, who are very happy to join in vigorous discussions on their faith, and its conflicts with the rational world. What we had here was an editor who had loudly proclaimed his Christianity declaring that a word that treated Christianity differently from other religions was neutral, and that he had seen no compelling argument to convince him otherwise. I still feel, as I said in that post, that no argument would compel him to see otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That may be what you were thinking, but it is not what you said; you can't expect us to read your mind, only your words. "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith" seems pretty clear-cut, and if it's not what you meant then you should retract it and apologise. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No point in retracting. I still believe what I said. I cannot assume good faith with such an editor. All the evidence points in the opposite direction. I have explained why above. I'm not very good at pretending to believe something I don't believe, such as saying I assume good faith, when I don't. Did that sort of pretending for a while with the church I was once part of, then, for my own sanity, I had to come true to myself. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to go in circles a bit. If you still believe what you said then I think there's a problem; you didn't say that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, but in that area. What your personal standards may be are more or less irrelevant here; the community has standards that it expects editors to adhere to, and one of them is WP:AGF. It's not something you get to opt out of because you find it difficult. If what you meant is that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, then I think we'd have to see a considerably history of that editor acting in bad faith to think that was reasonable. I haven't looked into the editor's history but I have read the discussion in which you said this; it seemed to me to be in response to a reasonable, good-faith, policy-based argument. I'm not saying his argument is right, but acting in bad faith is different to being wrong, and very different to disagreeing with your ideas. GoldenRing (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't about assuming good faith, after all, good faith isn't a suicide pact. It is about your actual words. Whether you meant them to be so abrasive or not, they are. No one is trying to change your mind, only your methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe those words would be seen as abrasive by most people in my culture. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what culture you claim as you own, so I can't refute. It isn't really relevant anyway. The issue is how it comes across here at Wikipedia, not how it would come across at your local pub. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo has since the beginning claimed that what the community as a whole sees as flagrant incivility is perfectly acceptable for formal business communication in his native Australia. That this is plainly false would be better served by Wikipedia's resident apologists not continually taking it at face value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo has never claimed what YOU claim in that post. Thank you for demonstrating one of the many appalling features of AN/I, in this case the ability of anyone to write whatever lies they like about someone they would like to get out of the way. In other words, to make personal attacks with no fear of negative consequences. And the community has never actually been able to agree on what incivility is, let alone a flagrant version of it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I should point out, as the main recipient of HiLo's incivility this time around, that I am also Australian (as I indicate on my user page). StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's pointing out a perceived conflict of interest, per WP:EXTERNALREL. And it seems to me that he has a point. While some of the quotes above could certainly be framed in more civil terms, I find it hard to understand how (to take a single example) the assertion that Easter is not a generally observed holiday in Muslim countries, can reasonably be construed as a personal attack on Christians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was so proud for ages of having fewer than 1000 edits to AN/I. Well that's long gone now. I've worked with HiLo48 since February on the Australian sports rules naming debate. You can see some of our interactions here. I've found him to be fiery, hard-working, intelligent and well-intentioned. I've occasionally had to warn him about "playing the man and not the ball", and this is something I can see he is working on. I've made it my business to scrutinise his history here and his block log, and I've acknowledged the input of User:Drmies. I think HiLo's a good guy. I think this was another incident where HiLo moved beyond intellectual argument about an encyclopaedia and started being too forthright about his own views of the motivation of others. It can be a difficult line to hold. User:Dennis Brown makes an excellent point about Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. It is one I have used in the past. It is good advice to all of us to always stay in the top three levels. I don't think this incident requires a block or other sanction, but I think it would be helpful if HiLo could acknowledge the concerns of others about these particular interactions. Not on CIVIL grounds but in the interests of the community moving on from this and of HiLo's own growth as a Wikipedian, that gesture would be appreciated. Whether or not he wishes to do this, I do not think there is traction here for any admin action. If others disagree, perhaps an RFC/U would be the next step? --John (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  I am wanting 100%, exactly the same thing as you. The only action I want to see is on HiLo's part, but it is a choice he has to make. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've stayed out of this since I've both chastised and defended HiLo in the past two years or so. I agree with John on many things, maybe all things, and with Dennis. I do think the ball is in HiLo's court in terms of improving relationships. I don't think admin action is necessary, or perhaps Thumperward's "resident apologists" comment is correct and no action will be taken--though that is really an offensive remark. RfC/U--I don't know. HiLo is so controversial that there isn't much chance for a very fruitful conversation, but maybe it's worth a shot. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well exactly. If I were to disagree with something either of you guys said, I'd be perfectly capable of saying I think that was a stupid idea, because..., and would aim to avoid discourse like These guys are stupid and biased, because... I would do this because (a) I know you are probably not stupid or biased and (b) if you were stupid or biased, you probably wouldn't think you were, and calling you out on it would probably not lead to the peaceful resolution we want. Can you subscribe to a similar protocol, User:HiLo48? --John (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Folks, what I saw, and won't apologise for describing, was editors who make very bold and clear declarations of their Christianity on their User pages, and even in their User names, editing on controversial matters that involve religion, in ways that matched precisely what someone pushing a Christian POV would do. There happen to be quite a lot of these Christian editors. It's part of Wikipedia's systemic bias. It's really hard to accept that none of those posts were POV pushing. That strange thing we're asked to do here, assume good faith, becomes very difficult to do in such situations. I've thought long and hard about that expression. Is someone whose life is built firmly and absolutely around strong Christian belief even going to be aware, when they push that POV in a wider circle than the one they're usually part of, that they actually are pushing a POV? Maybe for some the answer is "No". So maybe it IS good faith editing by them. But it's still POV pushing. And few of the other editors with a similar mindset will recognise it as such.

Now, we don't want POV pushing here, even if it's done in good faith. I'm still not convinced that there wasn't at least some conscious POV pushing among the overt Christians, but will it help for me to acknowledge that some of the editing I said was not good faith editing, WAS probably good faith editing?

I have fairly strong political opinions. I take pride in the fact that during the most recent US Presidential elections, and recent Australian elections, I was accused by editors from both sides of supporting the other side when I removed their POV changes to articles. We are all biased, but I work hard to be aware of my biases and keep them out of my editing. There are many others editors who I don't believe try to do this at all.

So, in my mind, there's still a big question. What do we do about good faith POV pushing from a body of editors who are strong here because of our systemic bias? HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

These are good questions and I share some of your concerns. However, this section is about your behaviour. I appreciate your concession that some of the editing you complained about was probably good faith editing. I would still like you to outline how this realisation will affect your editing going forward, and to demonstrate such changes. If there is not some change I fear you will be brought back here again and again and will experience editing restrictions the next time, something I would be sad to see. Would that be possible? --John (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48:, honestly, I would try to not lean in the opposite direction, so I don't look just as biased as they are, just in a different direction. I think when faced with bias, you have to take extra measures to stay as neutral as possible. Then, the one sided nature of the problem is obvious to all outsiders. It is kind of like when two editors get into a fight here. If they both are calling each other rude names, it is a draw, and whoever started it and instigated the problem becomes moot. Put another way: when dealing with bias, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. If you use a different bias to counteract the first bias (or just sound like you are), then you are part of the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I think I now recognise most of my own biases, and I try hard to stop them influencing my editing. Do you think it's worth trying to get such possibly good faith but still unconsciously POV pushing, Christian editors to recognise how their editing appears to be very similar to what they would say if they were deliberately POV pushing? Because that is the biggest problem in those discussions. While perhaps meaning well, such editors add little constructive to conversations because their contributions are instantly questioned as suspicious by others. The extensive hidden conversations below show that I am certainly not alone in that view. I would perhaps use words like "I can accept that as a good faith post, but can you see that it is very similar to what someone with something similar to your public self declaration of Christianity would say if they were deliberately pushing a POV?"

I don't know. I think the main thing is avoiding absolutes in your statements, and avoid comments about their motives. I get it that AGF isn't a suicide pact, but what matter most is NPOV, not why someone made an edit that isn't NPOV. In the end, good faith vs. pushing an agenda doesn't change the edit itself, unless it is part of a longer term pattern that needs admin attention. Going the extra mile to avoid personal observations really makes it easier for outsiders to see who is and isn't biased. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea what you're saying with that post. Maybe the clichés don't translate well. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction I am in general agreement with Mark. I don't see HiLo as a attacking Christians as such. Rather he seems to be attempting to raise legitimate concerns about bias, perhaps in some cases in a ill-advised manner. I am mystified by some of the supposedly problematic diffs: how, for instance, is it attacking Christians to point out that particular statements are ignoring non-Christian countries such as China and India? Neljack (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's attacking christians if you're simply dismissing someone's edit out of hand because you think they're a christian. Let's not forget that Hilo has a long history of this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#HiLo48_at_Talk:2014_Winter_Olympics, detailed list midway through, and the community has a long history of simply washing their hands of it.There is an on-going unchanging pattern of behaviour here and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist does a disservice to the community as a whole.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. What's the point of re-posting an old allegation that was thrown right out of court? That's another problem here. No guilt was found, yet you raise it again. AN/I is a disaster area. It should be renamed "Write whatever attacks you like on the accused. You don't need evidence, just prejudice. No harm will ever come to you." I DO annoy POV pushers by calling them on that behaviour. And I will continue to do both, I suspect. That means many of them would like get rid of me. Some aren't very good at it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It being 'thrown right out of court' is part of the pattern of behaviour. The other point in posting it was for the links also included in that post. The need you feel to label people and use it as a pejorative to dismiss them is indicative of the behaviour issues you have here. Thank you for proving my point with your latest reply.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact is that it WAS thrown out of court. Raising it again here just shows that you have a problem with Wikipedia procedures. So do I, as a matter of fact, but your post proves nothing about my behaviour. It proves more about how hard some people will work to get rid of someone who stands in the way of POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an Administrator please put this thread out of its misery? When it descends to IP editors who hate me dredging up pointless nonsense from the past, it's proving nothing, like much of what happens here. I know from experience that those who are attacking me in bad faith won't be punished, but can it please at least be stopped now? Otherwise all the unfounded allegations will again be dredged up some time in the future as proof that I'm the devil incarnate. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?

TOTALLY exciting but we were talking about HiLo's supposed incivility. All this is valuable material for Wikipedia talk:DYK; feel free to copy. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note that one of the diffs at the start had nothing to do with StAnselm or what else is presented here, but is about the fact that some Christian (self-declared) editors put this on the front page: "... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?" in the DYK section. Not with any accompanying explanation, this is the full hook. Their original proposal didn't even have the quotes, but one editor at least prevented that. A discussion at WT:DYK#DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact, where HiLo made the above comment , which is not a personal attack or even incivil at all (though perhaps not really productive either, apart from displaying his displeasure with the hook and the way it was approved). I have no idea why the dff was included in the complaint here at ANI, if not to make the list of supposed problematic edits a bit longer. Fram (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I think that calling Christian editors systematically biased is fairly incivil. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, but you're biased. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your proof for such an allegation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your editing makes me thing you are.......as far as I can tell thats the same reasoning as HiLo is it reasonable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC) You can think whatever you want. I said that the hook, and the fact that many people didn't see a problem with it, is a case of systemic bias. That's not the same as calling Christian editors "systematically biased" of course... But the fact that you thought it a good idea to put "... that Jesus Christ is Risen Today? Alleluia."[105] on the main page on Easter makes it rather clear that you don't have the necessary neutrality to edit in a NPOV way and leave your preferences, beliefs, prejudices, ... at the door. Fram (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Now that is misleading because that never appeared on the main page in that format. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, there's no need to add the "alleluia" because what actually appeared was bad enough. Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Misleading? It is your actual proposal, complete and unchanged. Fram (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Still didn't run. It was a mistake I admit, but other editors soon fixed it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It appears that it did run and that no one fixed it (well, the quotes were added). That's a little disappointing but I am new to the DYK thing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It didn't run with Alleluia in it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC) OK, got it. But...the fact that it ran as the title alone is very odd.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your new sig, with the shadows and huge text. Rethink that. Doc talk 09:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I only saw the hook after it had been on the main page, and my first thought was amazement that it got approved. But as User:The C of E has pointed out, it was on the nomination page for several weeks. I think it highlights one of the endemic problems of DYK, which has single editors approve hooks, as opposed to a discussion/consensus model. But getting back to Fram's point, I think HiLo's comment belongs here - "Not good Christian behaviour at all" is a completely uncivil remark that has no place in Wikipedia. It would be like describing HiLo as un-Australian. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Such attempted slurs are typically only used by right-wing shock jocks (Aren't they all?) and similarly inclined and rather thick politicians. Water off a duck's back. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, I didn't think it would - and so my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. But I notice you do call it an "attempted slur". StAnselm (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) What? I have no idea what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You said that "unAustralian" is an "attempted slur. I would suggest, then, that even if it doesn't bother you, it has no place on wikipedia. In the same way, "unChristian", or anything like it, is a slur that ought to be regarded as falling under incivility. StAnselm (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Un-Australian and un-Christian are very different things. There is really no such thing as un_Australian, but someone behaving in ways that some see as not in line with their interpretation of the teachings of the gospels could be described by them as un-Christian. Like much else that depends on Biblical interpretation, whether it is or isn't would obviously be open to debate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) One would expect the admin that promotes a hook to maintain our policies like WP:NPOV, especially for things that will appear on the main page. But the process regularly fails, and DYK is a problem area. Still, it rarely is such a blatant problem as this one. Fram (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the hook, and consensus on the DYK talk page shows that editors are OK with it. It was an Easter hook, perfectly appropriate for that day. Further, it does not promote nor encourage religion at all, it merely repeats the ancient "He has risen" meme which was found in Egyptian, Persian, and Roman cultures, until it became syncretically linked to Christianity in its most recent iteration. From a wider perspective, this hook is a celebration of this cultural narrative irrespective of any particular religion or religious belief, echoing through the centuries. This narrow, limited approach you insist upon, that defines an idea or concept by a current belief, is entirely unencyclopedic and ahistorical. One can appreciate ideas and respect them on a purely figurative level without being bound to them literally. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If anything, the hook has an anti-Christian bias. Christians, presumably, affirm that Jesus rose again in 30 AD, or thereabouts, not that he rises again every Easter Sunday... StAnselm (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see it as anti-Christian, but you do make a good point. As a song title, the hook is an abstraction of a religious tenet of Christianity, not a religious imperative compelling believers to go to church. I thought it was very well done and appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It’s at least an overgeneralization: I’ve heard Ukrainians, for example, using Христос воскрес (Christ is risen) as an Easter greeting. IIANM it’s right out of the Eastern liturgy for the celebration. At any rate, “is risen” is stative, less restricted to the present than “rises“ or “is rising”, so ISTM a stretch, to say the least, reading into it a denial of the supposed original event.—Odysseus1479 04:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I too can personally appreciate the "quirkiness" in this playful mis-use of the quoted title and the "celebration" of the old Easter idea, but still, it's a profession of faith, I can see no possible way of reading it that is not making a factual claim in favour of one specific religion, and I very much doubt that if Shahada ever were to go on the Main Page, anybody would have gotten away with "Did you know that there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Prophet? (Not to mention that the hook was technically in violation of the DYK rules, in that the fact asserted in the hook was of course not reliably sourced in the article). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is an abstract hook that refers to a song title. It does not assert the existence of a one true god as the Shahada hook you offer does. It asserts that a person "rose" today in an abstract manner. That it happens to refer to a person rising from the dead and coming back to life does not impel me to believe it. As a non-Christian, I have no problem with this at all. It's a song title that refers to a religious belief held by Christians. Unlike the example you offer, it does not make a value judgment about the beliefs of others, it only comments on what Christians believe. What's going on here, is that you are and others are misreading the hook, misinterpreting it to mean "Jesus Christ is Risen Today and You Must Believe It Or Else", when it does not say nor imply that at all. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) No, we are not "misreading" it. We are reading it, literally. It's not about "impelling anybody to believe something", it is about making a factual claim. This is what it says: "Christ" (not merely "Jesus", but "Christ", i.e. the Divine personality believed by Christians) rose (i.e. from the dead). The hook was not just "referring" to that meme, as a normal hook would if it was just citing the title; by putting it into the syntactic frame "did you know that...", not as a cited phrase but as a clause, it was grammatically asserting that meme. Of course I am fully aware that it was intended to be read in a more non-literal manner, and if this wasn't on the frontpage of the website that fames itself for its strict ideological neutrality I would have no problem with it whatsoever, but still, nothing on earth can change the fact this was its only possible literal meaning. And the meme being asserted there happens to be the most central dogma of Christianity, so the parallel to my example of the Shahada is in fact very close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Future Perfect at Sunrise: we have never had to source the name of the article, it is in all the refs. See the hook "that I believe I'll dust my broom". Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (ec)Consensus (i.e. votecount, I presume?) doesn't trump policy. Furthermore, consensus? Problematic: Agolib, Sven Manguard, Fram, Hilo48, Tourchiest, 64.183.42.58, EdChem No problem: Gerda Arendt, C of E, The Rambling Man, Viriditas, Colonel Warden, Allen3, Victuallers That makes 7 people seeing no problem with the hook, and 7 thinking that it was not appropriate. The sophistry used by those defending it is astounding though. It is not about religion or christianity, it just happens to be a Christian theme displayed on the Christian Easter day. As explicitly requested. Oh yes, that is all just a coincidence, and the hook was an expression of a general, worldwide cultural idea without religious connotations, even though it explicitly said "Jesus Christ"... Please, Viriditas, do you really believe that anyone will believe that defense for one second? Just read FPaS's comment above, this hook was a deliberate attempt to get Christian doctrine on the main page in the least diluted form possible. It was lucky to get missed by people who think our neutrality is more important than professing ones beliefs on Wikipedia, and got approval and promotion by like-minded people, but that's no reason to pretend that nothing untowards happened. Fram (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That an unambiguously promotional DYK hook like this made it to the main page is apalling. What admin copied this one into the queue? If they overlooked it they deserve a massive trout, but if they knowingly posted it (which is rather blatantly in violation of the DYK rules, not to mention one of Wikipedia's core principles), they've got no business being an admin. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I explained here my views, but would like to reiterate a couple of points: 1. We will never see on the main page "Did you know ... that "Bohemian Rhapsody"?" because it makes no sense. The hook in question only makes sense as a question involving an assertion of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. 2. Equally objectionable would be "Did you know ... that God is Dead?" Unlike FPaS's example, this also uses an article title that is also a title of work, in this case a novel rather than a hymn. 3. An acceptable hook would be something like "Did you know ... that God is Dead is the debut novel of Ron Currie Jr.?" or in the Christ case, some of the examples offered by C of E. 4. Psychonaut is correct that there is an issue here with the judgment of the editor who approved the hook and the admin that promoted the set. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) On the plus side, when the somewhat surprising news ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? appeared on the main page, it was accompanied by a picture of 19th-century female climber Jeanne Immink (Wikipedia:Recent_additions#20_April_2014). Every cloud... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC) FWIW, this one and the below hoax article were both promoted by User:Allen3. Fram (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm an anti-bible-thumping semi-pagan, and I found the hook to be a rather clever wordplay. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ...which the proposer/approver/promotor deny. It was not wordplay, but a perfectly normal hook, the likes we see every day. The "message" was not intended and is purely in the eye of the beholder. I'ld prefer some honesty form their side, but apparently they rather prefer to defend their actions by making up extremely unlikely explanations. Anyway, clever wordplay or not, NPOV and SOAPBOX are policies which shouldn't be ignored on the mainpage (or elsewhere). Fram (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC) @Fram:, you claim I have issued a denial related to this issue. I have no memory of making such a statement. Could you provide a diff? Demanding honesty from others when you are unwilling to provide it yourself tends to discourage open dialog. That being said, I found the hook in question to be a cleverly play on words that provided a date related message. Just like Gerda Arendt, Tarc, Viriditas, I also am having difficulty seeing the level of NPOV issues you and HiLo48 have been railing about. Instead, from my perspective, this looks like a couple of highly vocal individuals spotting a hook that violated their personal POV. --Allen3 talk 16:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Their personal POV being that hooks should comply with mandatory policy and that this one didn't, a POV they are of course entitled to hold. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You're right, you hadn't yet commented on why you approved it, so I shouldn't have included you in that comment. The rest of my comments stand though. There is nothing "clever" about it, there is no word play, it is a hook that promotes a purely religious POV. A hook that would have been acceptable as a normal hook (I.e. one that said something about the subject) and at the same time had given that message could be seen as clever. This is just very thinly disguised soapboxing. Which, yes, violates my POV that hooks should be factual and neutral. We don't "provide date-related messages" that support a religious (or political) POV of any one group. I thought most admins knew that (but then again, most admins know that we don't promote hoaxes either of course...). Fram (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I've asked on his user talk page if he could explain the reasons behind the promotion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The hook sucks. There is no way it should be on the main page as printed at the start of this section. None. But allegations against those involved of the type above aren't much better.John Carter (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what the editor or DYK promoter's internal thoughts were, and frankly, intention really is completely irrelevant. I share the view that it's a clever play on words for a date-related message and when I saw the nom at DYK a while back, it gave me a grin and a giggle for the fun of the wording. Since then, it passed not only DYK, but the promoter and those who load the queue, so had at least four sets of eyes on it. It is not POV pushing, it's just an eye-catching way to get viewers to read DYK, and particularly when the article is about a musical piece and not a proselytizing article. Similarly, I would be equally amused at the "God is dead" or Shahada examples above and argue equally vehemently to keep them in. I think that people here who dislike the topic need to just get a grip. Not every passing reference to Christianity is part of a conspiracy by the Sharia wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. Easter exists, so does Yom Kippur, and so do the many porn queens, bikini bars and mermaids whose articles have adorned the main page for a few hours. Viva la difference. Montanabw(talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Guys, political correctness isn't gonna go anywhere here. We have Christian and non-Christian editors; just because a new article and subsequent DYK happened to have a Christian slant doesn't mean we're pushing Christianity any more than anything else that shows up on the Main Page. As some have said above, this is merely a gesture for Easter, a widely accepted holiday around the world. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) So we can simply do "Did you know [media title]?" Can we assume this construction will always be supported, or only when it's about a Christian holiday? --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) While I would not go so far as to claim such a construct would "always be supported", this is not the first time such a construct has been used. An example is Happiness Is Dean Martin which ran on 1 April 2013. It is fairly rare that using just an article title provides a useful hook, but it does happen. --Allen3 talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think many people hold Dino at the same level of regard, so it doesn't have the same appearance of POV pushing, or hold itself open for the same perception of POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I find it amusing more than anything -- that Christians feel they must go to such lengths to promote their beliefs gives them about as much credence as a man leaping from an alleyway to demand of startled passersby, "Worship Thor!!" And, naturally, it is no better as a "hook" than that would be. Plus it is a clear BLP violation, since the claim is asserted to be of a living person, with no reliable evidence of such person's state of being alive or dead as of 2014. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Golbez: as I said above, see the hook 'that I Believe I'll Dust My Broom?' It is supported when the wordplay works, as it does here. Matty.007 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Except that "I believe I'll dust by broom" is so obviously non-serious no reader would be in danger of understanding it as a serious proposition with a POV message. Likewise, "Happiness is Dean Martin" can't possibly be construed as transporting any POV message beyond perhaps a questionable taste in music. But "Christ is risen" is a serious claim; it is vehemently believed by some people and just as vehemently rejected by others, and asserting it as a fact on Wikipedia is just not right. We can't put it in a DYK hook any more than we can put it in an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is also non-serious (it refers to a song title) and there is no POV proposition requiring the reader to do or believe anything. It is a factual claim about what Christians believe in the form of a Christian song title. We are not being asked to believe anything, we are being told what Christians believe by way of a song title. DYK used a Christian song on Easter to promote an article, not the Resurrection narrative itself. The Paschal greeting, for example, is an expression of faith that has significant meaning to Christians, not to anyone else. Outside of their influence, it does not have an imperative to people of other religions to do or believe anything, nor is there anything serious or POV about it. We are not being told there is only one god and he has a prophet, a "fact" which would seriously challenge the POV of people who believe in more than one god and different prophets. We are being told that there is a song on Easter (the day of the DYK) that celebrates their religious belief on their holiday. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "It is a factual claim about what Christians believe in the form of a Christian song title." I wasn't aware the song title was "Christians believe Jesus Christ is Risen Today", or that the DYK hook included the caveat. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Viriditas, I don't believe you actually are dumb, but at this point in our conversation I can only conclude that you are either playing dumb or you are not listening. If the first, please stop playing dumb, now. If the second, please start listening, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) WP:NPA and WP:CIV does not exempt admins. I don't agree with your position. I think you can find a way to accept this disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I disagree. It's unencyclopedic on any day except April Fool's, when we tolerate that kind of wordplay. It doesn't matter how punny, we shouldn't supply media titles as a statement of fact (which is what we're doing essentially) unless it actually is a statement of fact, like if there were a song titled "Maine borders only New Hampshire." Which would actually be a really fun and witty way of introducing that song... but it only works for actual statements of fact. Neither "I believe I'll dust by broom" nor "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" are statements of fact. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Dust my Broom was an April Fools' hook. Matty.007 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Mocking or attacking fellow editors' beliefs (or presumed beliefs) is simply unacceptable. But that hook should only have run like that on April Fools' - which was the date the Dean Martin hook ran, please note - because it violates the "in universe" rule of DYK hooks, which is not suspended for Easter, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or Eid, but only on April Fool's, precisely because it's either misleading or non-neutral to present such statements in Wikipedia's voice. It was clearly an error that nobody spotted; if it was reported at Main Page:Errors, I'm sorry I didn't see it. It's demonstrably an easy error to make if that's your belief system, but it should have been caught. (Pretty much a classic case of unconscious bias, in other words.) However—... that a mistake was made doesn't excuse mocking or attacking others' belief systems. I'm reminded that the potential divisiveness of religious userboxes was a major reason Jimbo wanted to do away with userboxes. I wasn't here then, but my recollectionis that the community moved them from template space to userspace on the understanding that they should be treated as "This user is an X or is interested in Xness"—and I had the impression they are still supposed to take that form and should never be allowed to lead to suspensions of civility. So I suggest we get back to the main thread here, except for those who want to participate in the more general thread about DYK below. That specific hook is long gone from the Main Page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I fail to see anything wrong with a song title hook that celebrates the faith of Christians on their holiday. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (ec) I think it is pretty clear that the point of there being no hook and just the title was to purposely use the DYK allow that title to look like a claim of fact. but...removing all religious stuff from the debate, I would say that it is not appropriate only because it did purposely use DYK to make a statement and illustrate a point. My personal perception...it looks like using Wikipedia for proselytizing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see that. I see an Easter song DYK hook on...wait for it...Easter! How dare they! Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Cool. Did you know God is dead? Would that be appropriate?--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Since Easter is "a festival and holiday celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead", I'm afraid I don't see how it would be relevant on that day. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC) And if I were talking about placing it on easter that might be an argument. Is it appropriate to have a DYK that is "Did you know God is dead ever?--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the topic or even with quoting the title, but there's a DYK rule requiring context for fictional or otherwise misinterpretable material that applies here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The context was a Christian song title DYK on the Christian Easter holiday professing the beliefs of Christians. What is there to misinterpret? I mean, really. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Well here's the kicker: Would it have been allowed on DYK had it not contained quotation marks? If not, then it shouldn't be up there with quotation marks. No one is complaining about an Easter-related DYK entry, we're complaining about how it was presented. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't get that. It was actually begun without the quotation marks. I don't care that it was used on DYK, or that it was used during Easter. My issue is that it was granted a special privilege to look like a claim of fact. To look like promoting a faith and to look like it got away with something no other DYK has.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) There's no misinterpretation involved. Honoring a religious holiday by having a DYK is fine if it stays within the rules - by providing context in the hook. I've now looked at the discussion at WT:DYK and I see that the other cited example of suspension of the rule also ran on April 1. That's the only day we suspend the rule requiring provision of a context. Think of it as explanation for our non-(Western) Christian readers - or in the more usual case, for people unfamiliar with the fictional setting referred to. It's easy to forget not everyone has the same frame of reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Except, we have dozens of DYK's where context is not provided, and it's part of the appeal of the hook. For example, did you know that baked beans have hairy eyes and iridescent antennae?[106] Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I can't seem to find any biologists who counter those claims. I can find many historians who counter a claim that Jesus was ever risen. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Huh? This has nothing to do with "claims". The DYK analogy is as follows: the "baked beans" do not refer to baked beans, they refer to an animal. In the same way, the rising of Christ does not refer to the physical Resurrection, it refers to a song. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, an animal with the name "baked bean". "Jesus Christ" in the hook refers to what then? Not Jesus? Is it not a grammatical subject? What you seem to be suggesting is that the entire phrase "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" should be understood as a noun. In that case, the sentence would actually be ungrammatical. When I read a sentence—and I think a lot of people do this as well—I favour a grammatical reading over an ungrammatical one. I think that would be part of following the principle of charity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Baked beans do not have eyes and antennae. I have been cheated by false information! But, still, there remains a song named "Jesus Christ is Risen Today", and a DYK hook that ran on Easter, a holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. I wonder, do we have any other DYK's like this? Why yes, we do! Did you know that today is the day when Krishna gave the holy sermon of the Bhagavad Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, as described in the Mahabharata?[107] But wait a second, you might say. The Mahabharata is a poem, and Krishna could be seen as the Hindu equivalent of the Christian Jesus! What's going on here? And what does "today is the day" refer to here? It refers to the day of the hook, December 23. Is this an in-universe hook I see? Well, how can this be? Does Wikipedia actually promote in-universe hooks about religious figures on religious holidays? Yes, yes it does. All the time, in fact. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wow. Why didn't the Krishna one run as 'Today is the day when the Mahabharata says that...'? That's quite a stretch you've got with your comparative theology there, by the by. I'm a Christian myself; but I come down on the side of the editors who are viewing the Easter DYK entry as a breach of NPOV. You can't just treat the claims of the faith - even well-regarded quasi-historical ones - as fact like that. I also find it surprising that you and others are claiming that the blurb, as published, did not appear to be asserting the hymn's title as a fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I see no significant qualitative difference between "did you know on this day Jesus rose" and "did you know on this day Krishna gave a holy sermon". The only difference I see is that some editors are offended by one idea, but not by another. Both are considered similar religious figures and both hooks are stated as a matter of fact, even if it is attributed to the Mahabharata, as if we could draw an in-universe connection between a Hindu sacred text, a divine figure, and a date on the Gregorian calendar in the real world. There's no substantive difference here at all. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Can you really not see the key difference between "Did you know X?" and "Did you know that Y claims X?"? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The Hindu DYK is composed as a factual, historical event that occurred on a real date by a divine, supernatural being as described in the Mahabharata, which gives it the status of textual authenticity rather than the simple "claim" you make it out to be. Granted, it has the illusion of attribution, but saying that the act of this divine being were described in a sacred Holy book as having occurred on this day is no different than saying "today is the day Jesus rose", minus the added description in the holy book, where of course, it all comes from anyway. SSDD. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That's my point; neither DYK should have run as written - in each case a religious claim, a matter of faith, is presented on equal footing with ostensibly straightforward facts. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I acknowledge your argument and recognize it as having merit. However, I am not arguing that neither hook should have run. I'm arguing that we run hooks like this (religious or otherwise) all the time, and that as such, these types of hooks aren't violating DYK practices. One can seriously argue about what it means to present straightforward facts, since the very concept of a "fact" is highly disputatious. For example, in science, facts are provisional, whereas in religion, facts are incontrovertible. NPOV demands we attribute the best (and in this case, interesting) facts to their claimants, but in practice, DYK has not always done this. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC) To say that baked beans not having eyes and antennae in that sense is a counterexample to the claim that the baked bean the animal has eyes and antennae is just a run-of-the-mill equivocation. All the time it does that? I'm looking right now and I don't see one, so your claim that it does that all the time is not a "fact" at all. Of the 30 random sets at which I looked, none of them had one. It would seem to be a fortunately rare practice. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not certain we are talking about the same thing, but for the sake of the argument let's assume we are. I don't think the practice is rare, but quite common. For example, did you know that Caucasians were brown?[108] Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that there are wikilinks on these hooks that you can click on to find out what they are. Baked beans, a Christian hymn, caucasians, every last one has this built-in mechanism to let you find out what it is exactly without getting all up in arms over it. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC) That's another example like the baked beans. I can't find any biologists that counter that claim. I can find many historians that counter the claim that Jesus ever was risen. It's the basic distinction between fact and opinion given at WP:YESPOV. DYK rules for content clearly state: "The hook should be neutral." That means the relevant claim must fit WP:YESPOV. The claim that Caucasians are brown does fit WP:YESPOV. The claim that Jesus Christ is or was risen (today or any other day) does not. The former is a fact, because all the relevant biologists agree those things are brown (or thereabouts anyway). The latter is an opinion, because a significant number of the relevant historians agree that the resurrection of Jesus probably did not happen. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Viriditas, you wrote that "The context was a Christian song title". This is patently untrue. The word "context" means "the text in which a word or passage appears and which helps ascertain its meaning". The phrase in this DYK hook was entirely self-contained, with no surrounding text whatsoever, and so by definition had no context. It therefore seemed to convey only the literal meaning of the phrase. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid I disagree with you. I suggest you refrain from citing Wiktionary. The DYK was taken out of the context of a Christian song, in the same way that many of the example hooks mentioned here have been taken out of context, quite on purpose. In their original context, for example, baked beans do not have eyes and antennae and Caucasians aren't brown, yet these are acceptable DYK's, and there are more than enough of them. In the same way, the statement "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" was taken out of its context of a song as a special occasion hook to highlight the word play and attract interest. I would love to chat further about this, but I believe everything has already been said several times now. Thanks for your feedback, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Proposal to permanently change format of all dyk's based on this entry's passage to "Did you know that "[media title]"?" it will solve all problems and issues if we have stuff like "that Adon Olam?" "that "Imagine (song)"?" "that "Meera: Mane Chakar Rakho Ji"?" that walrsuses also i think yngvadottir has a great point, we already make note of religious holidays on the box right below dyk on a daily basis~Helicopter Llama~ 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Really? I can't see any there now? Is it only an occasional feature? Where do they come from? Do they fit the definition in Holiday? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I presume yngvadottir is referring to SA/OTD which does indeed feature religious observances. Many of these would probably fit some definition of holiday since they are often a holiday at least somewhere in the world, but there's no particular requirement for that (although because of item limits, they are usually expected to be fairly significant). SA/OTD appears to the right of DYK in the normal main page but may appear to the bottom of DYK with some main pages alternatives such as the this one under a small window size (albeit not really right below as ITN is in between). P.S. Good Friday but not Easter is a holiday in Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia. Note that as Sunday is the main normal day of rest in these two states, Easter being a holiday would automatically mean Monday is for most people as well due to the way holidays falling on the main day of rest are handled in Malaysia. (Meaning that for most Christians in those states, having Easter a holiday would not actually help their observance that much, unlike with Good Friday. But from the governments point of view it will end up being an extra day of work for many people in those states. And there is a vary amount of competition for what days to observe as holidays.) As per the constitution, Islam is the official religion of Malaysia although there is disagreement over whether or not this means Malaysia is an Islamic state, or it's a secular state. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If we want to make an exception for religious holidays, we should formalize it, but where would we draw the line, with 20,000 estimated Christian groups and others? DYK that Raël had sex with white-, black-, brown-, yellow-, red-, green-, and purple-skinned women? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If that's true, that's very interesting. I'd love to read a backstory on that and it'd make a great DYK.--v/r - TP 22:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It makes me understand Lucinda Williams's song "Am I too blue for you?" in a whole new way. What's the guy got against blue women, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The problem is that hook treats Easter as if it was April Fools: It presents a song title as if it was a statement of fact. Such wordplay is inappropriate outside of April Fools, when such is expected and presented alongside many other such wordplay jokes. I don't think there's any malice, of course, but it's simply not how DYK is meant to be used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I now see that this is fundamentally about is Christian selfishness and self-centeredness. There are, what, over four million pages? Scores new every day? But Christians just have to seize the opportunity to try to grab the reigns and shout "Me!! Me!! Me!! All about ME!!" It's exactly the same as the issue with the current proposed move where every Creation myth in Wikipedia is titled something-Creation myth except their precious "Genesis creation narrative" -- as if their sales pitch will be validated and their faith will cease its historically unprecedented spiraling shrinkage if they can only find a vehicle to present the right magic words. Well you can't do that here. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The actual discussion began as pertaining directly to a comment by Hilo that had to do with a DYK that an admin felt was used in the above complaint by the OP that the admin felt was justified (while still not the best form) or at least not uncivil and was used to over stuff the above complaint. A DYK was allowed without a fact hook used. It made the DYK little more than a christian promotional tool. But it really isn't about the religious editors, it's about whether or not Hilo had a good reason to make the statements they did and whether or not this type of DYK is actually allowed. Frankly it looks like many of the Christian editors see nothing wrong. Heck, I even see some pagan editors that see nothing wrong. But...this will lead to a disturbing practice. It just seems that many editors are for this and I am not sure what the consensus is or if a local consensus on ANI can overrode the larger community consensus...whatever that may be.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) So what is the outcome of this DYK discussion? If all that occurred here is that we now know that DYK does not require a hook and that titles alone that look like actual facts being presented is the norm, are we to expect this happen more often or have we determined that it was inappropriate and that DYK requires an actual fact from the article be that hook?--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC) We could start by not trying to guess the future. Find out if this becomes a trend or a once-in-a-blue-moon play on words. Not overreact and enact knee-jerk policies based on no consensus of there being a problem in the first place. That's my advice from a completely outside perspective.--v/r - TP 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Sounds to me like requiring the hook be more than just the title of the article would be an obvious new requirement. I think we'll be fine with just that so as to not run into anything like this again, religious or otherwise. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't actually think it's a "new requirement" at all – it's simply a logical consequence of taking the expectation seriously that the hook must be a valid, factual piece of encyclopedic information. Simply building the title into the hook as if it were a clause usually doesn't result in valid encyclopedic information – at best, it results in harmless nonsense (as in the "dust my broom" example or whatever that was); at worst, it results in a POV nightmare. I think this is where the whole disagreement lies, at the deepest level: there are those of us who think that DYK hooks must be valid encyclopedic information, and therefore obey the same principles of factuality, verifiability and neutrality as any piece of article content, and there are those who feel DYK hooks are just a piece of advertisement blurb that may contain anything as long as it successfully whets the reader's appetite to go to the article. If you subscribe to the former view, then none of these playful "just the title" hooks are legitimate; if the latter, they are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly right. The hook did not meet the first two content rules already listed at WP:DYK#The hook; there's no extra rule required. Indeed, making a rule that a hook cannot just be a title of a work could rule out perfectly fine hooks. "Some people are dead when they're cold and dead" [109]—that seemingly tautological title could be a perfectly fine hook. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC) It's an important question. If this were a formal discussion, I would suggest an uninvolved admin closing it for future reference. I guess everyone agrees that ...that "God is Dead"? would be inappropriate, and nominating it would surely constitute a violation of WP:POINT. But I don't want to go through all this again next time. So I'm going to go out on a limb - consensus is against having similar hooks in the future. StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think 'that God is dead' is inappropriate. I would rather us be non-censored on all topics, including pro and anti-religious hooks, than create a bunch of bureaucratic rules. NPOV isn't just achieved by avoiding anything that can appear to be promoting a topic. NPOV is also achieved by us not picking and choosing which kinds of topics are 'taboo'.--v/r - TP 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) What on earth does being "non-censored" or topics being "taboo" have to do with anything?! Of course NPOV isn't achieved by "avoiding topics". NPOV is achieved in DYK hooks exactly the same way as everywhere else: by not stating potentially disputed claims as fact, but by attributing them. How could you possibly consider it legitimate for a hook to be either "pro-religious" or "anti-religious"? A DYK hook is a piece of encyclopedic content just like any other piece of article content, and the demands of neutrality and the mechanisms of how to achieve it are exactly the same as elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Guys...please do not argue over the same crap. I don't think God is dead is appropriate myself but that doesn't matter. If we can say Christ has risen we can say god is dead. I don't believe the same stuff as you and you don't believe the stuff i belive. Cool....but that IS NOT THE ISSUE. Either we have a consistent policy/guideline or everyone gets to claim as fact whatever title they want to present on DYK. Good job guys....DYK is little more than a joke now. A punch line and something that pushes editors into sides. Wow.....I am amazed by the ......unusual manner in which this discussion has been taken but...I want a clear answer. Moving forward...can I present a DYK title as a hook. Either it is Yes or it is no.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If the title is a complete sentence, as it was in this case, go for it. Would anyone really get annoyed if "Did you know I Am the Walrus?" was posted? How about "Did you know She Came In Through the Bathroom Window? That offend anyone? Calidum 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neither "I am the Walrus" nor "She came in through the bathroom window" are factually true encyclopedic statements (unless you actually are a walrus, which of course nobody would know, this being the Internet). See my post above. Would such hooks be effective advertisement blurb? Sure, yes. Would they be responsible, factual and verifiable encyclopedic information? No. I'm still on the side of those who expect that hooks should be just that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I am for that as well....but i want to be able to do the same thing a Christian gets away with as a pagan. Simple. Either this was not OK...or it is OK. Everyone wants to blur the lines so that its like some personal insult to christians if we don't allow the tile of certain articles to be presented as fact. look....it is simple. If we are not allowed to such then we are not allowed to do such, but...if we are allowed to do such.........then we are all allowed to the exact same ting, whether that is claiming god is dead or i am the walrus.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) And let's face it. If positive promotion is allowed...why not negative promotion?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If you want to tell me articles are to be factually accurate - you've got my 100% unabashed support. However, the main page itself serves as a promotional ad campaign to draw attention to Wikipedia articles. There is zero other way to describe the main page. That's its purpose, its whole engineering. What we are all upset about here is that it promoted a religious topic without any sort of disclaimer and my reply is: get over yourselves, it's not that serious. (cue serious business cat). It is okay to use humor to draw attention to our articles if it serves our readers. Using silly hooks like this to draw them to bits of whatever kind of articles we have might win them $10,000 on Jeopardy someday.--v/r - TP 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) And my response is: Get over yourself..... as well as "Bullshit" on a very large pokey stick. In other words...don't put words in my mouth. What offends me is that Christians are being placed on a higher level here for their own purposes to simply promote their beliefs. Cool....but if that is good for those that believe in the Chiristian god, it is just as good for those that feel god is dead, never existed and that the whole belief is just one side of a coin. That and that any article title should and could be used in the same nammer. If you don't agree, fine....but that only shows that ou support a christian view and none other.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I haven't put any words in anyone's mouth (and my reply wasn't really toward you anyway) I say that anything that arises out of natural editing shouldn't be discouraged. It is editors intentions that matter. Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM behavior should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious.--v/r - TP 04:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, actually you did put words in mine as well as everyone's mouth when you stated :"What we are all upset about here is that it promoted a religious topic". No....what I am upset about is there is no standard and that even you feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form. look....you haven't lowered yourself in my view. Really. I still have respect for you....but that does not limit me from being critical of you when you are wrong...and i feel you are very wrong here.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Interesting, now whom is putting words in whose mouth? Actually, I get the feeling you haven't read a word I've said. Let me quote two passages which explicitly refute your central argument that "even [I] feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form." First, I said "I don't think 'that God is dead' is inappropriate. I would rather us be non-censored on all topics, including pro and anti-religious hooks, than create a bunch of bureaucratic rules" and then I said "Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM because should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious." So you see, I do support hooks of this nature that are anti-religion. You should treat everyone's arguments on their individual merits and not lump me in with any bible thumpers.--v/r - TP 05:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC) No I read that Tparis, but I also read ALL of what you posted and it doesn't make you look like you are that neutral on this issue or that you feel that DYK is not a promotional tool. You stated it was...but that is simply not what i believe in. You have a lot of posts. I center more on what I see as being the issue here, not the rilgious issue. This isn't about religion. it's about whether or not DYK is for promoting ideas, which you seem to support from what I am reading.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I wasn't aware neutrality was the prerequisite for giving an opinion. But no matter, no one here is 'neutral' and disagreeing with you or 'your side' seems to be your definition of what neutrality isn't. But here we have an example of 'moving the goalposts'. Your argument two replies up was, "you feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form." I offered two diffs where I explicitly stated that it was not the case; diffs predating your argument which had you read you never should have made in the first place. Now, you've shifted to a new argument, "you feel that DYK is not a promotional tool". My reply is thus, a simple one, describe DYK in a form that does not include promoting articles. Further, describe ANY of the four (five on featured picture day) content blocks in a form that does not include promoting articles.--v/r - TP 18:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neutrality on the issue at hand. I think you have your biases like everyone else. I didn't shift the discussion. I just discussed your claim that DYK is a promotional tool as are other features on the main page. And, whether you truly understand the point or not, there is a major difference between a properly structured DYK that promotes just the article and the encyclopedic content and one that is promoting an idea like, Jesus, as a matter of fact rose from the dead. This isn't a shift in argument, this is the basis of the argument. It seems, however that I was mistaken when you did indeed seem to say that either positive or negative religious hooks are acceptable. As long as the structure is made properly as all DYKs are made.....I don't even think we would be discussing any of this right now. But i do admit...I have a hard time understanding your stance on this as it seems we have fundamentally different views on what is being promoted on the main page. Is it the content and the encyclopedic value of the information, or is the main page a tool to promote individual ideals and concepts as fact that millions of readers are going to take exception to? --Maleko Mela (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neutrality and faith or lack of faith are all just ad hominems to avoid having to address someone's actual argument. I think you're better than that, Mark, so step up the counterarguments a bit. As to your question, I have also already answered that one as well. I said, "Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM behavior should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious." Deal with attempts to SPAM when they come up. But having a catchy hook isn't enough evidence that someone is promoting a religion.--v/r - TP 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Put simply, I'd answer No. As previous posters have pointed out, rarely (if ever) does a title count as a piece of encyclopedic information, and without that, the DYK would go against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one of the Pillars. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes...but you seem to be rational while others seem simply to be supporting their personal beliefs that I don't hold in any regard, other than it being the belief of another that I don't share. This isn't about Christians verses Pagans but it is quickly becoming a push pull debate over whether or not Christians have more rights to a title hook on DYK than the non-believer and that appears to be what i see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Come now, it is no secret that Conservapedia-type Christians would wish to take over Wikipedia as a religious propaganda tool, by feigning sufficient general interest in building a neutral encyclopedia to obtain positions of respect, and then using those to play the numbers game of chipping away at reasoned presentation bit by bit. At let those involved in this current debacle thereby reveal their true agenda, and so render themselves disqualified for future trustworthiness as reasonable champions of factual accuracy and disinterested distribution of knowledge. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The pressure is too much! Your words force me to admit it, I'm part of the Conservapedia-type Christian POV pushing agenda, which is why I have been fighting them tooth and nail for the last 10 years. My cover is blown, whatever will I do now? Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Oh crap...that means my cover is blown! Woe is me for being caught as a neo conservative, religious fanatic for even caring about or working with christian editors. I guess I have to turn in my LGBT card, my liberal democrat card and my free thinking card (ok...that last part was a little over the top...but so was the rest). Now...having taken the tongue in cheek response, let me say this DeistCosmos, it isn't about belief, faith or conservatism....it's a bout a standard and an idea of what DYK was meant for. Some believe it is a promotional tool. I reject that idea.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I am not speaking of any political agenda, but of the general projection of haughtiness of those Christians who firmly believe that they have "the answer" and that anybody else who doesn't see it is subhuman; and so that they are entitled to use whatever subterfuge is necessary to get in a position to commandeer platforms built by others to trumpet their "rightness." This is why there appears to be no shame, and indeed no understanding of the disgrace and shamefulness, of this gimmicky exploitation of the "DYK" platform. This is why there is no internal moral mechanism to temper the bigotry inherent in declaring that the spiritual warfare page must be limited to Christian examples despite the phenomenon existing across myriad cultures. It is, to be honest, a pervasive self-congratulatory egotism which can barely be stomached by the actual neutral observer. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think anyone was using subterfuge in this DYK. I think the editors simply thought they were being original and had a direction that would stand out. The unfortunate part of all of this is that DYK was sort of used to make a claim of fact that someone had risen from the dead and claim that as a fact when the truth is there are so many other beliefs and religions that in doing so, they were actually dismissing all other beliefs as false. Yes, if you claim that as fact you are claiming other beliefs as false. That is why it was insulting over all to our readers, believers and none believers alike. But then that goes back to the reasoning of of why it was bad, based on the content and to me that is kinda a side argument (even if I've made it). The direct issue is having a standard for all to apply so that we don't end up with a DYK that uses opinions to claim as absolute fact.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC) @DeistCosmos: You think my neutrality here is a ruse? As I previously mentioned, I'm Catholic, so yes, I'm biased in this. However, Wikipedia needs to be kept neutral, and to do that, we need to put ourselves in other mindsets, weigh the different sides, allow Wikipedia to remain uncensored. In this debate, it seems to me that no lines were crossed with the possible exception of the hook format (a few more words would've avoided a lot of this, although we'd lose the Easter-specific wording in the process). Besides that, if I wanted to turn this into "a religious propaganda tool", why would I be mainly editing articles about purely secular games (Pokemon, Mario, Magic: The Gathering, etc) and the internet? @Maleko Mela: Okay, so a small difference on the surface from what I thought. Any ideas on how to defuse this before things get really messy? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Unfortunatley when I suggested this thread be closed because i felt it was likely to spin out of control was....well, it wasn't heeded. So at this point it may have to wear itself out over time.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There is also a problem with this entry here: A.D. 797. This year the Romans cut out the tongue of Pope Leo, put out his eyes, and drove him from his see; but soon after, by the assistance of God, he could see and speak, and became pope as he was before. Eanbald also received the pall on the sixth day before the ides of September, and Bishop Ethelherd died on the third before the calends of November. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) DYK ... that "he was despised" DYK ... that "he was despised", and from deep affliction I cry out? To the memory, and this is real. The JCiRT hook was not a good hook, because it said nothing new, - I bet that the (also biased) majority of our readers were not surprised, possibly even recognized the hymn, possibly smiled, as I did. The only new fact was that Wikipedia has now an article on it. - I will not approve such a hook again, for the minority's sake. We don't need more rules. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for bringing us more proselytizing. It only makes your bias more obvious. You don't need to do things for the minority's sake or for the majority's sake, just uphold our policies, as should have been done here in the first place. 07:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) This kind of breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL isn't needed. Saying she is proselytizing and biased doesn't help at all. This is more of a "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" situation, where religious metaphors are being employed to communicate concrete ideas. In this case, Gerda Arendt is apologizing, yet you attack her in return. If you're going to preach to others about upholding policies, at least do us the courtesy to uphold them yourself, first. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, this is rather uncivil, Fram. I smell WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let's focus on moving forward - as you are doing with the RfC idea. StAnselm (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC) As part of moving forward, perhaps some here could stop looking so hard for something to offend them. Somewhere way up above I suggested that to me, another's comment was like "Water off a duck's back". I've worked as a teacher in some pretty rough schools. I could not have sensibly taken offence at every rude comment or naughty word. I would have gone crazy. It's pretty hard to offend me. It's an approach I recommend. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yeah, of course, when you want to apologize in a discussion about a Christian soapboxing hook you accepted, you start with and head it with "he was despised"... She can keep her "apology" to herself. Fram (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I was only quoting from old real DYK, and find the reactions above amusing: ... that in Handel's Messiah, Part II contains the famous Hallelujah Chorus and the oratorio's longest movement, the air for alto He was despised? (29 July 2014) ... that Martin Luther's chorale Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (From deep affliction I cry out to you) was sung at his own funeral? (14 July 2014) I was in sorrow when I wrote those, and it was not about Jesus. - Yes, I am biased, who isn't? I don't know the other word. - I am restricted by arbcom to a limit of two comments in a discussion and came to find that a blessing rather than a restriction, - off to work on Cantiones sacrae (nothing to fear for DYK, it appeared already). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't doubt that you were quoting from old DYKs. Your point is? What does it matter how you felt when you wrote these in 2011? Similarly, you are restricted from "making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article." How is that relevant here? Most people don't include pieces from three year old DYKs at random and without context without having some purpose for them. From the context, your intended meaning is pretty clear. But apparently some people feel that saying so out loud is a personal attack. Perhaps they can provide the same fanciful explanations for this, like they provided for the DYK that started this. I will give them all the consideration they deserve. Fram (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Repeating some of what I said above: yes, this thread is getting us away from the serious problem of denigration of other editors' religions. No, we do not need additional rules and regulations; we already have an applicable rule, which was violated in this DYK. Except for April Fools' Day, DYK requires "out of universe" context in such situations. "... that today is the day when Krishna gave the holy sermon of the Bhagavad Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, as described in the Mahabharata?" provides such context, as does "... that Martin Luther's chorale Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (From deep affliction I cry out to you) was sung at his own funeral?". The fact that April 20 this year was a (Western) Christian festival does not supply the missing context; we do not make special exceptions for "their" religious festival any more than we expect everyone to be familiar with the words of this or any other hymn/song or the context of any particular viedo game or TV show. It was an error; let's remember and not do it again, as Gerda says. That's no disrespect to Christianity, nor yet is it rule creep; the ease with which one assumes familiarity with the tropes of one's own religion (especially if one comes from one of the many countries with a state religion) or one's own favorite entertainment is the reason we have the rule. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) By the way, it was an Eastern Christian festival as well... StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm very strongly in agreement with User:Yngvadottir here. Given that there is a rule, that it has been broken, that it has brought the project into disrepute, and that the situation has been thoroughly discussed, I'm assuming that a block would be appropriate for any repetition of this sort of nonsense. --John (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Calling Wikipedia Into Disrepute Beyond the procedural and policy issues discussed at length here, I submit that front-page that reads "Did you know … that Jesus Christ is risen today?" has the flavor and appearance of endorsing Christian belief. Elsewhere in this thread, the responsible party promises not to repeat this episode, not because it was wrong but as a concession to minorities. Both sentiments are contrary to the spirit of encyclopedias generally and of wikipedia specifically. Mishaps like this one can easily lead to censure and ridicule: I'm surprised the storm hasn't broken already. I believe we need sanctions, and we need a mechanism to ensure that wikipedia isn't betrayed on a whim. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I spy a teacup in which there is a storm sufficient to splash some of the tea into the saucer. MIghty folk are leaping into boats to ride out the storm and hitting the sides of the cup. IT was unwise, foolish, silly, but not bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, April 1st also creates similar things. Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) IMHO, a reasonable response to the mistake would be to suspend DYK from the front page for a week. It would be better to take action on our own, and promptly; should, for example, a reporter for a major newspaper or magazine take up the story, it would be good to be able to say "Mistakes were made, punishments handed out, and it won’t happen again." MarkBernstein (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) That's way over the top. There may be reasons why DYK should be overhauled, and that's being discussed here, but it isn't (just) because of this. While this item was a mistake, the hoax article probably is or more serious issue. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC) MarkBernstein: to what purpose? I very much doubt any journalist wants to investigate Wikipedia's complex web deeply, and if they do, we can always point them to this discussion. Closing DYK for a week would be a massive over-reaction, like the fact that someone creates a hoax article: therefore, no-one can make articles for a week. Thanks, Matty.007 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I will say this, TAFI was removed form the front page because it wasn't working. Seems to me DYK is beginning to suffer the same fate, but we don't punish editors and there has to some effort to improve DYK before it is yanked off the front page. There are great suggestions being made by editors. I think the discussion should take place on the Main Page talk or the DYK talk page to find solutions that satisfy everyone. DYK isn't a new feature to the main page so we should make some effort to rescue it before we declare it a failure.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC) :Matty.007: Using the main page to proselytize, or to assert a biblical story as fact, is not trivial. Our response to the hoax -- indefinite bans for everyone involved -- seems sensible. We've had not one but two major DYK embarrassments in recent days, and I understand its procedures have been a source of considerable friction for some time. It makes sense to take it off line, fix it, and when it's fixed we can give it another try. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Would a teaspoon help to make bigger waves in this teacup? Your point is made. People either accept it or not. Seriously there is nothing to see here nor do here. It was silly, perhaps even mildly reprehensible. I don't have a secret friend in the sky and I don't care about this at all. Time to move on to some other teacup. Would dunking a biscuit in it help smooth the waves? Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Resolute 20:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[110] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[111]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [112] [113]. As anyone can see the source [114] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[115]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([116] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits so much POV that it's very difficult to keep assuming good faith. I don't want to look non-neutral, but, frankly saying, I am beginning to think his aim is to add as many anti-Russian stuff as possible and to remove as many pro-Russian stuff as possible. (I'm not trying to deliberately attack him, but I just want to say what I am actually beginning to think after seeing his edits on the Ukraine crisis-related stuff.) IMO his edits can seriously upset any editor who tries to be neutral. And he keeps pushing them in, keeps reverting people who try to stop him. I seriously hope some admin takes a closer look at Volunter Marek's editing patterns. Just look at his edits and think, "1. Did he add something against Euromaidan or something good about Yanukovich or Russia just once. Did he? 2. Why does he like to call people who are against Euromaidan nazis: [117], [118], [119], [120]? (It's, like, the first thing he does in any article.)" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is difficult to take seriously allegations of POV pushing from an editor whose username is "Moscow Connection". BMK (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that's beyond your ken? See how easy it is to do stuff like that, so how about focusing on content rather than usernames?B01010100 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins will see this Volunteer Marek's edit: [121]. Admins, please, just think, "What does the editor actually do on Wikipedia? Are all of his edits look somehow the same? Is it someone who actually expands Wikipedia, who writes good articles, who actually wants to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you guys are warring over the Euromaiden/Ukraine issue and are dragging the drama here. Neither side is in the right here in terms of attacks, but the dispute resolution page is probably the best bet for this discussion, as both sides have rather strong opinions here. Moscow Connection, I think you are going in the right direction, but this isn't the place to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources (User:Lvivske goes so far as explicitly defending his practice of not reading the sources before reverting[122]), or the talk pages. There were existing talk page discussions regarding exactly those changes, but does he follow the consensus there or even read them? No. If there is nothing controversial about making edits going against the talk page discussions, then why do we have talk pages in the first place? You say to take it to dispute resolution, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says to go here, which is why i went here. Where exactly should this be taken then? The issue isn't any particular instance of his edits, but the entire underlying pattern of behaviour, which seems like a conduct dispute to me and hence why i took it here. At this time there is simply no point in making any contributions since if they don't fit his POV they'll just get reverted again irrespective of what the sources may or may not say.B01010100 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. In what you quoted I specifically talked about fact checking, just that its safe to assume if a portion of your sources are junk then the rest likely are too, especially if it's an IP or SP account --Львівське (говорити) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When an editor deliberately introduces text complete with citations and the citations do not support the text, the citations are fake. If an editor has the habit of using fake citations, then it is not very surprising if people check-by-sampling, and revert all the untrustworthy edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that's not what has been going on. The editor who first removed the text did not introduce any text, and hence did not introduce fake citations, he removed them.[123] This was only his second edit, so he couldn't have had a habit of such things (his first edit was adding a source to a quotation to comply with WP:BLP). Volunteer Marek then reintroduced the fake citations, even though it should be BRD rather than BRR, giving as reason in his edit summary "restore sourced text" even though he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he was introducing.[124] The only thing going against the edit he reverted was that it was made by an IP-user who happened to be based in Russia. Rather than reverting again i rewrote the text to remove the parts that were not in the source and more accurately represent the source [125] (and subsequent edits), as well as using the talk page to discuss those changes. [126] Volunteer Marek then simply introduced the fake citations again[127], completely ignoring both the talk page discussion and the call to read the source first. It seems, to me, that if anyone is making a habit of using fake citations it would be Volunteer Marek. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, it's a general pattern.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if i have misinterpreted your linked comment, but in the context of the discussion where you made that comment it was Volunteer Marek who kept introducing text not supported by the source by reverting the editor who, rightfully, removed it - thereby showing that he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he kept introducing. It was for that i called him out on blanket reverting others without even reading the sources, which you responded to as sometimes being appropriate. I realize now that i have misinterpreted your comment to some degree, but i presume you can understand the misunderstanding given the context.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention at these edits, which introduce Reductio ad Hitlerum-linked car analogy, in violation of WP:SEEALSO (which demands that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant"). Nazi/Soviet events of 1938 and 1940 aren't related to modern Crimean events. Seryo93 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it." BMK (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We may add those parallels as attributed (such as in Reactions section), I won't oppose that. But not in See also. And BTW, quote above can be likewise applied to NATO expansion towards RF borders. "Those who fail to remember history...", so I suggest to avoid WP:SOAPBOXing (which, I admitt that, coming from both sides of 2014 crisis) Seryo93 (talk). 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Updated 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NATO? NATO hasn't expanded since 2009, and Ukraine disavowed any intent to join in 2010. I believe the current brouhaha originated over Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU, a non-military association. And in any case, if the Santayana quote draws attention to parallels between Germany's actions prior to WWII and Russia's current actions, what is the parallel you're drawing between Ukraine's associations with NATO and the EU and the situation back then? I see none.

Putin seems stuck in the age-old Russian desire to keep a buffer between itself and Europe, either by the conquests which created the Russian Empire, or Stalin's creation of puppet states after WWII. This need for "security" at the expense of the independence of other countries appears to be a long-established part of hard-line Russian thinking. Failing to point out those obvious facts (through citations from reliable sources, of course) would do a disservice to our readers. BMK (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-military? Please get your facts straight. The parallel would be the expansion of a hostile military bloc eastwards in violation of the relevant agreement with Russia on that, just like another hostile military bloc's eastwards expansion in WWII. That's the issue with inventing Nazi analogies in wikipedia articles, all you do is open a can of worms.B01010100 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not (and in fact never, you can see this from my post before!) objected to carefully attributed parallels (look at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary for examples). About NATO: I've meant expansion since fall of USSR, which Russia - country, that dissolved its own NATO - views as a hostile encirclement (see also Cordon sanitaire). Either way, parallels can be found for anything. Seryo93 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Upd: 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the contents of a comment after it's been responded to. IN this case it makes my response look provocative, instead of responsive to yours. BMK (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Seryo93 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact dissolved itself, and the Soviet Union really didn't have any choice in the matter, so there's no reason to give them props for that And what of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation that succeeded it? That Russia is now less powerful than the old Soviet Union was is a fact of life, and certainly fuels the Russian paranoia and loss of self-respect that appear to be part of Putin's motivations - but, here again, the rebuilding of Germany's self-regard was one of the factors that entered into the provocation of WWII, and, again, the Santayana quote is pertinent. No one is saying, I don't think, that the situations are exactly the same, but one rarely comes across two world-historical circumstances that are so closely paralleled as these two are. BMK (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See here (remark about Gorby claims - but this is logical consequence of "unwritten promise"). Anyway, I'm not opposed to statement that "Many compared X to Y...[refs]", as in 2014 Crisis commentary section. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharing a POV is not an excuse to have it included where it obviously doesn't belong.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

B01010100, Seryo93, Petr Matas: I suggest you look into this: [128].
(I'm not sure, but it looks like the person (under a different account name) has already been banned from the Eastern European topics for participation in a coordinated anti-Russian campain on Wikipedia. As I understand, the edit I linked suggests going to WP:AE to enforce the decision. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The original case can be found here [129] (the old user name is Radeksz). The topic ban was for a year [130] but has been rescinded by motion [131], and even if it wasn't rescinded it would've passed now anyway. So there isn't anything to enforce at this time, however point 4 of the motion should be relevant.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@B01010100: Where is this point 4? Could you provide a link? (By the way, I probably won't be able to do anything myself, but I want to help other editors who might want to do something about the problem.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow Connection (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that he meant the 4th supporting vote of this motion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to get caught in edit warring with VM, it happened to me as well. You have to be very careful. It is also useful to focus on one thing at a time in the discussion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's hardly suprising, edit warring is after all one of his proclaimed methods to keep the content the way he likes it.[132].B01010100 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This still going on? Guys, as flattered as I am to be the subject of your discussion, you do realize that you are basically talking to yourselves? The uninvolved editors, Ktr101 , Ncmvocalist, BMK and a few others, commented above and I think that's pretty much all there is to say. So how about closing this and the few of you that have axes to grind behave yourself in the future? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

• Another questionable comment was added today in the "quid pro quo" section below: [Petrarchan47 is] the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. This outrageous claim was apparently based on the fact that I thought the date was May 2cd rather than the 4th. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Because this will be likely used against me in the future, would you consider amending your comment to reflect whether you checked a selection of my edits, or as I assume, is your comment ("somewhat poor") referring only to this one section/incident? I accept that it may have been an off-day, and there were more glitches than usual, however, one could interpret your comment as a general statement about my editing, so I just wanted to clarify this. petrarchan47tc 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[133] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[134] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

• 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

• 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[135]

• 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

• 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[136]

• 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[137]

• 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[138]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):

• I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.

00:46, 6 February 2014

• [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.

04:50, 6 February 2014

• [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).

21:47, 6 February 2014

Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Doesn't prove a thing." This from one of Wikipedia's most notorious inquisitors when comes to COI allegations. You may be sympathetic to Petrarchan's POV, thinking her McCarthyite anti-COI campaign is consistent with yours but are you aware that she goes a step further with her beware infiltrating government agents line? This after Mastcell had already tried to get her to back away when she was trying to finger Wikipedian Dr. Fleischman as a federal agent? Maybe that's too much bad faith assuming even for you, @Coretheapple? In any case on April 8 Petrarchan went 6RR in less than two and a half hours on the Edward Snowden article edit warring with JohnValeron and I and John and I let it go rather than take Petrarchan to an admin noticeboard thinking she'd be more likely to change her edit warring ways if shown mercy. Petrarchan then turns around and takes John to this noticeboard! It's right out of the Parable of the unforgiving servant. We obviously should have gotten Petrarchan blocked at the time since editors like you are making an issue out of "...history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one." We apparently need to change our tactics with edit warriors like Petrarchan and get them blocked as soon as they violate 3RR given what editors like you make out of "clean" block histories.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, since you asked, I'll answer for the record: I wouldn't consign anyone—not even Petrarchan47—to New Jersey. JohnValeron (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, as we wend our merry way through this delightful WP:ANI adjudicating my alleged QUESTIONABLE COMMENTS, cherish this Pearl of Wisdom from Petrarchan47: "The thing is, you can't edit articles around here for very long without coming into contact with hardcore POV pushers and pure, unadulterated jerks." 20:13, 18 February 2014 Submitted here for entertainment purposes only. JohnValeron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And a comment of extraordinary accuracy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You certainly have chutzpah, @Coretheapple. You declare in this thread that Petrarchan's got a clean edit warring record when you've participated in edit warring noticeboard complaints involving her trying to get her off. I note one gem of a comment in particular: " Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull." So stressful! Yet Petrarchan bring someone else "in front of the Admin Noticeboard", well, that just's business!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I'm monitoring this board because I'm following another thread, so I dropped in on this one and another and boy! am I being yelled at. Talk about stress. It's terrible. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could relieve yourself from the stress by declining to nod along when Petrarchan complains of "hardcore POV pushers" given that when IRWolfie noted that Petrarchan was, yet again, trying to battle what she thinks is a "large conspiracy" by "fighting the good fight against US Corporations" and "insert[ing] highly polemic statements" at that time you were all about not worrying about whether there was any POV pushing and just focusing on whether your "wiki-friend" could beat an edit warring charge on technicalities. I'll also note that while you trumpet Petrarchan's flawless block record (and try to justify all her COI attacks), when SpectraValor took her editing to the edit warring noticeboard she got off because the complaint was apparently a few hours stale. Yet another editor started a case on the 3RR noticeboard and Petarchan was found guilty of a 3RR violation but was again let off. There's nothing to be seen here, according to you.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm seeing a lot of mud-slinging directed at her, doing a good deal to prove her original point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You demanded "evidence" Petrarchan is an edit warrior and I pointed out that just within the last three weeks she went 6RR in less than 3 hours and subsequent to avoiding a block there got taken to the edit warring noticeboard by another editor where an admin found that "Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR". This thread could have been shorter had you let us know earlier that you would be dismissing the evidence you ask for as "mud-slinging" since we would have known your request for evidence was not to be taken seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread would have been even shorter if you hadn't tried to divert attention from the real issues with mud-slinging and character assassination. Coretheapple (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is Valeron's behaviour at the Snowden talk page, and the disruptive hostility. If bringing up anything Fleischman once said is supposed to justify comments made yesterday about my ineptitude as an editor, or the wiki-hounding, I fail to see the connection.

It should be noted that Dr Fleischman, shortly before leaving Wikipedia last month, admitted that Brian Dell's position - the kernel of the 3 month edit war - is untenable. Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell; he came up against the exact same difficulties I had been complaining about. Dr F took BDell555's side immediately in the edit war, and regretted it later. In the end though, the POV warriors, not RS, won the day. The Lede to Edward Snowden now contains a SYNTH account of Snowden's passport/Russia saga rather than the simple account given by countless RS (that Snowden was stranded due to the US' revocation of his passport) because Brian Dell exhausted me completely. petrarchan47tc 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc is an ally of yours, is he? That's why he asked Mastcell to do something about you? "Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell" Is that so? Yet after you claimed to be "officially 100% EXHAUSTED" (elsewhere saying my comments were simply too extensive for you to bother reading) Doc's reply was that "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project" and Doc specifically addressed you.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And MastCell responded by saying that he didn't want to touch the case. The diffs I left show that after more information, Dr F progressed from blindly aligning himself with you, to becoming completely exacerbated as well and leaving WP. Before he did, he told Gandydancer: Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 petrarchan47tc 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 may now claim to be fast friends with DrFleischman, but it wasn't always so. A mere six weeks ago she posted this to Doc's user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…."

Sound familiar? Yep, it's Petrarchan47's standard charge of Wikihounding. In March, DrFleischman was "following" Petrarchan47 around Wikipedia due to his "obsession" with her. Now it's April, Doc has made no edits for 30 days, and so it's my turn to stand accused. After all, Petrarchan47 has got to have someone Wikihounding her. If not the obsessed Doctor, then I guess yours truly will do in a pinch. "This is harassment!" Maybe so. But who, pray tell, is harassing whom here? JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can close out this thread by quoting from said fast friend: "Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly been a interested bystander on the Snowden talk page. I'll just comment that this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Generally that means you need to ask for something specific, like a block, and give evidence that the requested action is required, for example three warnings on the user's talk page concerning a blockable offense, backed up by links to the offending edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced

I generally consider myself to be an editor who tries to avoid all sorts of drama as far as possible. However, ever since I've started editing the Edward Snowden page, it has become very clear to me that this is one of those articles any sane editor would want to avoid at all costs. In fact, I've practically given up trying to make it look more like a biography than a battleground. I don't know what motivates some people to keep pushing a particular POV for so many months and I have to admit I do admire your determination to achieve whatever aims you have here, but I'm fully amazed that you don't even try to hide your POV.

Can we at least agree that labelling a living person as "narcissistic" on his biography, even quoting someone who did so, is extremely unconstructive? But at least this is better than turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm.

Although I think JV is a highly motivated editor, his lack of adherence to WP:BLP and his conduct towards other editors, and more importantly, his general attitude towards the subject of this biography is a serious cause for concern. -A1candidate (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to what you say is "most important," just what sort of "general attitude" towards Mr Snowden would you like to see? I take it that it would not be Hillary Clinton's--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, please clarify your second paragraph, in which you link to the same diff for both "labelling a living person as narcissistic" and "turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm." I honestly don't understand how you can construe a single comment by former NSA Director McConnell, reliably sourced to New York magazine, as constituting an NSA quote farm. JohnValeron (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, A1candidate, if my behavior is such "a serious cause for concern," why have you waited until now to bring that to my attention—and in this highly adversarial context? I reckon you just like a good ambush. JohnValeron (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555 - An attitude that is in line with building a biography instead of fighting a battle would be more than welcome. For starters, how about not trying to remove reliably sourced information from Snowden while replacing his quotes with goveernment issued-statements? @JohnValeron - The fact that you use words like "ambush" is very telling of your attitude. Both of you obviously have a POV (you don't even try to hide it), this is something that I've long felt needed to be addressed. I always avoid drama, so this is going to be my last reply. -A1candidate (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, the fact that you stage an ambush only to turn tail and run is very telling of your attitude. JohnValeron (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on edits and ideas, not on editors'. Your comment above verges on a personal attack. Dial it down, please. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure Edward Snowden Hagiography is enforced

Note: I'm not indenting because my response applies to both the overall section Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron and its subsection What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced. Also, thanks to admin Dennis Brown and user Beyond My Ken for pointing out that my subtitle (obviously a parody of A1candidate's subtitle) should not be formatted so as to appear in the TOC.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, at the heart of this post by Petrarchan47 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is what user A1candidate identifies as my "attitude" towards Edward Snowden. In her edit warring over the past 10 months, Petrarchan47 has exemplified the politically correct attitude of blind partisanship in favor of Snowden. Moreover, she has acted as bully and enforcer, peremptorily exercising innumerable reverts to disrupt the attempts of other editors to provide balance. Shamelessly seeking to go beyond that and punish editors who have taken issue with her, last month she targeted DrFleischman, posting to his user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…." Now, having disposed of DrFleischman (who has made no edits at Wikipedia for over 30 days), Petrarchan47 turns her sights on me, taking to this page to foster the impression that I have been Wikihounding. Her success in this smear is evidenced by the very first reply to her initial post, from DangerousPanda, who applied the term "wikistalking" to me.

No doubt the pro-Snowden partisans have the numbers to block and even ban me. But until then, I will not be intimidated. I shall continue to resist all attempts by A1candidate and Petrarchan47 to enforce their hagiography of Edward Snowden. I shall rely instead on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which states in pertinent part, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." JohnValeron (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the part about due weight. One person calling Snowden narcissistic does not merit including the term in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, as explained in Wikipedia's due weight policy, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In determining which viewpoint is significant in each instance, a Wikipedia editor must consider overall context, not just the particular report. For example, if an otherwise reliable but left-leaning, pro-Snowden publication runs a piece that includes 1,000 words of direct quotations from professional partisans such as Snowden lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, offset by 100 words from Hillary Clinton criticizing Snowden, Wikipedia is not required to reflect these opposing viewpoints in proportion to their numerical value. Rather, editors mush exercise judgment. The mere fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady publicly disputes Snowden makes her words more significant than the utterly predictable, canned retorts of longtime Snowden shills, whose unchanging views are already amply represented in Wikipedia's Snowden article.

As for the specific example to which you allude, in the Motivations subsection, we quote former NSA director and current Booz Allen Hamilton vice chairman Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic," reliably sourced to New York magazine. What you conveniently overlook, HandThatFeeds, is its placement near the end of a 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus our paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. In a subsection devoted to his motivations, that focus is entirely appropriate. However, in this context, it is equally appropriate to quote a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations.

Due weight does not require excluding significant minority viewpoints. JohnValeron (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Significance is the key here. Show that Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint, and you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't, and WP:WEIGHT is against you. Hagiography is definitely to be avoided, but so are unsupported POV opinions expressed only by a small number of people. BMK (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint not because a large number of people have expressed it, but because of the prominence of who did express it: a former NSA director and current vice chairman of the firm for which Snowden worked as a contractor and where he sought employment expressly for the purpose of stealing more secret US Government documents to leak. "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." JohnValeron (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors could choose to quote McConnell because he's a prominent person; on the other hand the nature of his prominence in this case makes him a particularly unreliable source. Specifically, his crude characterization of the psychological motivations of a whistleblower are made in an unavoidably political context: they're certainly not reliable, and arguably unhelpful. We're not required to quote a famous person every time they open their mouths. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Placing McConnell's statement in the "reaction" section would be more reasonable, as it wouldn't purport to give readers special insight on Snowden's motivations. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is properly contextualized in the Motivations subsection. The reliable source in this instance is New York magazine, not McConnell. He is quoted here not because he's famous, but because he's a former NSA director and current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton. In both those capacities, he brings an insider's knowledge and expertise to bear on Edward Snowden. To exclude McConnell's viewpoint merely because you personally disagree with it is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as a former NSA director he's about as neutral about Snowden as an ex-grunt is about the Marine Corps. It's irrelevant that he's quoted by a reliable source, what's relevant is whether his view of Snowden is shared by others without a connection to and history with the Agency. BMK (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. If Wikipedia required editors to quote ONLY neutral sources, we'd have to eliminate every quotation attributed to Snowden's lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, to mention just four of many such pro-Snowden speakers. The article would be reduced to 20% of its existing length. JohnValeron (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that McConnell's statement may be notable: as a reader I could benefit from knowing what the man said even if I disagree. However, McConnell is an overtly hostile party and not a reliable when describing Snowden's motivations, which is why I think his comments fit better in "Reactions". -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drama and POV pushing

This drama pushes good editors away from the Snowden page. It is aimed at anyone wanting to add RS that implicates the US government in Snowden's 'choice' for asylum in Russia, and essentially anyone who disagrees with the edits of Valeron or Dell.

For instance, John Valerion had these comments about editors today:

• "At 20:40, 30 April 2014‎, User:A1candidate attempted to hijack the editorial process" *
• "Another Edit Warrior Parachutes In - Beyond My Ken thus attempts to backdoor his way into control of the Snowden article without posting a single comment at the Snowden Talk Page...This arrogant, willful behavior even ignores BMK's own admonishments to editors of other articles, whose work he has undone with a warning to Discuss on talk page, Do not revert without a consensus to do so. Clearly, Beyond My Ken is one of those Do As I Say, Not As I Do edit warriors." *

I addressed the now 5-month edit war here, for some context. Brian Dell's friend User:DrFleischman said it well: "There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead." and "When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens o[f] reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead?" More on that is here: Retelling of the passport story.

The Snowden page has been taken over by POV pushers. Here is a discussion for more insight. A1Candidate to Dell: "you seem to be more interested in pushing a particular POV instead of improving the article as a whole. A large portion of your edits appear to be related to Russia, Russia, and more Russia. We don't know for sure whether the Kremlin is behind Snowden's flight, as you have been claiming all along. While I do think it's a plausible theory, it's nothing more than mere speculation." Please see this Snowden Talk section for more.

Today, Dell and Valeron are using Business Insider and their report on a Wikileaks tweet to support their contention that Snowden chose to go to Russia, as opposed to what RS states over and over, very clearly: Snowden was stuck in Russia due to the US' revocation of his passport (RS listed here).

Last week, Snowden's entire accolades section was reduced by John Valeron to this. Here is the talk page discussion where I explain that to cut only his awards, squishing them to two unreadable paragraphs without condensing any other sections, is POV. Valeron says that Snowden's awards "all seem equally unmeritorious". Valeron notes that he does not find the article to need condensing, so his only reasons for this editing are POV, it would seem.

He also removed a quotation cited to Snowden, though his edit summary was: "reword so as to not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Again, the edit serves the US government, but not Wikipedia.

He states: "I am participating here in good faith with the object of providing much-needed balance to th[e Snowden] article, which is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject." When asked to specifically point out how the Snowden article is biased, Valeron never responds. Instead Brian Dell pops in with another long OR rant.

Valeron has become very hostile, and besides admittedly following my edits at Snowden by seconds, looking for any mistake, he also followed me to Laura Poitras supposedly fueled by the need to set things straight: the Pulitzer was not given to her, but to WaPo and Guardian. However both Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman's articles contained the same information and were, until I pointed this out to John, left untouched. Valeron is now {cn} tagging Poitras instead of finding the citations. He tagged "1971"'s release at Tribecca, whilst a simple search finds very good, recent articles about its release.

Brian Dell:

• As recently as April 14, Brian Dell was continuing his edit war, calling cited information OR dreamed up by User:Binksternet and inserting "allegedly" in the Lede.
• Dell continues to push this theme, with the edit summary: ""allegedly" stranded. Legal experts say there is no legal distinction between the airport and the rest of Russia. And no independent journalist verified that he was in the airport transit zone"
• Dell adds "reportedly" to cited information, arguing "supposedly he was stranded. The story does not hold up under scrutiny"
• Earlier Dell declares a Fox news article "demonstrably false" and changes the Lede in this same edit war.
• This is where Dell first appeared with his theory.
• Here is where Dell followed me on this same day to Jimbo's talk page to make some remarks.
• Here is where he followed me to an NSA awareness WikiProject I was working on.
• In this comment at the WikiProject, he justifies making this POV change to the Russ Tice article saying it was done "to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." He also states "Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories." About NSA spying revelations, he states, "The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media."
• When news broke that there were statements made by some US officials about wanting Snowden dead, Dell had this (predictable) response.

Besides the obvious POV pushing by both of these editors, the hostility aimed at me and others who may oppose or question them needs to be addressed. No WP editor should repeatedly come into contact with this type of behaviour - the aggression is over the top, and better suited for YouTube comment sections. Brian Dell should be topic banned (an IBAN is also a consideration), and an IBAN against Valeron would be very much appreciated. I guarantee the Snowden article and Wikipedia would be better off for it, and would not be damaged in any way by these bans. But I am no expert, the response that would reinstate a sane, peaceful environment at Snowden (read: pre-Dell, pre-Valeron, circa Sep-Nov '13) is likely better determined by administrators. petrarchan47tc 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 has now outdone herself in sheer, malicious perfidy, posting comments that I myself reconsidered and deleted within minutes. Clearly, Petrarchan47 will stop at nothing in her toxic efforts to poison the editorial atmosphere surrounding the Edward Snowden article. JohnValeron (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking ballsy of JohnValeron to accuse me of trying to "control" the Edward Snowden article, when he's made over 100 edits to it in the last week alone (over 300 in the last year), and I've made three edits in total. And to say that I edited without discussion is equally ludicrous, considering that the discussion took place right here on this thread, with his involvement. I suggest that if anyone's trying to "own" the Snowden article, or push a POV into it, it sure as hell isn't me. I also suggest that an admin might like to try to machete their way through the jungle of rapid-fire edits over there to see if some level of protection isn't called for to get things to stop so that reasoned discussion can take place. BMK (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No reasoned discussion about the Edward Snowden article can take place here, on an adversarial ANI where I stand falsely accused and where my accuser is calling for Brian Dell and me to be banned. Any "consensus" about editing Edward Snowden arrived at within this ANI is illegitimate. The regular editors of the Snowden article do not follow ANI. We follow Talk:Edward Snowden, which is where all editorial discussions rightly belong. JohnValeron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, consensus is consensus, and it remains so even when it goes against you, and no matter where it takes place. Usually the article talk page is the best place for consensus discussions to take place, but when someone tries to dominate the discussion there it may have to take place in other venues. Besides, you've misread my comment above - if an admin were to fully protect the article - which I think would be fully justified by the volume and speed of the editing there, which indicates knee-jerk responses rather than well-considered action - then the reasoned discussion I was speaking about should take place there and not here.

At this point, however, editors have clearly despaired of getting any balance there while you and others continue to duke it out, and have come here for relief. Having felt the (temporary) sting of your displeasure, I understand precisely what they're talking about - you're trying to browbeat people into submission because you disagree with their POV (or what you perceive as their POV, which may well be mistaken), and that makes your editing as bad as theirs is, if they are also pushing a POV, as you claim. I still think temporary full protection would help, as would your thinking before you act. 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, full protection and Admin oversight for a while is a worthwhile consideration. petrarchan47tc 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jehochman once filled this role at the Snowden page. We also spoke in January about bringing the article to GA status. It might be worth checking into these options as a way to cool the current edit warring and hostility. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I personally don't edit the Snowden article because, to be frank, my feelings about him are fairly negative. I think that's the best course of action in dealing with a BLP in which one holds a negative POV - stay away. JohnValeron might want to consider doing that too. Coretheapple (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Wikipedia's due weight policy explains, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I pointed out above, former NSA director Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is reliably sourced to New York magazine. McConnell served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence during the period when Snowden was employed by the CIA, which reports to the DNI. After leaving that post, McConnell rejoined Booz Allen Hamilton to lead the firm's intelligence business, and was vice chairman throughout Snowden's brief (less than three months) tenure as a BAH employee. These high-level positions give McConnell's perspective on Snowden significant weight. Moreover, our now-deleted quotation of McConnell provided the only balance to an otherwise self-serving 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. By excluding a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations, you are totally suppressing a verifiable point of view that has sufficient due weight. In violation of policy, you are promoting Wikipedia's unbalanced cheerleading on behalf of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

McConnell can hold any opinion about Snowden he wants, and can express them to anyone he wants to, but he's not qualified to discuss Snowden's psychological makeup in our article because he has no training or expertise in that area. He can say that Snowden is a traitor or that he's damaged his country or that he ought to be clapped in irons or that he's selfish or immature or whatever, because these are things anyone can say about anybody, but when he says that Snowden is a "narcissist", he's making a psychological evaluation, and he is not qualified to do that, and he can't be in our article expressing that opinion except, perhaps, as an example of people's reactions to Snowden's actions. BMK (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com provides two definitions of narcissist:

1. a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.

2. Psychoanalysis. a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

Neither Wikipedia's biography of Mike McConnell nor the sentence you seek to suppress in Edward Snowden identifies McConnell as a psychologist or psychiatrist. His opinion of Snowden as a "narcissist" is not a clinical evaluation, and only pro-Snowden editors such as yourself would so willfully and disingenuously misconstrue it. McConnell is using the term in its popular, not medical, sense. Note that Wikipedia quotes Yogi Berra as saying about baseball, "90% of the game is half mental." Are you going to suppress that, too, because Mr. Berra is not a credentialed mental health professional? JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing - I am not "Pro-Snowden". In point of fact I have decidedly mixed feelings about what he did, including my belief that anyone who thinks that their government isn't in some way "spying" on them is a fool, and that such monitoring is, to some degree both necessary and harmless. But you don't know that, because you are, clearly and by your own admission, "anti-Snowden", and because I reverted one of your edits that must make me "pro-Snowden", thus throwing WP:AGF out the window.

I reverted your edit because the guy doesn't have the chops to make that kind of statement and have it appear in a Wikipedia article as a factual reason for Snowden's actions. You want to put in a "responses" section, that's different, the guy is notable and his allowed to have an opinion - he's just not allowed to express that opinion as fact on Wikipedia. You get it? It's the diference between "I think he's a narcissit" and "He did it because he's a narcissist." If you can't see the essential different between those two statements, and the need for the person saying the second one to have the right credentials, then you probably shouldn't be editing here.BMK (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

Never let it be said that Petrarchan47 does not reward those gallant souls who spring to her defense here at ANI. Vote early and vote often, Wikipedians, for "must-read" commenter Coretheapple as Crony of the Week. JohnValeron (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention requested: Can I get an admin to give JV an WP:NPA warning? If nothing else, his serious lack of AGF is worrying. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your broad argument on the McConnell quote, here, but the last time this came up at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding), I got more or less the same impression John has, although I would have expressed it more delicately. That said: John, knock it off. Wholesale snarkiness will only succeed in getting people to blow you off; there's plenty in Petrarchan's editing history, plainly and dispassionately expressed, to build a case against her. Choess (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Choess, I appreciate your advice, but I am not the least bit interested in building a case against Petrarchan47. As you imply, and as demonstrated by her shameless use of an Editor of the Week nomination to reward Coretheapple for supporting her in this meretricious ANI, Petrarchan47 is her own worst enemy. JohnValeron (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now, isn't this enlightening? Following the link provided by Choess, I just read User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding posted to ANI less than a month ago by User:Geogene. It broadens one's perspective on Petrarchan47's generally antagonistic behavior and her contemptuous hostility in particular to editors who do not submit to her supposed authority. And guess who rushed to her support on that occasion? Why, our presumptive Editor of the Week, of course: Coretheapple. What a magnificent team they make! A true credit to Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Fleischman, before leaving WP last month, tried very hard to build a case against me. He went to people angry at me from the BP (Geogene) and March Against Monsanto (SecondQuanitzation/IRWolfie) articles and found willing participants to help find diffs for an eventual ANI. He asked MastCell and Drmies for help, both said no. MastCell has repeatedly said he has respect for me as an editor, and as for my complaints about Geogene (who eventually took me to ANI), he said: "Back in the day, I used to feel like there was a core of clueful editors who would support each other in these kinds of situations, but most of that core has been run off the site or decided they have better things to do than argue interminably with cranks and agenda accounts."

Geogene was canvassed by Dr F, who still has a list of my wrongdoings compiled, and who appeared to be helping Geogene with diffs for her unsuccessful ANI. Geogene came to the BP oil spill articles (where I met Coretheapple, and whom btw, I had been planning to nominate for months) and began making POV changes. Her biggest grievance was with the tremendously well-cited study mentioned in the Lede of Corexit (in this version). To end the edit war there, I slashed the Lede and removed mention of studies. Geogene, who purportedly wanted to help the Project, and improve the Corexit article specifically, has not been seen since. As was obvious from the start, her efforts seemed focused on removing content harmful to BP. Once that was done, there was no interest in actually working on the article, or WP for that matter. I noted that her appearance and frantic editing coincided with the announcement of BP's Clean Water Act trail. I was asked by other editors not to make such connections unless I have proof of COI, so I have agreed to stay silent in the future.

I do not see how that ANI plays into this one, however. Valeron's behaviour should not be tolerated, and there is no case to be made that it is justified by anything I have done, or by anything that has been said about me. The NPOV requirement for editors is not being met in his case, and I think a topic ban should be considered. Just today he was reverted at James R. Clapper and Edward Snowden for non-neutral editing. * * *

Whether my edits to Snowden have been POV has not been proven, nor has a case been made that the Snowden article is biased. I have put in a lot of time and work on that article, and the atmosphere there has driven away everyone else but the anti-Snowden editors. That has been pretty stressful, and is why I have opened this, my first ANI to see whether something can be done to stop this. petrarchan47tc 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Petrarchan47 is lying to promote her punitive crusade to get me banned. The diffs she cites as evidence that "just today" I was reverted, actually date from May 2, 2014. Petrarchan47, who will do anything to get her way, is the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. JohnValeron (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual I don't know what day it is. I am the most unethical editor EVER. John's ever-balanced, non-hyperbolic views will save the Pedia one way or another. Thank goodness we've got editors like this around. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, John, this is the type of "lie" that matters around here. Wouldn't you consider this unethical? petrarchan47tc 00:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN for JohnValeron

I have seen too many disruptive actions taken against Petrarchan47 by JohnValeron. This behavior should be addressed by IBAN.
JohnValeron was working on the Chelsea Manning biography and the court case United States v. Manning in the summer and autumn of 2013. In late December 2013, he encountered Petrarchan47 at the Edward Snowden biography, at the Sibel Edmonds biography, and at the article about Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Talk page relations were civil at first but by February 2014 the tone was strained, then icy with disdain and hurtful irony: "Wikipedia should permanently lock out all editors except Petrarchan47, whose sole proprietorship would be beyond reproach." By March, JohnValeron was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation, trying to get a rise out of Petrarchan47 by referring back to the "sole proprietorship" comment: "I earnestly hope this meets with approval and does not offend particular editors with an aggravated sense of sole proprietorship over this article." Also: baiting Petrrarchan47 with this comment: "...rest assured that the ever-vigilant Petrarchan47 has undone my revisions in toto." At the end of March JohnValeron was accusing Petrarchan47 of having "paranoid fantasies", and insulting her with the term "schoolmarm"—a sexist putdown intended to stifle discussion. The April 8 comment "petrarchan47 has zero credibility" was a gross attack, a poisoning of the well to remove Petrarchan47 from effective discussion. I suggest that JohnValeron should be given an interaction ban with regard to Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, given the admission of POV towards the topic, a TBAN could also be considered. petrarchan47tc 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As wondrously premature, and use of a draconian solution, which rarely actually works. A POV is not a "disqualification" but simply an indication that the person must assiduously work towards compromise and accept that others have differing POVs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support If we can get rid of this problem, I will Die happy, This user has committed Personal Attacks against a single target, just remove contact with that target. Boom, done - Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to avoid interacting with Petrarchan47. But as a practical matter, it is impossible to edit Edward Snowden without encountering this proprietary, pro-Snowden partisan intent upon, as she wrote above, "implicating" the United States Government. If you could craft an IBAN that did not in effect amount to a topic ban against my editing Wikipedia's bio of Snowden—a TBAN such as Petrarchan47 now openly champions—I'd be the first to endorse it. JohnValeron (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Perhaps you would like a TBAN to be kept away from editors who you commit Personal Attacks on? Maybe we could Implement Both and Get 2 birds with one stone? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Shane Harper 4 Life

User:Shane Harper 4 Life has been adding malicious content, harassed me, and removing/ignoring warnings given. This all started when I reverted the user for adding unreasonable content ([139], [140], [141], [142]) on the Bridgit Mendler article. The user then started an edit war by restoring the unreasonable content. I then gave the user two warnings: (one for edit warring, and another for harassment on my talk page. The user then removed my and prior warnings by other users. After reverting the blanking, the user removed them again and claimed that they were attacks. If this behavior continues and the warnings don't work, I would suggest that an indefinite block from editing altogether and banning from editing Bridgit Mendler-related articles and my talk page will. IPadPerson (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you call those additions 'incoherent content' - they look reasonable on the face of it to me. Could you explain what's wrong with them?

Also, although it might have been better for Shane Harper 4 Life to engage with you on the talk page instead of reverting your revert, I think slapping them with edit warring templates was a bit of an overreaction on your part. Better would have been an attempt to engage them and discuss the edits. Additionally, I certainly don't think their reply to you was 'harassment'. Finally, editors are perfectly entitled to remove warnings from their own talk pages - it's taken as acknowledgement that they've read them.

I would encourage you to discuss the issue with the editor on the article's talk page, and only return to request admin help if that doesn't work. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I left them a message on their talk page pertaining their disruptive behavior on that article and talk pages, and the user had yet to reply. IPadPerson (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, IPadPerson, you have yet to reply to Olaf Davis's question. What on earth is wrong with this and this edit? Clearly edits made in preparation for this edit, which therefore consists of verified content (if the edit was done correctly, of course)? And what's your problem here? I mean, I can think of why I would find it problematic, but you haven't given a reason. And sorry Olaf, but before Shane's revert there was this completely over-the-top, dismissive, and unexplained revert (and Twinkle abuse, I might add--Dennis Brown, what was the status of "pulling Twinkle like it's rollback" again?). No, IPadPerson, it is you who was in the wrong here, and why Davey2010, would roll(back) along with you is a mystery to me. As far as I'm concerned, and I welcome other admins here, both of you are guilty of BITE and of Rollback/Twinkle abuse. I just saw the "warning" you left on their talk page, this one, and--how do I say this diplomatically--have you lost your fucking mind? That is SO unacceptable you should have been blocked for it, and if you can't figure out what you did wrong, from the callous and unexplained revert, to the Twinkle abuse, to the edit warring warning after they reverted your unexplained revert, to a ridiculous and overblown "only warning" for this edit--that's harassment??, to the reinstatement of a warning they'd removed (and Davey2010 did the same thing)--if you can't, I repeat, figure out what you did wrong there then you probably deserve to be blocked for unwarranted warnings, edit warring, incivility, overblown charges, and Twinkle abuse, per BOOMERANG. Want to make this better? Apologize to Shane Harper 4 Life. Seriously, Dennis, how do we pull Twinkle? Drmies (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Without regard to the merits here: To my best knowledge, there isn't a normal way to remove Twinkle. Technically, you could remove it from their *.js pages and then full protect all their *.js pages (ugly kludge but should work). I think the standard way to do it (assuming it isn't covered by WP:Discretionary sanctions) is to propose it as a type of "topic ban", and if it has consensus and they use it again, you block them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Brain spasm, you can't do it that way anymore. You can only do it via a topic ban now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I gave him a warning because 1. I assumed he was spoken too and 2 I thought removing the warnings was disruptive until I remembered it was fine and in all fairness I did self revert & remove the warning. [143] →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure, but didn't you remove it because you thought it was a duplicate? Yes, removing warnings is fine: I would have been much happier if you had undone the revert in the article. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah I wasn't aware I'd reverted incorrectly too, I shall make you happy! :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: @Dennis Brown: - I've apologized to Shane [144] since I clearly didn't show some good faith, 9/10 I do but seems in this case I didn't - No one can be perfect but nonetheless Lesson Learnt . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Davey, I've seen you around and it seems to me you're one of the good ones. I hope you understand why I took issue with the revert (more than with the warning, by the way), and I appreciate what you just said. (And I already reinstated the edit.) Drmies (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I totally understand, I'm not sure why I had reverted but obviously in future I'll be ALOT more careful, Thanks for the kind words means alot, (Damn you beat me to it :) ), →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure why you're apologising to me, Drmies. Yes, I pretty much agree with your assessment. I was a lot milder in my rebuke than I could have been. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Because I disagree with "although it might have been better for Shane Harper 4 Life to engage with you on the talk page instead of reverting your revert", that's all. If the revert had been explained, sure. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Alright, IPadPerson seems no longer interested in this section. Strange! They were all over it at first. Let me tell them, then, that this is a warning. Further abuse of Twinkle, incivility, bullying, and unexplained reverting can be considered a blockable offense. That may seem draconian, but it is important to realize that they already bullied one editor in staying away from an article, and that they apparently do not hesitate bringing someone to the dramah board--though when the tables are turned and the boomerangs start flying, they pretend to not be at home (even though they were active throughout this discussion). A final note on Twinkle--apparently we can't pull Twinkle, and a topic ban for it seems like a lot of work; we'll just consider a block, since such abuse is highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A50000

Last month, I reported A50000 (talk · contribs) here because of his disruption at Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as seen here. Since then, all he has done is make half-assed attempts at arguing with me over the pedantry of my claim that he was edit warring while constantly claiming that his version is correct and that he was not violating WP:CONSENSUS. After his last message, I gave him a warning not to bother me again over this matter. Without my knowing, he edited the archived thread two days ago and today sent me an identical version of the message that he sent me earlier in the month. It is blatantly clear that A50000 is no longer here to work on this project collaboratively. All he has done is gotten into petty disputes on issues regarding communism and socialism and when asked to drop the stick he does not, multiple times. I don't know if this is because he is a WP:SPA, it's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he's a case of WP:NOTHERE, or just a lack of competence. Drmies previously said that he would possibly block him, but because A50000 has not been disruptive in the article space, he saw no need for it at the time. I should not have to deal with this editor coming back once a week to say "why was I wrong" or "it takes two to tango", blatantly ignoring anything I've said to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 28 April/18:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to leave him a warning but I noticed that he did almost the exact same thing to RolandR in March. This continuing harassment of editors combined with persistent edit-warring shows that they have a battleground mentality incompatible with Wikipedia. I'm following up on Drmies' previous suggestion to block indefinitely and implementing it. -- Atama頭 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

March of last year but thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant March of 2013, that would have been a nice little detail to include. -- Atama頭 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

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

---

BLUF: Science.Warrior needs an indef block for repeatedly restoring copyvios and for being remarkably disruptive.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I have been reverting SW for inserting copyrighted material and disrputing other articles, such as removing an AfD template from a nominated page and issuing inappropriate warnings]. Multiple users have tried explaining his actions to him, however, he pays no heed to the advice and continues on his rampage. He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein. The user has also made reference to WP:BEANS, so I'm pretty sure we're not dealing with a new user. Please block; I'm done dealing with him. Ishdarian 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Science.Warrior clearly has earned a block. As Ishdarian notes, he has broken 3RR on two different articles, repeatedly added nonfree images to articles while preposterously claiming to be the copyright owner, and harassed editors who disagree with him - in my case, removing the AFD tag from an article I'd nominated earlier today, then announcing at the top of my talk page that "i will be frequently giving you visits from now onward".[145] The account has only been around a few days, and appears to be a returning editor with an agenda, despite suddenly claiming to be a newbie when attention was drawn to his editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This statement is not true regarding the Goldstein article. "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein."

See info here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Goldstein&action=history After counting using the article history, it appears that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Science Warrior undid revisions two times EACH. Looks like a bit of fuzzy math?

Carriearchdale (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. Ishdarian 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was an allegedly well thought out way to tag team a newer editor, and get him/her to a ani in a jif! What happened to not being bitey to newer editors?

Carriearchdale (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, however, that was not the only reason the editor is here. I'm pretty sure that breaking 3RR is small potatoes compared to the restoration of copyvios. Thanks for assuming good faith, though! Ishdarian 23:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Just ignore "Carrie"; she's a malicious, dishonest troll with a burn against me because I caught her committing gross BLP violations and forced the cleanup of this articles involved; see Rachel Reilly and Talk:Rachel Reilly. Nobody who looks at SW's talk page history and sees the barrage of independent warnings from five different editors will give her nonsense any credence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians. I (user Science.Warrior) am pretty sure that user "ishdarian" & user "hullaballoo" are part of a bigger conspiracy on Wikipedia, So let me answer all the baseless allegations reported by them one by one.

• Inserting copyrighted material The copyrighted material both these users are talking about, are the pictures prepared and uploaded by me using CS6 . When i asked for their help on how to change the license, no help was provided rather both of them vandalized the articles Kurt Goldsteinand Self actualization theory deleting the images from the articles, which are been solely prepared and uploaded by me. So if they both have problem with the copyright material why don't they guide me on how to make valid changes in the license section of the pictures? I really don't know what "3RR" these guys referring to, when i search wiki it shows up this page 3RR, I am a new user and have joined Wikipedia 4 days ago, these users are trying to use "technical buzzwords" to cover their act of their vandalism and personal attacks.

• Reference to Wp:beans Well i am new here but i am a fast learner, as user-"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" stated "The account has only been around a few days and appears to be a returning editor with an agenda, despite suddenly claiming to be a newbie when attention was drawn to his editing" I take this as a compliment, that he is so impressed by my contribution to Wikipedia in few days that he thinks i am a returning editor. Yes i have a agenda and anyone can read that on my user page.

• Removing the AFD tag I think this was a pre-planned conspiracy setup by both the user "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian". They reverted my edits endless times on the article Kurt Goldstein, self actualization theory and user-"Ishadharin" 8 times in a row reverted the link of the article self actualization theory to the article self actualization, The primary motive of writing the article self actualization theory by me was because the article self actualization does not meet the quality standard of Wikipedia and was tagged with 3 "Bad article" tags, if i would have edited the article i would have to delete the previous contributions of other contributors, so i rather decided to write a new article and let other editors decide what can be done, This information can be seen on the talk page of the article self actualization, where users have complaints about the quality of the article. So after their constant attacks i also tried to do the same & fell in their trap, i am a new user 4 days old & i don't know much of technicality of Wikipedia right now.

• Beside this both the users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" have started personal attacks on the articles i was or working on for past few days, I constantly asked for their guidance on their talk pages but they don't reply or provide any guidance and rather keep on vandalizing the articles i am working on, they have made 28 edits in past 5 hours to the articles i have corrected recently.

• But i would really respect both these users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" if they are really concerned about the authenticity and quality of material on Wikipedia as they claim, but i rather feel they are trying to establish their unnecessary authority on Wikipedia by forcing other editors and new editors to comply on what they feel is right.

• Both the users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" use a very strong and rough abusive language on "edit summary" of articles and on other users talk pages, for eg. "Just ignore "Carrie"; she's a malicious, dishonest troll" which user-"Ishdarian" used to refer to user-"Carriearchdale" on his above comments publicly, You can imagine what kind of language he would be using on other user talk pages. I strongly feel both these users are trying to establish their unnecessary authority on Wikipedia by their conspiracy tactics and should be reminded that this would not be tolerated here. Science.Warrior (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment-Just to let you and everyone else know Science.Warrior this one user h that was posting back and forth with you on Monday is himself dishonest, instigating, and an inciting troll that picks out victims on wikipedia just to give a hard time to said victims. It appears as if the other user I allegedly went in tandem, or tag team mode with h to try to incite you to be reverting h's ridiculous and vandalizing changes to the articles that you were improving.

I read where h typed a very demeaning message to you when you were trying to discuss with him the issues on his talk page. And then h erased all the banter between you and him on his talk page by reverting or erasing somehow perhaps to hide the evidence of his uncivil and threatening behavior towards you. see WP:CIVIL

I saved this one post he made to you:

"NFCC issues

In response to your question, poorly placed as it may have been, on my talk page, you badly need to become familiar with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. You've also just broken WP:3RR on the Goldstein article, so unless you immediately revert yourself you're going to get a break from editing in which to do so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"[146] - one instance see WP:CIVIL

That one reads a bit like a threat and or personal attack to me, as well as possibly violating WP:CIVIL.

I have been a member of wikipedia since 2007. I would like to welcome you Science.Warrior to wikipedia. If you have any questions about wikipedia, or I can help you you in anyway with some of the questions and wiki technical type stuff please do not hesitate to contact me @ my talk page. I hope you and everyone have a most citational and perfect Tuesday! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Science.Warrior: "been solely prepared and uploaded by me" So you're saying you met Kurt Goldstein and Abraham Maslow and took these photos? And this happened when? These images don't particularly look like they were taken close to the age these people passed away, particularly for Kurt Goldstein. So you took the photos or at least the Kurt Goldstein one 70 or more years ago perhaps?

Also please see WP:Vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the other editors here, their actions clearly aren't vandalism and calling it such seriously discredits any valid point you may have.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you're a new user, this still doesn't explain why you removed the AFD template which clearly tells you not to remove it. Removing the template doesn't of course change the fact the article is at AFD which is why it was later fixed by a bot, and as others have said you're reasoning didn't even make sense (you apparently didn't read the tag properly, it sounds like you didn't even read the article properly). I don't know what nonsense you're talking about a preplanned conspiracy either as you had not edited the article Master Liam Lockran or its talkpage until you removed the template, unless you're saying you're an alternative account of User:Sutorta. How was anyone to know you would randomly stalk HW and remove an AFD tag they added to an unrelated article, apparently without reading much at all. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came across this editor yesterday, after seeing "unnecessary vandalism by nominating for AFD, this is valid article, with strong theory and history." as an edit summary something felt really strange about this. Note that their way with language seems to dramatically decline over time, which to me seems like they're trying to appear like a newer user. [147] [148] [149]

While Science.Warrior is claiming that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Ishdarian have something against them, SW has been following the users contributions and reverting perfectly valid edits as "vandalism" [150] [151] [152] I'm unsure whether SW is a new user or just a new account, but to me it seems like they're WP:NOTHERE.

--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - ok now i (user Science.Warrior) can connect the missing dots to this conspiracy, after reverting the edits by User-"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and "User:Ishdarian". User-"Lewis Hulbert" was the one to put the speedy delete tag on the images i uploaded, i tried to remove the unnecessary tag but user-"Nil Einne" came and tagged it again, following this i decided to write on user-"Nil Einne" talk page on how the improvements can be made, but before that can be done, to my surprise i see both of these users have already commented here. Are you guys working in a team or what?

• "been solely prepared by me" means made on Adobe CS6 platform, which i stated above, if you are not aware of the of what CS6 can do please ask your friend Google and I am really confused why are allegations of "returning editor", "old user with new account" cited? am i that good learning things, i even didn't knew that. The best part that makes me laugh is, I am a "returning editor" and writing articles and uploading photos related to "psychology" and "business theories", the allegations would look good if i would be writing promotional contents or extremist articles on religion and countries.
• right now i am dead sure this team is a part of some "conspiracy planning" or the "teenage superiority war games". "Listen up guys, i am devoting my precious time to provide quality contribution to Wikipedia, if you ask why? you can find the answer of my user page. So if you are really concerned about Wikipedia content quality and governance like you show, try to help me out rather bombarding me with personal attacks and wasting my time." Science.Warrior (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're either blatantly lying or just confused. I haven't tagged any of your images for speedy deletion either here or on Wikimedia Commons. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I haven't been involved in this at all prior to the earlier comment on this discussion. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Science.Warrior for a week. I was tempted to block the editor indefinitely, but because they are new I cut them a bit of slack. This editor is convinced that the warnings they've received are illegitimate and a small group of editors have a conspiracy against them. My hope is that a block will snap them out of that mindset. If not, an indefinite block will probably be needed to prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(multiple EC) Look I doubt anyone really gives a damn what you did or did not do in CS6 which was why I didn't mention it earlier. CS6 cannot magically construct images out of thin air. And it's clear these are photos, not paintings you drew from memory or your imagination or whatever.

These photos were clearly not taken by you therefore they cannot be your own work, whatever you may or may not have done with them in CS6. To claim they "solely prepared"" by you, let alone that they were your own work, was quite misleading when the core creative work, that of taking the photographs, was clearly NOT your work. Your apparent inability to understand this doesn't bode well.

New editors do sometimes get confused with copyright matters. But as copyright is serious they should read and think about what they are doing and be willing to listen and defer to others and stop any possibly problematic copyright related editing until and unless they properly understand the problems with their editing (seeking help when needed) and are unlikely to repeat such problems. You've shown none of that. While not technically a wikipedia issue, removing the speedy deletion tags not once but twice on commons without converting it in to a normal deletion was clearly not acceptable there. Nor are any reversions of copyright violation removals you're made here.

Incidentally the tags were added in commons by Commons:User:The Big Bad Wolfowitz who I presume is an alternative account for HW. Lewis Hulbert is correct they were not involved. So again, you've failed to properly read and check before doing stuff (in this case accusing someone). All this might be slightly tolerable were it not for your continual shrill accusations when you appear to be mostly in the wrong (and most of your accusations make little sense), inability or unwillingness to understand what you're being told, and general unpleasant attitude that I've seen here and elsewhere.

P.S. Since Kurt Goldstein is deceased and we possibly have no image of them, it's possible a WP:NFCC claim could be made for some image. That would of course need to be done here, not on commons and particularly given his age, perhaps a check to see if any public domain images exist (I mean it's possible the image you're trying to upload is in the public domain, we just don't have anywhere enough info to say that it is). People could have, and probably would have, discussed this with you if you'd approached it in a more resonable manner rather than the way you did.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• A week-long block for the WP:C issues demonstrated herein is unfortunately inadequate. Per the precautionary principle, I've changed the block to indefinite until such time that Science.Warrior can demonstrate that they understand the issues at hand. Anything else puts both them and Wikipedia at risk. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale

Good. Now what should be done about user:Carriearchdale? Hr contributions to this thread have been far from helpful (rather the complete opposite), and from reading coments here, it seems she has displayed problematic behaviour for a long time. She e.g. stated here that one of HW's statements was not true and that SW only reverted twice: however, looking at the edit history she linked[153], it is very obvious that Science Warrior reverted four times in the span of less than two hours (20.07, 20.27, 20.38 and 21.22). Later comments in the same discussion include things like "h's ridiculous and vandalizing changes to the articles that you were improving." (Hullabaloo removed a copyvio, hardly vandalizing). Her involvement here seems to be rataliation for Hullabaloo's edits at Ink Master (season 4)

Carriearchdale was editing that article, and removed the GOCE tag at 18.45.[154], making her last edit at 19.29[155]. 6 Hours later, Hullabaloo edited the article[156], and the immediate reaction from Carrie was to readd the GOCE tag[157]. Hullabaloo ten makes ten edits to the article, which were all at once reverted by Carriearchdale because "GOCE tag is in place"[158] (no edits were made on the article by Carriearchdale between placing the GOCE tag and reverting Hullabaloo). More back-and-forths followed. Apparently they have a longer history, but that doesn't give her an excuse to insert herself into a dispute and try to derail it by spouting incorrect statements and claming that Hullabaloo made personal attacks (see above, no personal attack exists in the example she gives). Fram (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Post-closing comments

@TParis: um, what? "As for Carriearchdale, we don't block people for disagreeing with Fram." I have never encountered Carriearchdale, and have no "disagreements" with her. As an editor uninvolved with either party or article in this dispute, I noticed someone (Carriearchdale) coming here seemingly to get someone she has problems with (Hullabaloo) into trouble, and to achieve that she makes some completely incorrect claims here. I don't believe such behaviour should be ignored. But I don't want her blocked for disagreeing with me, please show me where she disagreed with me (or where I asked for a block for that matter, ANI can be used for more than just blocks) before making such statements, and please don't close discussions with such out-of-the-blue misinformed claims. Fram (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

For starters this comment from above: "Fram's points that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement.

If you read here [159]] you will see this statement: "She e.g. stated here that one of HW's statements was not true" In fact at this place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Carriearchdale]

This is what I said: "Comment - This statement is not true regarding the Goldstein article. "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein.""

This is the person who made the statement (still again same diff (click anyone you like)[160]] "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein. The user has also made reference to WP:BEANS, so I'm pretty sure we're not dealing with a new user. Please block; I'm done dealing with him. Ishdarian 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

Now then let us all scroll back up here to this comment: "The only "retaliation" was for someone coming to an unrelated ANI thread not to give useful opinions and perspective, but to get an opponent into trouble, and by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable. [[User:Fram|Fram]"

• The only person/user that I know for certain made one and or more incorrect and misleading statements is named. fram Fram.

• To quote fram from scrolling up[161]}

• "by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable."

• "misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement."fram

Fram' trys to point out that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement."

It all just looks like the cat calling the kettle black!!!

pot calling the kettle black This is a phrase that states that the person you are talking to is calling you something that they themselves are (and generally in abundance).[1] from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pot%20calling%20the%20kettle%20black

Well I hope you all had a ribbony May Day. They even celebrated in Moscow today, the first time since the Soviet era! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If there was a point to this post you have now made in at least three discussions (here, my talk, TParis talk), it would be useful if you expressed it somewhat coherently. You are supposed to be a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, please bring these skills with you and give us a message we can understand without needing to decipher it. Fram (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive, authoritarian editor

I am reporting an editor (User:Winkelvi) who has, over the past year, been a huge disruption to the development of a series of articles. The user refuses to work with other users and is quick to attack those who try to resolve disputes via Request For Comments. The user has used abusive language and has made editing these pages a true hassle. The user has not added any material to the pages over the past year but denies being a disruption. This user's apparent only purpose with these pages is to prevent the addition of new content and rewrite sentences, often times distorting the intended meaning of the sentences and introducing grammatical errors. Nearly all content added to the articles on Template:Sound of Contact since their creation has been subject to a veto attempt by User:Winkelvi. Even the very creation of the Dimensionaut article was argued against by User:Winkelvi. The user has dismissed WP:CONSENSUS in the past and expressed hostility towards other editors, for example here: [162]. When talks are taken to that user's talk page, the comments are swiftly deleted; i.e. here [163]. Every discussion we seem to have escalates into this user accusing myself or, in one case, User:Spanglej, of various issues, often in the most hypocritical manner. Here is another instance of another editor speaking about User:Winkelvi's hostility: [164]. Many discussions have been had, and there has been no resolution. The current discussion prompting this notice is: [165]

That entire page (in addition to my talk page, and the talk pages of the affiliated articles), meanwhile, is evidence of that user's repeated attempts to dispute and block every addition made to this article and its related articles. This user has been reported on this noticeboard twice already for similar conduct:

First report: (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=561690390#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_No_action.29).

Second report: (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=565703341#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_Warned.29).

This user has only done harm to the process of developing these articles over the past year. I request a ban on this user (User:Winkelvi) from editing the articles found on Template:Sound of Contact in addition to any new affiliated articles that may be added to that template in the future, as the user appears to have an interest in preventing these articles from growing, and refuses to collaborate with others involved. The user has in the past week alone been involved in numerous incidents attempting to block content from being added:[166], [167] (a three-month process to add a paragraph of content). As someone who is undoubtedly frustrated with this and who appears to be one of the only editors working on these articles, this has made me very weary of having to face this obstacle with every revision. Every attempt to add to the construction of the page is a lengthy, difficult process involving the same editor.Vuzor (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you expect admins to do? Howunusual (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My request is a WP:TBAN (a topic ban) as specified here [168] and here [169]. I don't know where else on Wikipedia that editor participates, so in fairness to that editor I think this is a possible solution. Vuzor (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed to anyone involved in a topic proposing sanctions on other editors. If you have a legitimate complaint, lay it out and let uninvolved editors develop suitable sanctions.--v/r - TP 01:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I apologize; this has happened numerous times, so I am quite frustrated. I will wait for recommendations. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have much to say in response other than Vuzor, in my assessment, simply doesn't like having his prose and content changed or challenged. Strangely, just a few days ago he placed an apology on my talk page for past disagreements we'd had and said he appreciated my help. He further stated he hoped there were no hard feelings between us. Then only a few days later, we end up here and everything he said about no hard feelings is history. It is, however, a good example of his passive-aggressive communication style with me over the last year. So passive-aggressive that I have seriously wondered if Vuzor isn't a User Name for two people, because he can be complimentary and cooperative one minute then aggressive, angry, uncooperative and unreasonable the next. My issues with Vuzor's editing have been that he has a tendency to overwrite content, use lofty language, and add extraneous detail and wording. He also has consistently added content that makes articles about music, musicians, and bands read like fan sites. After being angered that I copy edited content he added at Dimensionaut, he opened an RfC at the article talk page where he promptly began to chastise me and bring up old issues from a year back where he perceives I wronged him. The premise of the RfC he opened was supposed to be about content. He chose to abandon that premise from the jump and, instead, began personally attacking and making the RfC about me. Numerous times I reminded him that the RfC was about content and edits, not editors, and asked him to stop. He refused (as evidenced by his comments there). That RfC is still open, by the way. Would coming here without closing the RfC be considered forum shopping? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You dropped a link right in the middle of my report here. I've since fixed that. Diff of that can be found here: [170]. A little bit of proofreading may have prevented it. I don't believe there is more to say from me in regards to your comments here. My initial report here, I feel, is itself a response to the text above. User:Winkelvi aimed accusations from the very beginning of that RfC.Vuzor (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look at the history to see who wrote it, but the Sound of Contact article looks awfully promotional to me (and why is there a navigation template associated with a band whose debut album was in May 2013?). Does the name Winkelvi have anything to do with the Winklevii duo? If not, there is a potential for confusion here. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The promotional tone to Vuzor's editing has been my major concern since he started working on the Sound of Contact article as well as the associated articles. I also asked why there was a navigation template for such a new band, Vuzor threw a tantrum over my questioning of that and I decided to let it go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now this is an outright lie. The only incidents involving the template involved you removing it from member Dave Kerzner's page, citing "the page is about Kerzner, not Sound of Contact" (see here: [171], [172], discussion on talk page: [173]) and then attempting to change the name of one of the tours on the template to something that did not exist (see here: [174]). When member Dave Kerzner left the band, you removed the template from the page again; I added it back as he was clearly on the template and was important to the band's history. You gave no response. (see: [175]). There was absolutely no conversation or even an issue about the template's existence, so don't lie about it.Vuzor (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is this alleged lie in my response? You said it yourself: I gave no respnse. That lack of response was me letting it go, as I stated. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your response above: "I also asked why there was a navigation template for such a new band, Vuzor threw a tantrum over my questioning of that and I decided to let it go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)"... That never happened. The entire "incident" you speak of never occurred. Your statement here at 18:51, 29 April 2014 contains a significant lie.Vuzor (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could have that incident confused with the all of the other dramatic tantrums you've thrown over me copy editing your content inclusions and removal of blatantly promotional and fan cruft content at Sound of Contact and its associated articles. Nonetheless, my lack of response was simply me moving on and letting it go, as I said, and my recollection remains that you threw a tantrum. There is no intentional "lie" being told. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you know what you're talking about. Don't just loosely throw accusations, particularly about incidents that never occurred.Vuzor (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I always thought "Winkelvi" was "Winkel the 6th". But I don't see anything problematic about the username, there's a notable difference between "Winkelvi" and "Winklevii". -- Atama頭 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also comment on the Sound of Contact article. Winkelvi did not originally create it, but has done a lot of work on it, including removing a large amount of promotional and/or unsourced information over the article's history. Perhaps it needs improvement but it could be worse than it is. -- Atama頭 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I must note that User:Spanglej, a more experienced editor than User:Winkelvi or I, oversaw the initial development of this series of articles. In the case of the article Dimensionaut, administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee also oversaw the intial stages of the article. In an early incident involving the article, User:Winkelvi flagged the article for WP:CSD (speedy deletion); administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee (his user page at the time here: [176]) removed the flag, citing that User:Winkelvi's criteria were not valid. User:Winkelvi undid User:Boing! said Zebedee's revision. Administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee then told User:Winkelvi: "When a speedy deletion request has been declined, it must not be put back - go for WP:AFD if you think it needs deletion." This can be seen here: [177], [178]. To quell this controversy, User:Boing! said Zebedee and I decided to move the page's development to my user sandbox: [179]. Throughout the article's development, User:Boing! said Zebedee vetoed several of User:Winkelvi's revisions: [180], [181]. As a measure of WP:GOODFAITH and per User:Boing! said Zebedee's suggestion, I asked for reviews of the page before User:Boing! said Zebedee moved the page to Dimensionaut: [182]. These articles were created with the supervision of more experienced editors.

As cited in the initial report here, User:Spanglej was later attacked by User:Winkelvi: [183].

"Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"

In another instance [184]:

"Span, your comments started out by quoting me, not by addressing the article. That says you were more interested in me than giving constructive criticism to anything else on this talk page. Claiming I'm "hounding" (which you've disguised by saying "ongoing hostility" instead) is complete bullshit. If the nature of the model is founded on trust, then Vuzor has damaged that trust over and over with the "community". But please, do continue to enable him and send the message that he's justified and the victim here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"

Vuzor (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanglej wasn't overseeing anything. She was there just like I was, just like Vuzor was. Boing wasn't overseeing anything, either. He was just there like the rest of us. As far as the speedy deletion issue, I have no idea why it's being brought up, why Vuzor thinks it has any bearing on anything. It was a simple misunderstanding on my part regarding procedure, nothing more. Boing didn't have an issue with it, we worked it out immediately, that was all there was to it. And just for the record and complete disclosure: that article written by Vuzor ended up being deleted because it was about a music album by Sound of Contact that had not yet been released (the article was put up again about a month later). Interesting how Vuzor left that out while retelling his version of the drama. But, Vuzor is portraying it all dramatically for what purpose? And who cares if Boing "vetoed" several of my revisions? That's what cooperative editing is about. There was no "supervision" or oversight occurring as Vuzor claims. His need to re-hash stuff that's nearly a year old is puzzling to me, especially when you consider he left the following on my talk page ten days ago: "Hi, Winkelvi. I apologize for some of the past disagreements we've had, and I'd very much like to say I value your opinion and appreciate your help. Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us." found here: [185] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Boing's vetoing of your revisions has everything to do with your approach to these articles. Spanglej's attempt to mediate (as cited in [250]) was met with your hostile response. When I spoke to you regarding how we can collaborate with one another and work things out, you responded (see here: [186]):

"Your continual lecturing is truly tedious and boring. I'm sure you will now cite AGF and CIVIL, but I really don't care. Please move on. Again, have a nice day (and please walk away from the horse that's now stinking and becoming a fly-farm). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)"

And here is another incident in which User:Winkelvi refused to work with User:Spanglej and I (see: [187]):

You have just threatened me with the three-revert rule on my talk page, Winkelvi. I count five reverts from you within the past twenty-four hours, reverting the edits of multiple editors. That's almost twice the violation. You've already broken the rule and tried to control the way the page is being edited, reverting not only my edits by Spanglej's. Your hypocrisy and authoritarian approach continue to amaze me. If I were to revert your edit myself, I would be breaking the three-edit rule, but considering you have consciously broken that rule and almost doubled it, I am reporting this; you had the presence of mind to have that link while reverting my edits and had already broken the rule; while we could have waited for a fourth user to make a decision (after all, two users disagreeing with you isn't enough) so you wouldn't have edited a fifth time, you edited anyway, consciously challenging the rule a fifth time just moments before you had the nerve to threaten me with a hypocritical three-revert warning. Vuzor (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe we are even having this conversation, Winkelvi. A band release an album and then immediately go on tour and you are disputing that the album and the tour are related. In no way are the details of a tour promotional puff. You'd be hard pressed to find an article about any major band or album that doesn't mention its tour. True Blue (Madonna album) (GA), I Am... Sasha Fierce (GA), Achtung Baby (FA), OK Computer (FA), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (GA), (What's the Story) Morning Glory? (GA), Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (GA). I think you have somehow got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia editing. It's supposed to be collaborative, mutually supportive, fun and consensus-based. As the admin said on your page: " I don't see anywhere that you got consensus for this change." You wrote on my page "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." Consensus-based collaboration is not bullshit, the foundation of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals". It's not a figment of my imagination. Civility and respect for other editors is also one of the five pillars of the community. Span (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a crap what you personally believe, look at the band's own website and you will see that the tour isn't for promoting the album. There are scores of other bands who will be performing, and there is nothing on their website that states it is an album promoting tour. NOTHING. Everything Vuzor has come up with to make that conclusion is based on assumption, original research, and synthesis. Those are the facts. Your personal opinion of me or anything else is irrellevant. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)''

These are further examples of User:Winkelvi's conduct. Here is an instance of User:Winkelvi removing acceptable sources, only to have them replaced by a more experienced editor (see: [188], [189]. And here is User:Spanglej specifically advising User:Winkelvi and I that primary sources are acceptable, and clearly supervising the process (see: [190]).Vuzor (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is not only borderline forum-shopping with this report, he's now canvassing for it: [191], [192]. I still fail to see and understand where Vuzor thinks his walls of text and examples are leading us. Can you say "stale" in regard to all of these things, nearly a year old? Whatever might be done by an administrator in regard to Vuzor's year-old butt-hurt over all of this ancient history would be punitive, not preventative at this point. Someone asked him yesterday right after he filed this report: what do you want administrators to do? I think it's still a valid question. Valid, because it seems clear (to me, at least) that Vuzor needs vindication, he needs me to be "punished", in spite of the message he left me 10 days ago that said he is sorry for our past disagreements, values my opinion, appreciates my help, and hopes there are no hard feelings between us. At this point, I'm pretty much done with responding to the drama Vuzor is putting up here because none of it seems to have any point that would serve the community positively. I have to wonder how much longer it will go on. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:AN/I, as the two users have both been named in this thread, I believed it was only right to notify them that they have been discussed here. There is no expectation from me for them to participate. It was only a gesture of good will so as not to speak of incidents involving them without their knowledge (in my general opinion, speaking behind the backs of others is often wrong to do, and in this case there is no reason to withhold that knowledge from them).

My message to you at 07:46 on April 19, 2014 was a gesture of good will in hopes that you would become more willing to work together and move beyond our past differences (see: [193]). I provided an apology when I did not need to (and perhaps foolishly so). It was an act of WP:DGF ("encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith"). The fact you have cited that now here for the complete opposite purpose is disappointing.Vuzor (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is correct, notifying someone neutrally (with a template) when they've been mentioned on ANI is not canvassing. There is no violation, if anything it's polite to do so. -- Atama頭 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, Atama. That's not how I read the noticeboard notification policy nor policy on canvassing, but I'll take your word for it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Update (1 May 2014): It appears User:Winkelvi removed an entire section of content on Simon Collins that was recently approved in a Request for Comment session. The edit history can be seen here: [194]. One of the revisions can be seen here: [195]. All of the content in question was approved in an RfC on that article's talk page last month (see: [196]). This goes completely against the consensus reached in the RfC. This user even added a "citation needed" template when no such template was required. This is unacceptable behavior and could perhaps be considered vandalism at this point.Vuzor (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi has now reverted my reversion of that user's vandalism (see: [197]). The comment that user has left is: "Reverted 2 edits by Vuzor (talk): No, the content I removed wasn't "approved" and consensus can change. (TW))" This is ridiculous, considering the content was approved. Consensus has not changed, so the excuse that "consensus can change" is complete nonsense. This has become ridiculous. I have asked in my comment that User:Winkelvi explain his or her reasoning for this, and I have warned the user not to break WP:3RR. If the user breaks this rule, I will open a case in the Edit Warring noticeboard as this appears as that would suggest a very active dispute happening. This type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable.Vuzor (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A "whole section of content" was not removed. A portion of irrelevant and gossipy, tabloid-like content was removed. It was not recently "approved", an editor thought it was fine months ago. Consensus changes, and what I removed is most definitely not pertinent to Collins', but more pertinent to his father, and should not be in the Simon Collins article. The other portions edited and taken out of the article were copyedited and removed due to irrelevance, lofty language, over-stating, and un-encyclopedic material. Some of it was definite puffery, bordering on peacocking. In no way are my edits to this article (or any article I edit) "vandalism". Vuzor, however, is now edit warring and has twice reverted every single edit wholesale that I made at the article over the last hour.[198] I have placed and edit warring warning template on his talk page: [199] He has reverted a total of three times at the article: (1) [200]; (2) [201]; (3) [202]. Vuzor, Atama stated a few days ago that I had removed a lot of promotional content from Sound of Contact, that's what I did with Simon Collins tonight, as well. An IP user stated the same. No one other than you has been anxious to do anything to this report over three days now. That should send a message to you about anyone caring about this report. And frankly, I'm surprised you decided to exhibit edit warring behavior in such a big way at the Collins article while this report is still here. But, edit war you did, and you can't take it back now. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Forum Shopping Vuzor is now most certainly forum shopping. He just filed a frivilous 3RR on me. I only reverted once, as I stated above, he reverted three times. 3RR report here: [203] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What you state to be "puffery" has, in every case cited here, been deemed by others to be not puffery. Editors User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Spanglej and others have reverted your edits for that reason. There can be other opinions than yours, which is the reason for the RfC. Consensus ruled against that opinion. Performing a bulk removal of that content after the decision was made is vandalism. The discussion in the RfC pertaining to this content is as follows:

"Comment. On a first pass view my take is that most of it should be used, perhaps reworked a bit. A good article would include items that arguably can be seen as trivial by others. Certainly items tied to his life as a music performer is relevant. The lawsuit statement should be aligned with a follow-up as to what happened with it, dismissed, settled, etc. Early life sections give readers buy in so that can understand where a notable person came from. I don't particularly care what schools someone went to but Wikipedia readers apparently do. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I think the following tells the story: WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I don't like one sentence leads, especially for an online encyclopedia. There should be a brief mention in the lead for each section in the main body of the article. Also, I recently went through a very trying ordeal because I changed the lead of a BLP to read, British-born. I was called a racist and a bigot. Go figure. Atsme ☯ talk 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment purely looking at the version linked above and nothing else here (including preceding comments) I would recommend losing the lost court battle and associated information. Actually that's the only part, everything else seemed relevant to the biography. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comnent. Thank you for your input. I have reworked the court battle information as Sportfan5000 suggested; please comment if it still does not fit with the article. The lead is something that should be addressed, and unless somebody else gets to it first I'll hopefully have that written as well. Feedback is always welcome. Thanks again. Vuzor (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC) "

"Consensus can change" is not an excuse. It has not. Your second edit to that page today, meanwhile, was a bulk removal of that content. You did not even participate in that discussion after these comments were made nor did you respond to my last comment on that RfC. Reverting all of it without any discussion goes against consensus and goes against the collaborative processes supported by this community. Vuzor (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You overwrote a portion of my last comment here? [204] Vuzor (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not intentionally. It was likely due to an edit conflict. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi has been reported here as a result of the current edit warring conflict: [205].

• Here's a suggestion - how about the two of you just shut up for a bit if you want someone to actually spend some time looking at this? The longer you go on arguing between yourselves here, the more it's turning into a TLDR wall of text that fewer and fewer people are likely to even bother reading. (And before anyone asks, I don't do this kind of stuff any more so I will not be looking into it or offering any opinions) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• I just closed the AN3 report with no violation. It was easy, since the board is for reporting 3RR (or 1RR) violations, and per your own admission there were only 2 reverts. For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors).

Boing! said Zebedee was correct, you need to stop sniping at each other. This boils down to a content dispute and should be handled as such. This should be hashed out on the discussion page of the article if possible. There was an RfC, and while I see there was no formal closure (the template expired and was removed by a bot) the comments should definitely be taken into account when determining a consensus. If you can't come to a decision calmly between the two of you, you should take this to WP:DRN. I can't say, however, that any solid consensus was ever hashed out on the talk page of the article; a few editors did provide input but there was nothing actually agreed to. So I can't say that either of you is violating consensus with your actions. But you need to stop attacking each other over this. -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to sew this up, Atama. Right away after this report was filed I knew the reporting editor was likely to go overboard and inundate the report with examples, old beefs, and walls of text. My initial response was intended to be my only response. That said, the more Vuzor put up that was exaggeration and over-dramatization with things uncomplimentary to him conveniently left out, the more I realized I would be forced to put up some kind of response. This is due to having seen many noticeboard complaints and issues go horribly bad for the accused when administrators didn't look deep enough into what was being claimed to verify it's validity.

I have no issue working with Vuzor if he actually tries to work with me. But, typically, his problem at the articles he works on is about not truly listening to others who have ideas or vision for articles that differ from his own. He seems to truly hate having his lengthy and over-written, promotional prose copy edited, changed completely, or removed. He seems to get emotionally tied to his pet articles - and every article he edits becomes a pet article. Looking at his edit history, you can see that he almost fixates on types of articles or a particular article and its associated articles. Everything becomes a battle with him. He makes editing a chore rather than a cooperative effort. There's a reason why no one comments on his RfCs and noticeboard reports. I'll leave it to you to conclude why. As far as the 3RR report he filed, his reverts were obviously WP:IDLI and out of anger. Rather than just reverting content the previous RfC was about, he reverted everything I had copy edited in one sweep. Not once, but twice. The fact remains that what he reverted back was edit warring behavior, in spite of the decision made at the 3RR noticeboard. Further, he wants me punished and he wants me out of his way, precisely why he immediately asked for a topic ban at the top of this report.

I want to work with him, but he makes it nearly impossible with his rigid interpretation of policy and guidelines in addition to his pettifogging, wikilawyering, and his refusal to understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool and fan site for his favorite bands and musicians. Not to mention his inability to allow editors he sees as flawed to change anything he has written. Based on how he escalated each complaint about me over the last few days and keeps lists of perceived wrongs handy, I just don't see him changing or starting to work cooperatively with me at these articles anytime soon. Because he takes removal of content or changes to content he's added personally, things will not change until he stops being emotionally connected to his edits. Until that changes, nothing in Vuzor's editing, cooperative editing, and reverting habits will improve. Even so, I will continue to try to work with him. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Rigid interpretation of guidelines and policy? In fact, it's been the exact opposite. I've been willing to work with you on many occasions; as User:Spanglej noted, you have focused far too much on parts of the MOS you deem non-negotiable (see: [206]): "I can't believe we are even having this conversation, Winkelvi... I think you have somehow got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia editing. It's supposed to be collaborative, mutually supportive, fun and consensus-based. As the admin said on your page: " I don't see anywhere that you got consensus for this change." You wrote on my page "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." Consensus-based collaboration is not bullshit, the foundation of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals". It's not a figment of my imagination. Civility and respect for other editors is also one of the five pillars of the community. Span (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)"

Even here you lightly criticized Atama for saying something you disagreed with: "That's not how I read the noticeboard notification policy nor policy on canvassing, but I'll take your word for it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)"). You have cast aside any apparent desire for compromise or collaboration. Your entire spiel here is an attack on me rather than a proposed solution -- also, you have just done a bulk reversion of the Simon Collins article again, which counts now as three reverts within the past seventeen hours (see: [207], [208], [209]). This is the article you were reported for on the Edit Warring noticeboard earlier today. In fact, more content has been deleted now in bulk than in the original reversion seventeen hours ago. You have actually gutted the entire article at this point; your comment on the talk page insists we negotiate, but it appears we both have opposite stances on this issue. Shall we bring up another RfC or will you complain about it? At this point, there are becoming fewer and fewer solutions because of your unwillingness to reason with other editors.

My proposal to you is that additions be accepted initially unless the edit is clear vandalism. All of the content you have disputed has been deemed fine by others. If you feel so strongly that the content there does not belong or that it is undeniably out of place, call an RfC for its removal. If the content is not adequate enough to remain, hypothetically other editors will agree with your opinion and remove that content. Clearly, most of the content you have disputed has been deemed worthy of being kept in the articles, so unless you feel others will agree with you, it would not be worth removing. This method is founded on compromise, acceptance, fairness, and prompts editors to ask "is this really unacceptable to have on the page" before removing everything that was added. I have proposed this to you before; you have shot it down. Reconsider, as this might be the best solution we have. Preventing every addition and starting edit wars every time is absurd. The content you have disputed has, in every case, been deemed worth keeping by others. It has become a ridiculous process to continually dispute this content with you even after approval of it on RfCs. As of now, you are still edit warring over content that other users have agreed is fine to keep. If you feel the content needs to be removed, then consensus must be reached to remove it. Vuzor (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not edit warring, I'm attempting to compromise by starting a discussion on the talk page and putting back in the good edits I made on the article. Further, it was never two reversions from me to begin with, just one. The latest is only the second, and not for the sake of edit warring, but to restore the good edits I made that you reverted completely without consideration for the article. And, no, there was no "additional material" "erased" from the page as you just claimed at the 3RR noticeboard. Nothing is being sorted out at this noticeboard as you also claimed at 3RR. Other than officially closing this out, it's over with, too, just like at 3RR. A discussion has been started on the article's talk page. Please put on your big boy pants, comment at the article talk page, work toward a solution, and drop the stick, Vuzor. Your battleground mentality is totally fucking annoying and counterproductive. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Atama and I counted two reversions before the one last hour: "For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors)... -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Your initial bulk removal of content I added a few days ago is a reversion, especially considering comments on the RfC supported keeping it there. Your most recent reversion (see: [210] at 20:13, 2 May 2014‎) is the third reversion in a span of seventeen hours, occurring only five hours after the Edit Warring report was closed. I don't have a battleground mentality; I have proposed a solution and am waiting for a response to it. Reverting the article again while we are discussing there here is an instance of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Also, until we have decided on a resolution or an administrator has decided so, this discussion is not over. Unless you are expressing that you are simply unwilling to negotiate, this should be resolved. Otherwise, this time-wasting dispute over every addition will very likely never end. Vuzor (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not what Atama said. He said you came to 3RR with a claim of two reverts and two reverts doesn't equal the three required for the 3RR noticeboard. And there was NEVER a consensus at the article for that particular block of content. ONE editor said to keep it, two others said not to keep it, and no acutal consensus was sought nor agreed upon. Obviously I'm not willing to negotiate since I started a discussion at the article talk page. This time wasting dispute is all on you. You have wasted time and bandwidth here and at 3RR. Stop it and go to the article talk page like Atama suggested. I will no longer discuss this with you here, only at the article talk page like adults and cooperative editors should. As I've said to you previously: grow the fuck up. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotation above begs to differ from your claim that "that is not what Atama said." Atama very clearly stated that your first wholesale deletion of material is considered a reversion. In regards to the content, two editors said to keep material, one spoke about the lead (which I suppose was a general comment on the article and not on the content disclosed in the RfC). Winkelvi, the discussion you have just opened on the talk page ties in with the fact you reverted the content again before doing so. In addition, this discussion on this page is more than just about that particular content but about your conduct and a solution to working together successfully moving forward. You do not provide answers when asked about appropriate content, you do not consider proposed solutions, and you seem very much unwilling to cooperate, negotiate and collaborate. It appears you want absolute authority to veto any additions to these pages. The reason this is on AN/I is because this dispute has been happening over the past year and has not stopped. Every addition is deleted immediately, and once in a while you'll begin to remove material in bulk from pages that had been there for a while. It very much can be considered vandalism. I have proposed a solution to make this easier for all parties going forward. If you can not consider it, we will be running out of options. Vuzor (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is correct. As it stands now, Winklevi is at 3 reverts total, the initial series of edits (these edits) from Winklevi were a revert because they undid (at least partially) these edits by Vuzor that preceded them. Both of you, just stop please. Reverting isn't needed, there is edit history that you can rely on if you want to refer to past versions of the article just use diffs, you don't need to revert article space to the old version). For example, this edit was totally unnecessary, and perpetuated the edit war. One more revert from either side on that article and I'm going to institute an indefinite full protection to force you to come to an agreement (and I will of course lock it onto the wrong version of the article. This is not how we work on articles. -- Atama頭 22:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand how two reversions = three reversions when the first change was an honest edit, but that's neither here nor there. I trust Atama's judgement and assessment and won't challenge it. I agree that Vuzor's wholesale reversion was totally unnecessary, I also agree that it was the reversion that fueled the flame into a bonfire. I have NO issues with trying to work out things at the article, exactly why I started a discussion that Vuzor has yet to participate in. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive, authoritarian editor in Snake articles

I am reporting the editor Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!}. The editor has taken over the Black mamba article, and it has been tedious work to fix erroneous data he added which has been shown to be added by him not in good faith, and one addition which is fabrication of scientific data. Further more he has deleted scientific consensus material from two other articles snakebite, Venomous snake, in order to hide his fraudulent editing in the black mamba article.

He seems to mostly cite from books, thinking nobody will check up on him and then quickly nominates his articles for GA without the reviewer knowing the manipulation of data. gaming the system to lock the articles etc. all in pretense of being an expert.

Basically he's motivation is to make his favorite snake appear more venomous by a huge margin 0.05-0.30. venomous snakes toxicity is commonly compared through subcutaneous injection testing of mice, representing a real bite (as seen in his deletion of the venom list in the two other articles - since his snake is not quoted due to lack of venom potency).

It all started here Talk:Black_mamba#Black_mamba_LD50_quote_is_incorrect. he defended his source quotation by false arguments, in which finally i was able to show directly from his own source that he fraudulently attributed to their quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Multiple times he has been caught misrepresenting citations Talk:Black_mamba#Discussion_2 to promote his POV
• Removing of scientific consensus material of two other articles in order to promote his POV on the black mamba article Talk:Snakebite#RfC:Should_the_List_of_most_venomous_snakes_by_LD50_from_reliable_sources_stay_in_the_article.3F, Talk:Venomous_snake#No_more_.22Top_10_most_venomous_species.22_lists
• Fabrication of scientific data on the black mamba article Talk:Black_mamba#The_hypothetical_debate_is_over

I am opening this Incident request now , because the editor constantly present himself as "Academic" "an expert" etc. and he in not only misrepresenting citation he is fabricating information into them. i find it severely troublesome.

If you find this Incident case to be true, my practical suggestion is to put back the data in the two other articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venomous_snake&oldid=605989121
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339

and to revert the black mamba article back to when it represented clear scientific consensus data

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&oldid=605989081 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Real Issue Here

• Let's start with this IP editor's history. Admin Diannaa wanted to block the above IP editor for a wide range of Wikipedia policy and guideline violations. He almost entirely plagiarized the Inland taipan article. It wasn't "close paraphrasing", but outright plagiarism. Guess who figured that out? I did. Immediately afterwards, this IP editor began a full on assault on my credibility, my integrity, and I would even say he is somewhat obsessed with me due to a deep resentment and bitter feelings because I happened to discover his plagiarism, his complete disregard for any Wikipedia policies as evidenced by his continuous violations of said policies. He has attacked me personally, calling me a "charlatan" and accusing me of "fabricating data". This is a quote regarding this IP user and his recurrent issues with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just the other day, he violated the 3RR rule several times in a single day. His problems are ongoing and aren't going to stop because it is not borne out of concern for any articles integrity or factuality, but his bitter resentment of me and his desire to destroy my work or antagonize me because he perceives me as a hostile person (projective identification) because I found out all the problems he had caused in the inland taipan article, so he is trying to do the same to the article in which I put in most, if not all the work in. That is what it really boils down to, folks. I am trying to be civil, I have even altered the black mamba article in order to compromise, but this has gone in vain as he continues his assault on my person and the article. I have listed the most known LD₅₀ values for the black mamba, which is in line with the neutrality policy (represents viewpoint fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each). I have done that by giving different examples of toxicity (values in the article are from Minton, Spawls & Branch, Ernst & Zug, Brown, and Australian Venom and Toxin Database). The IP user prefers to use only HIS preferences, but that is not appropriate for such an article.

This is an administrator's quote regarding the violations of this IP user:

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to sound arrogant or patronizing, but this IP user (who is confirmed by an admin to use several IP addresses, and likely has an account on Wikipedia) is definitely an amateur because he shows a gross lack of the very basic concepts and knowledge of snake venom, venom variability, toxinology, venom composition (and the interactions between these components that can make a venom which, for example, tests as a 4 mg/kg (LD50) on mice, be particularly deadly to humans causing severe envenomation), scientific methodology, limitations to research studies, and other important scientific concepts. I happen to have studied herpetology, more specifically, ophiology at a university level. I'm also a Medical laboratory technologist. So this entire issue is due to one single issue which he seems to be obsessed with and that is LD₅₀ ratings of venomous snakes. This is what its about at the end. This should be of least concern to anyone who has a real interest in science, biology, and herpetology. Debates about which snake is more toxic should be left for kids, or those who lack real scientific curiousity for more pressing and important issues related to snakes and snake venoms. This is a non-issue. Why? Here's why:

• Lists of top ten venomous snakes don't belong in ANY encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. These kinds of lists belong maybe in a children's book. Venom composition is not static. Even within a single individual, it will vary in quantity and relative proportions of components over time. Greater variability in components is seen between individuals of a species, greater still between species. Further, venom continues to evolve, often very rapidly, so there may be wide variations in venom composition and toxicity within a single species, over its geographic range. This is especially true for widely distributed species and may cause problems in antivenom effectiveness. Factors involved in the variation of venom and its toxicity include diet/habit variability, seasonal changes, geographical location, age-dependent variability, gender-dependent/sexual variability, altitude, and the list goes on. Then you've got the research methods used. This can be critical, as some snakes produce many venom components, but eject them sequentially, rather than as a uniform mixture. The immediate fate of the venom after collection is important, particularly in relation to environmental conditions that might denature certain components. The storage of the venom is also vital, and exposure to heat may cause damage to certain toxins. Prolonged storage in liquid form may damage others. Pooled venom may introduce many variabilities, because each pooled batch of venom will contain venom from different specimens, compounding both intra-individual and intra-specific variability. There are many potential variables in such research that may affect comparability and interpretation of results. The choice of test animal may be crucial, because each species may respond differently (including humans). The choice of route is also critical. The standard test of toxicity is the LD₅₀. Mice are most commonly used. The LD₅₀ remains the most universal standard for determining and comparing toxicity of venoms. As an example, the rough scaled snake (Tropidechis carinatus) has a much less potent venom than the tiger snake (Notechis scutatus), on LD₅₀ testing in mice. Yet clinically, the two venoms are virtually identical in the type and severity of effects on envenomed humans. There are many examples just like this across all species. The black mamba is not the most venomous snake species in the world, but it untreated human moratality rates are 100% and produces death in the most rapid time. To compare, the many-banded krait has a more potent venom on mice, but doesn't produce the same devastating effects on humans the way the black mamba does. Many more examples are readily available. Mice aren't humans. Yes, they may give us an idea on toxicity, but they aren't the same as humans.--Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad he brought up the inland taipan article. that was his first attempt in deleting scientific consensus information in order to elevate his favorite snake - the black mamba.

What's more cynical, is he copied my style article writing in many places (sections, lead etc) in the black mamba, after complaining about my style.

He tried his best, even quoting a study showing that the black mamba venom was more toxic to monkeys then the inland taipans in a study. Not knowing that the inland taipan was discovered in australia only one year before the study publication and was not availabale to the scientific community. yet another "show of expertise" by him and misrepresenting citations. As usual only after tedious arguments he conceded to the fact , and erased that fact from the black mamba article.

I was a new editor to wikipedia when i edited the inland taipan article, and thought that citing pasages from sources with references doesn't conflict with copyright. it was a good faith mistake. But this was his way of gaming the system to kill that article which was in his way for his POV pushing in the black mamba article. Most of the information is back on the inland taipan article without making copyright violations, using multiple non conflicting scientific consensus references.

User:DendroNaja loves his original research POV to the point of deleting the mainstream published scientific consensus in other articles, and shamefully fabricating and misrepresenting his own citations. This has to stop (same ip editor)79.180.5.90 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the venom toxicity list. there were two lists originally in the snakebite article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=589136661#Cause

He had no problem with them not being "encyclopedic and for kids", he just killed one list that didn't list the black mamba, and he was itching to declare the black mamba "the fourth most venomous snake in the world" in his lead. So under the pretense of "more accurate citation is done via Saline with Bovine serum Albumin, and not saline alone". he left the other list to stay.

The list he was pushing to stay was found out to be not representing the citation and had nothing to do with Bovine serum albomin (surprise surprise) "First of all the list posted in the article is not the list published in the book. This is the list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3)." quote taken from the talk page

So a new list was made citing both modes from reliable sources (saline, and saline with Bovine serum albumin) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339#Most_venomous which non of them cite the black mamba in their top venomous snakes (for good reason).

As usual when he gets caught with misrepresenting citations, he changes his strategy. now suddenly putting venom lists "are for kids". though the final expanded list is sourced from lists published in peer review articles and academia (references 56,57,58).

Hypocritically, at the time he used this "kids play" in the black mamba article "Based on extensive and most comprehensive toxinological study conducted the toxicities of snake venoms by Ernst & Zug et al (1996), the black mamba is the fourth-most-venomous snake species in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&diff=606120034&oldid=605989489

Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV. 79.180.5.90 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will give a classic example demonstrating this editor M.O when I say "Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV" :

An experienced editor/reviewer opened a WP:Good article reassessment section in the talk page, noting "There's so much that's wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start"

Other editors have agreed and commented as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_mamba#GAR)

User:DendroNaja Modus operandi is this : He bombards with what looks like a very knowledgeable and scholarly text. Here a fine example from that section, responding to one of the editors:

Now to the toxicity/LD50 issue: the black mamba is the 4th most venomous snake species in the world based on the study by Ernst & Zug (1996). That is unquestionable. The toxicity ratings obtained from this study/experiment is considered to be the most important toxicity study on snake venom in the world. This is due to several factors: first, the data that was obtained was based on snake venom that was collected from hundreds of specimens from some species, while for other other species, venom was collected from thousands of specimens from all different regions of a species' geographic range (which was the case for the black mamba - 1,200+ specimens of wild caught black mambas from all localities had their venom extracted). Zug et al. also used Fraction V (bovine serum albumin). This method is known to produce the highest purity precipitate, usually in the range of 98-99%. This precipitate is the dried venom which is then used to determine toxicity. Basically, this means the most accurate toxicity rating is obtained due to the purity of the precipitate. The study conducted by Ernst & Zug was extensive, costly and the scientific methods used had been proven to produce toxicity ratings that were consistent and although variation was still observed (as expected, it was insignificant). They were meticulous and the study is considered to be nearly flawless within the herpetological community. All other methods of determining snake venom toxicity always result in wildly varying toxicities, which is/was never the case with the 1996 study. In addittion, venom is usually collected from only a handful of specimens from each species (usually such experiments will study the toxicity of a very limited number of snake species, unlike the 1996 study). Up until now, there has been no single study that has been as large in scale as the 1996 study.

Except for the fact that Ernst & Zug listed the black mamba fourth on their list - the entire paragraph is completely fabricated. he literally made up EVERYTHING else regarding that list.

It took me some time, but i found Ernst & Zug note regarding their venom list, in their own book. On the columb heading LD50 they have a small star.

This star leads to their note regarding the list (page 120) "also, the LD50 values are mixed data, derivd from different studies using different sites of venom injection (intermascular, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous)". http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=iidDU6TqKqKv4AT_wIDQBg&hl=iw&id=TuY5AQAAIAAJ&dq=Snakes+in+question%3A+the+Smithsonian+answer+book&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=Subcutaneous

Do you get it? Ernst & Zug simply collected info from other studies, and they mixed up all the data which makes it un-citable regarding mode of injection, and if it is Saline alone or saline + Bovine Serum Albumin. Ernt & Zug book "Snakes in Question:the Smithsonian answer Book" is a popular science book: "New titles for a popular audience from SP/SP included Snakes in Question and Bats in Question, part of the Smithsonian Answer Book series. These inviting, easy-to-read books, written by Smithsonian experts, satisfy the curiosity of both adults and children." http://archive.org/stream/annalsofsmithson1997smit/annalsofsmithson1997smit_djvu.txt . I'm starting to believe that User:DendroNaja is a compulsive liar. (same ip editor) 79.177.130.168 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not attracting any administrator attention, because it's basically a content dispute, and admins don't make content decisions. You would be better served trying dispute resolution. WP:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't getting any attention because it's a content dispute, contains walls of text, bickering between the disputants, and a host of other issues that I cover in WP:ANI Advice (I've been spamming this essay on here because I'm fed up with this crap on ANI).--v/r - TP 19:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable data contribution which is argued about indeed should be dealt in dispute resolution. which i have earlier started on those talk pages. The nature of the dispute changed once it was proved that User:DendroNaja is fabricating scientific data (from a cited book, that could not be verified easily as a web link) and also deliberately misrepresenting citations in his arguments, which in turn led to the present corruption of three articles black mamba, Snakebite, venomous snake). This is the core reason i approached the panel of admins here to address. (same ip editor)79.180.139.200 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No administrator will make the call as to whose data is correct. It's not part of what admins do. Please see the information at WP:Dispute resolution, which offers several possible venues to assist in resolving this matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We've had trouble with snake articles before. There is a blocked editor whose name I can't recall right now but maybe a checkuser is in order. Warping content is a serious charge and should be investigated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Update - right, it was Sebastian80 (talk · contribs), also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive - @Sasata:, any comments on the content? and @Drmies: who looked into this previously? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha Casliber, I stopped here before you pinged me. Yes, that was fun. Interesting: fairly new account, black mamba, from Canada, interest in snakies and DYK and GA (6 already? quick learner!). I mean, compare user boxes, even. So please, let someone run CU, and get ready to have a good look at the GAs.

Now, on another note, for all those admins who blah blah TLDNR content dispute and all that jazz--please consider more seriously that where there's smoke there may be fire, and that we should take IP edits on good faith as well. Thank you--and thank you Casliber for looking into this and pinging me. Someone should make you an admin one of these days. :) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the snake content contributed by this editor that I have looked at is problematic. I've noticed a couple of incidents of close paraphrasing/copyvio in Black mamba and Eastern green mamba, and I suspect that more issues will be revealed when I can get to the library and check the print sources (but AGF and all that...). Sasata (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked Sebastian80 on their talk page if they could please stay the hell away from GA in any future reincarnation. They couldn't--see Talk:Black mamba/GA3 (Casliber, you'll be interested in that given Talk:Black mamba/GA2, the delisting). Sasata, the problem with Sebastian is that they think they know shit, like a lot of it, and they don't. Plus, they can't really write--typical biology major, maybe, with a C- in freshman comp. So we have the Dendro-Sebastian problem right now, which CU will deal with shortly I hope, and then we have the bigger problem of GA (pinging HueSatLum here). Is it the case (you know the article better than me) that the article was in better shape when it was reviewed for GA? Do we want to yank that little green cross again, regardless of whether what HueSatLum passed was a valid GA or not? (I don't doubt their good faith, but that's not the issue here.) Or could we revert to the article as it was in an earlier state and still claim, hand on heart, that this is a GA we're looking at?

Sasata, you sound like you know what you're talking about; perhaps you can have a look at their other GAs as well. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

When I passed the article as a GA back in January, it met my standards for GA; since then, I have admittedly not always kept track of major changes to the article. I have been following but not participating in the discussion on the talk page because my knowledge of the scientific matters discussed there is very limited. As it stands, the article would most likely fail GAN due to its instability and potential copyvio. To me, a potential casual reader of the article, the "Venom, envenomation and antivenom" section seems quite long and technical, and I have not yet looked into the alleged copyvio. (For the record: a diff of the article as I passed it versus the current revision) /~huesatlum/ 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You understand why I'm pinging you--not to impugn your GA reviewing; if you can tell me, hand on heart, that the version you passed is a GA, you could consider reverting to that version, and perhaps reinstating whatever positive edits were made by other editors?

Sebastian was in the habit of doing GA reviews also, and getting Black mamba at GA is a long obsession of theirs. In other news, I've been going through some old edits of some old socks (VeronicaPR (talk · contribs) and Thegoodson (talk · contribs) (pretty disgusting appropriation of a Nick Cave classic). What they all have in common, besides sssssnakies, is Temazepam. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've semi'ed that last one for six months then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What can I say? Thank you guys ! Truth has (finally) prevailed. Gosh that was one nasty snake to bag. (same ip editor)79.179.132.166 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Both editors may have a bias. [211] is an exaggerated claim of consensus by IP79* for either edit to the lead [212] or [213], and this is the discussion of that section Talk:Black mamba#GAR. Some edits by IP79* seemed drastic causing alarm, but after examination many of the edits were agreed upon. Still, the specific edits to the lead, which were difficult to follow the changes, were not agreed upon, by the claim of consensus. I think both editors are capable of contributing, but the IP should be more diplomatic and introduce changes (as to the lead) gradually where people can readily distinguish it by looking at the diffs. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sidelight12 This editor is a known Academic Charlatan with a very long history on wikipedia. See for example what one Admin that blocked him in his past reincarnations wrote about him. It is almost word for word the same conclusions i came up with. Unfortunately you were one of the editors he tricked in thinking he is a legit and serious expert. I guarantee you, that now, my edit to the lead will not only not look "extreme", but be welcomed. And you will see the serious pruning of that article once the admins here get to work. I am also at service if needed. (same ip editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.166 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I have blocked the editor indefinitely. A comprehensive interaction report between DendroNaja and previous socks (including socks confirmed by CheckUser) can be seen here. Between that and the eerily-similar user page to Sebastian80, that was more than enough to convince me per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add, that None of User:DendroNaja citations can be considered reliable. we simply can't be sure what he "fixed". i mean that person had no limits. I just had a look a section in the' venomous snake' article. He used my own references which i used in the inland taipan article and he miss-quoted them intentionaly: " Lists or rankings of the world's most venomous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors.[1][2]" This is his manipulation for showing don't trust venom lists (because black mambas are not listed in them..), and you can see an editor (AIRcorn) in the RfC section in the talk page has been convinced by this sentence. But the real sentence is "Lists or rankings of the world's most dangerous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors.[1][2]" and this is off-course true. (numerous factors:Venom potency,disposition,size, human mortality etc) (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys if you would unlock those three articles: black mamba, snakebite, venomous snake (which he got them locked by gaming) and maybe write something in the talk page to clarify the situation to other editors, i am willing to fix the stuff i recognize he corrupted. (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And the Rfcs that i started prior to the ANI on all three articles can be closed by one of you too.79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Only Snakebite was still protected. Go for it. It would be funny if you were someone else's sock and we just gave you the keys to the liquor cabinet--but Materialscientist is probably looking over your shoulder. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so funny. :) . Thank you very much for taking me seriously and addressing this case. (same ip editor)79.176.118.185 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed some of the other pages edited frequently by the user that are not actively being edited much at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And thank you too Cas Liber. You were the first one to roll the ball (I almost lost hope). (same ip editor)79.176.118.185 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

I can vouch for the fraudulent citations by this user, we had a similar incident on Angelina Jolie, which eventually earned them an indefinite block (which was subsequently removed). HelenOnline 09:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey...who locked the liquor cabinet. I need a shot.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: would you mind also unlocking the inland taipan article please. The banned editor also gave me there a false reputation as a "vandal/disruptive" editor, so an admin locked it again. Thank you (same ip editor) 79.178.152.192 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pinging EdJohnston and Diannaa about this. There's a couple of issues in the history and on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for an IP-hopper to participate effectively in dispute resolution. An editor may prefer not to create an account but we should not give complete deference to that if he wants to work on contentious topics. What we need on the snake articles might be a series of RfCs, which will require time and patience. At present there is no RfC at Talk:Inland taipan, but an IP could create one if they wanted. I would not support lifting the semiprotection on Inland taipan, though another admin might do so if they were confident they had consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I gladly yield to you. The IP can always participate via the talk page and RfCs, as you note. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, deletion of sourced content

User:William J. Clark, also known as 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8, 66.81.241.77, and 66.249.173.226, has engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, and deleting of sourced content on Street Artists Program of San Francisco on a continual basis from February 10, 2014[214] to the present[215]. While the article is extensively sourced with reliable sources, Clark claims that these sources are inaccurate and that the truth is with him[216] [217] [218] [219]. Clark has also persisted in adding extensive, extraneous content emphasizing his personal role in the founding of the Street Artists Program[220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] and giving plugs to his friends[228] [229]. In two egregious posts on the talk page on April 2[230] and April 28[231], Clark offered to stop reverting sourced material if a sentence could be reinstated citing his brother's and another friend's involvement in the program.

Several editors[232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] as well as two vandalism patrollers[240] [241] [242] have continually reverted Clark's unsourced and self-aggrandizing edits, citing policy, but he persists in reverting their reversions [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] Several times on the talk page, the vandalism patrollers and others have attempted to explain to Clark applicable policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SELFPROMOTION, and WP:CONSENSUS[251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259], but Clark keeps reverting sourced content that he contends is inaccurate [260]. At this point, I believe a WP:TBAN is in order. I'd also like to note that Clark was editing from 3 different IP addresses before opening his own account on April 10[261], and he may very well turn to another IP address to continue edit warring if his account is blocked. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. If you see any IP edits of this sort, report them here or at my talk page for a WP:DUCK block, and don't forget to ask for an extension of the account's block. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the process, I initially asked for a "block", but I think I meant a WP:TBAN (I corrected my request, above). The user is now only editing under his named account. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that you were asking for anything, per se. All I saw was a lot of evidence saying "this guy has been really disruptive" and asking for admin action, and I thought a block most appropriate. If you actively disagree with the block, I'll be happy to talk about that, and willing to consider reducing or removing the block. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to emphasize User:Yoninah's request that we need some type of page protection for the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. User:William J. Clark is the most disruptive individual that I’ve met on Wikipedia in seven years. He shows no interest in working with Wikipedia’s most basic rules, and only seeks out articles where there is an opportunity to insert his own name (also notice the Sea serpent article). With a false sense of entitlement he consistently ignores the advice of experienced Wiki editors ( User:NeilN, User:Seaphoto, User:K6ka, User:Yoninah ) and repetitively deletes sourced material while attempting to insert unsouced opinions of his own. A quick reading of his words on the article’s Talk Page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco ] reveals what we have been dealing with. IMO, it might make sense to first block William Clark from the article, and if he posts again in the future with more Anonymous IP Addresses, then we should consider a greater blocking mechanism.James Carroll (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I read Yoninah's comments, Clark's only used a few IPs; it would be easier to block them than to protect the page. Am I right, or have I misunderstood something? The only reason I blocked was his actions in the article; I didn't look at most of his edits to the talk page, since the ones I checked were (at worst) annoying but not outright disruptive. Unless he's actively disrupting the talk page, I see no reason to restrict his use of it (aside from times like now, when a block is needed), since we can normally ignore him; do you disagree? Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that permanently blocking the known IP Addresses and William Clark from the article and its talk page might solve the problem, and if he returns under new IP Addresses we should consider more drastic actions. Have you found the time to look at Clark's many disorganized rants within that Talk Page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco ]] ? His verbose, unformatted, and repetitive rants on the Talk Page disrupt the normal flow of discussion, and fatigue sincere attempts from admins like User:k6ka who attempt to familiarize Clark with the basic methods of Wikipedia, only to later find Clark ignoring all suggestions and deleting whatever sourced content he chooses. He has been so persistent over the article's short lifetime that it's impossible to ignore him – by the sheer volume of his rants he has become the dominant voice of the Talk Page. IMO, the law of diminishing returns suggests that this very obsessed individual, who shows no sign of restraint or moderation, is much more of a problem than an asset to this article. To let him remain will only threaten an acceptable DYK article and additionally fatigue and discourage earnest editors from participating at Wikipedia.James Carroll (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not an admin - just a reviewer and a rollbacker. I say that indefinitely blocking Clark's IP address should be used as an absolute last resort. For now, let's try a temporary topic ban first, and then escalate as needed. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Attention might want to be paid to Inquiringmindswanttoknow who displays the same verbosity and desire to give Clark credit that User:William J. Clark does (example).. He stopped editing on March 24th, the Clark account started on April 1st. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the possibility of block evasion, is there anything you think we need to worry about with the older account? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, just potential run of the mill sockpuppetry. I didn't connect the two accounts until now, when I reviewed how I got involved in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, In the interests of providing extensive diffs, I may not have stated the problem clearly. The main problem is not multiple accounts, but disruptive and tendentious editing and edit warring. I first came across this page in my role as a DYK reviewer, and thoroughly copyedited the page on February 23[262] to make sure it complied with policy. Since then, the page has not been able to be developed in a meaningful way due to the constant edit warring, deletion of sourced material, and addition of unsourced material (specifically, anything mentioning Bill Clark) by User:William J. Clark. Moreover, editors and vandalism patrollers are spending an inordinate amount of time explaining policy on the talk page (see talk page thread), after which Clark goes ahead and reverts anything on the page that he doesn't agree with. Clark has a clear conflict of interest on this page, as he was involved in the formation of the Street Artists Program, and is uninterested in complying with policy or editing in a neutral manner. He must be banned from this page and this topic. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Clark claimed that he stayed at a relative's house for a while and thus explains why he edited under another IP address. On the WP:AGF principle, I think he's telling the truth. Sockpuppetry isn't my big concern - the main concern, as Yoninah said, is the edit warring and disruptive editing. He may need a topic ban, temporary or indefinite, as he has a high Conflict of Interest in the subject and persists in "Putting up the right version"; the excuse many edit warriors use. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend: With the lifting of the 24-hour block, Clark has posted that he is proud of being blocked, perceiving it as a "badge of honor" for his acts of civil disobedience.[263] His behavior has far exceeded the bounds of Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: What Yoninah said. This type of behavior is clearly unacceptable; defiance and deliberate breaking of the rules, not to mention being proud of the consequences that arise afterwards. Such editing patterns are extremely disruptive. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I ignored you, but for some reason I didn't get the ping. The badge-of-honor thing has changed my thinking: I had planned to re-block the guy if he made any additional problematic edits in mainspace (i.e. one-strike-you're-out), but letting him edit freely in talkspace, since we can ignore the guy. However, this comment makes it clear that he doesn't care and will keep going indefinitely: apparently he'll come back whenever a block ends. With that in mind, the only way to prevent an indefinite returner is with an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let you know if he shows up again under an IP address. In the meantime, we can finally start polishing up this article. Yoninah (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Harrassing a New Editor User talk:Nativecultnlaw by User talk:EvergreenFir

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

---

I moved this here to let someone more experienced have a look at this. A new editor is being thrown to the wolves in my opinion. The experienced editor is very aggressive towards the new editor. Attacking new editors only discourages them. It violates the no bite of new comers and assume good faith. Because of this behavior on the parts of some editors I myself will never become a registered editor. I honestly do not know all the policies and procedures but I know when someone is being an ass. What can be done is up to you more experienced administrators. Thanks 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This clearly relates to WP:COIN#Multiple editors related to U of SD School of Law. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Frank Pommersheim

Your recent editing history at Frank Pommersheim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the 3RR and have come no where close to it on that article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will let the evidence speak for itself; Also note it does not require 3R's to edit war.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606280411 @ 04:18 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606349505 @ 16:25 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427474 03:41 30 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427517 03:42 30 APR 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.11.196: You need to read WP:3RR. EvergreenFir has done one revert and one removal of an unsourced item. The first was adding a speedy deletion tag (not a revert). The second was a revert. The third added tags (not a revert), the fourth removed an unsourced claim with significant wp:puffery. I don't see a 3RR issue. Jim1138 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct the first one was a speedy delete on an article less than 2 hours old that was being worked on by a new editor. See WP:BITE The subject is notable and due diligence was not performed. He then started a COI on the new editor 5 minutes after nominating the article for speedy delete. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nativecultnlaw#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion Scroll up to see Speedy delete. Then 12 hours later he reverted 5 edits of the same new editor on an article he wanted deleted. ??? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606292739 He then was shot down for speedy delete by User_talk:Y. He then reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606427246 If this was the only edit it would not be an issue. But it could appear to the new editor or a reasonable outsider that he is being stalked and harrassed. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The CSD was rightfully declined but EvergreenFir has just as much right as anyone else to revert unsourced and weakly sourced content and point out potential issues with the article. No stalking, no harassment, no need to bring this to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

• Update: just to mention that the new editor in question, along with all the other new editors listed here, has been indefinitely sockblocked by a CheckUser. Oh noes, yet more newbie-biting! Bishonen | talk 20:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

National Library of Pakistan and Citations Are not Copyright violations

National Library of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I have been trying to add and review items for the National Library of Pakistan and it appears that a contributor named Smsarmad uses a dire threat of copyright violation to remove content..then reports me as a vandal. There is nothing wrong with content I have added. it is referenced and not copied. Can someone explain to Smsarmad that his reporting of me as a vandal is bullying behavior. He has no right to "watch" the library site and remove content with a made up accusation of copyright violation. I have no special interest in Pakistan as I am a librarian who wants all libraries to have good Wikipedia entries..so if Smsarmad is thinking there is some issue here related to Pakistan, this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooksky (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was asked at WP:AIV to bring this issue here so I would like to report User:Brooksky for obvious and repeated copyright violations even after final warning at National Library of Pakistan. The edits in question were REVDELed by an admin after the report at AIV. -- SMS ^Talk 06:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what is happening and if Smsarmad has a secret way of deleting edits I have made. These are not copyrighted edits..theya re footnoted tiems about the library. In all other places Wikipedia retains the edits in the history and mine are gone. There is no reason that citations to important articles should be deleted by Smsarmad. Smsarmad is insiting this is a copyright issue. I am fearful for the future of Wikiepdia if Smsarmad thinks footnotes are copyright violations.Brooksky (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Ahmad, Pervaiz. 2008. "The National Library of Pakistan: an overview." IFLA Journal 34, no. 1: 90-98. Muhammad Waris, B. (2014). National Library of Pakistan as Legal Depository. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal. 45(1), 18-23.

It is not the footnotes that are the issue. There are clear copyright violations here. Also reverting them is User:Lesser Cartographies and User:Parsecboy. If User:Brooksky cannot accept this then he'll end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I know User:Brooksky in real life. I'm going to try to resolve this issue via email. Please try to work with this editor, I believe this matter is just a communication problem. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

More IBAN violations by Ihardlythinkso

Discussion over

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Again Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) violates both the letter and the spirit of the IBAN by continually referencing the "narcissist" comment. [264]. Note also his behaviour on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Shogi, where his posts made clear references to me and my actions. This proposal for a new WikiProject had lain dormant for months; why did he suddenly feel compelled to post a whole lot of inflammatory stuff immediately after I posted there? This wasn't picked up in the recently closed thread but it should have been. Does this IBAN actually have any teeth or is he just going to be "warned" again so that he can continue with his unacceptable behaviour? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Perhaps the appropriate venue for these kinds of concerns is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GeneralNarcissism (AN/GN)? That might apply to about half the threads here. Anyway. Carry on. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Support 24 hour block. The thread I started yesterday [265] was closed with a second warning "Ihardlythinkso is reminded to NOT talk about MaxBrowne at all." and "Atama, or another involved administrator, will not hesitate to block in the future." Atama specifically warned against bringing up the issue dealing with the word "narcissist". Ihardlythinkso is not heeding that warning at all, here he continues complaining about the "narcissist" personal attack, and while it is a direct complaint over The Bushranger, it is also a clear indirect jab at MaxBrowne, which is just as prohibited as a direct jab. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Note: there is also a thread here on the same topic. —Neotarf (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC) It appears to me, much to my disappointment, that the reservations I expressed when endorsing the restriction are simply justified. I honestly do not see why the both of you should not be sanctioned, if not for anything else, but as an enforced wikibreak to get your priorities straight and start figuring out a more effective way to dedicate your time in Wikipedia. Yes, sure, this editor is clearly acting foolishly by not following the very sensible advice he has been given to take a voluntary wikibreak, and instead, making the comment cited in this ANI which consists of grievances about old issues. Lack of clue is also an issue which is affecting his behaviour (which would probably warrant normal dispute resolution before running back here). However, by the same token, I also don't understand why this editor's comments are being followed or scrutinised in this similar-to-obsessive fashion with blocks being sought at every turn. And even ignoring that, if the user to whom the comment was made is in no way affected by it, do you not see how counterproductive it is to bring it back here so that it receives 10 times the amount of attention it would have otherwise received? It's exactly why I would seriously consider whether or not the Community restriction should be vacated now. It would mean you have to air your grievances in an arbcom case rather than here at every turn; ultimately one of you might be a lot better off than the other (or not) after you've exhausted each other, but at least it would mean the community could address other (more serious) issues more promptly rather than losing time checking the repeated relatively-petty complaints of this squabble. (I use the word petty in this way because if the violation in the earlier thread were as serious as suggested, the clear consensus of the uninvolved eyes would've been to block rather than issue another warning - an action which I happened to also endorse as it so happens, which frankly, says enough). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC) @MaxBrowne: I find it disturbing that you are monitoring IHTS's user talk page. If you are going to bring up the "spirit" of the interaction ban, you should take care to follow the spirit yourself, in that you should be avoiding each other. I do understand that you are not literally violating the ban by bringing your complaint here (reporting the other party for a violation of the ban in an appropriate venue, such as this board, is explicitly allowed) but if you are going to accuse the other party of violating the spirit of the ban while not violating the letter, you should expect to be held to the same standards. I checked to make sure that there was nothing added to the IBAN aside from the standard provisions (because some interaction bans prohibit editors from following each other to pages) but there is no such restriction here. Also, I know that IHTS is heavily-involved in chess matters, so it's not unreasonable to think that he was there only because of his involvement in chess-related matters on the project. And he refrained from commenting until a third party also commented, and restricted his interactions on that page to the other person. In that situation I don't see any violation. But I did say that if IHTS didn't drop the stick and kept bringing up the "classic narcissist" comment he'd be blocked. I made that very unambiguous. And yet he did so again. I'm instituting a 24 hour block, because if I don't do so there may as well not even be an IBAN if nobody is enforcing it. IHTS should know exactly where the line is, because it was pointed out very clearly, and to repeat the behavior looks like an attempt to explore the boundaries of the ban. This block helps to set those boundaries. It's my hope that IHTS just moves on and stops bringing up this petty point, it's a waste of everyone's time. I'll also point out that multiple editors (including myself) have already answered his question (is the statement a personal attack) to the affirmative, so to bring it up again seems to be willful disruption. That being said, I'm going to try to engage personally with IHTS on his user talk page, because I think there are valid concerns from him in the midst of this, and I don't want to give the impression that he's being ignored. -- Atama頭 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC) IBAN's are transitive now? So not only is IHTS not allowed to discuss the OP, but any editor (e.g. Bushranger) they've also got cross threaded with? NE Ent 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) No. That is not at all what's happening. It was explained very clearly in the ANI thread previously that bringing up the comment was an indirect criticism of MaxBrowne, since the personal attack had originated from them. IHTS can complain about Bushranger, and I made sure to express to IHTS that I agree that the suggestion that the comment wasn't a personal attack was incorrect, and that suggestions otherwise were unfair. But to continue to mention the comment specifically is a violation. There was no ambiguity, it was made clear, and there were multiple people supporting that suggestion. IHTS continued to bring it up regardless. So if someone is told "do this and you will be blocked per the ban", and they do it, they are willfully violating the ban. Also, due to the unambiguity from the closure of the last thread, it is only reasonable to assume that IHTS was deliberately egging on administrators to enforce the ban to test whether or not it was actually going to be enforced. It is critical that it is enforced, otherwise the interaction ban may as well not exist. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. -- Atama頭 16:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC) It's not a matter of clarity, it's a matter of being wrong. In essence, what Atama is saying is that they individually imposed a topic ban on an editor, which is not supported by WP:CBAN. I'm not seeing any notice on IHTS's talk page nor any logging of it on WP:Editing restrictions. Arguably, IHTS had moved on from obsessing about MB to obsessing about Bushranger -- see the discussion on his (IHTS) talk and also mine. To me, by stalking IHTS's talk page MB violated the IBAN as much or more than IHTS. (Since they've both been long active on chess related articles, it's unreasonable to think one is stalking the other if both end up on the same page.) Clearly, IHTS has been on the path of self wiki destruction, and I'd hoped they'd change course before they got there, and hearing about Bushranger's incorrect "spade is a spade" endorsement of the PA over and over again is tiresome. But a bogus 24 hour block on fallacious reasoning is unlikely to improve things. If there was a block to made, it should be on the grounds of WP:TE, not a flimsy synthetic topic ban out of an iban. Which means that a "reaching out followup," no matter how well intentioned isn't terribly likely to be successful. NE Ent 17:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Atama's reasoning is sound, and I agree fully with it, as well as his caution to MaxBrowne of not looking for things IHTS might engage in. Any reference by IHTS to MaxBrowne's conduct, directly or indirectly, regardless of whether he is named or not, is a violation of the IBAN. If IHTS had written " I would like your assessment of admin Bushrangers proclamation that MaxBrowne's "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA"." nobody would disagree that it would be a blatant violation of the IBAN, since it is a complaint and mention of MaxBrowne's comment and conduct. What IHTS actually did write, " I would like your assessment of admin Bushrangers proclamation that "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA"., amounts to the same thing, both in spirit and meaning. It is just as much a complaint and mention of MaxBrowne, and mentioning MaxBrowne implicitly rather than explicitly is immaterial. Both are in violation of the IBAN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Well first of all, "cautioning" MB while rewarding him by blocking the opponent isn't a very effective deterrent. We have a choice between assuming IHTS was continuing his old pissing contest with MB, or continuing his current one with BR. WP:AGF (at much as it can be applied here) suggests we go with the latter. Reviewing the thread, I'll note the closing summary made no mention of the alleged topic ban, so claiming there was community support for it is suspect. NE Ent 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) To your three points. (1) The reason MB "gets off" with a caution, while IHTS receives a block, is that IHTS has already received two cautions, MB hasn't received any before this. (2) Whether IHTS primarily was pursuing Bushranger or MaxBrowne is not really relevant. Obviously, he was going after Bushranger, but in so doing he made a reference to MaxBrowne's comment from several weeks ago even when he was explicitly warned not to. (3) There is no topic ban, but there is an interaction ban that was violated by continually making reference to the "narcissist" comment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Point (1), for the record, being the reason I blocked him and inadvertantly started off this fracas in the first place: regardless of whether or not the "narcissist" comment was or wasn't a PA, the worst MB would have gotten was a "don't do that" warning - while IHTS had already been warned and chose to carry on. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC) For the record I'm not "following" his talk page, and I didn't even participate in the previous discussion at ANI. It was the shogi discussion that led me to check his recent editing history and raise the issue. The Shogi discussion clearly suggests that he has been following my edits and is in fact hounding me. Why hasn't anyone else picked up on this? Also I absolutely hate the implication that in seeking to have the IBAN enforced I am somehow doing the wrong thing, and that I am somehow equally guilty. The whole situation is very upsetting to me and I hate being tarred with the same brush. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) The brush has two ends. I suggest MaxBrowne let go of theirs. 03:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC) For once and for all NE Ent (talk · contribs), stop blaming me for IHTS's behaviour. I find it personally insulting. Since the IBAN I've minded my own business, made good edits to to article space and made no mention of him directly or indirectly, even when a previous ANI was opened. He's the one who reacted to and made direct reference to my edits on the Shogi discussion; he's the one who refuses to drop the WP:STICK. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) You've accused him of hounding because of the Shogi discussion -- there are currently six threads on this talk page with shogi is the title, starting with User_talk:Ihardlythinkso#shogi_variants:_piece_values from last August. NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Wait, is BR still saying the narcissist thing wasn't a personal attack??? NE Ent 03:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC) No, BR did not say that in this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Nor did The Bushranger say the converse (hence the question). NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Support block - BMK (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Support Block -Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Support block of IHTS. I should state here that I'm perfectly non-neutral w/r/t IHTS or I'd just impose it myself, but his behavior here seems to continue his previous pattern of behaving in problematic and uncivil ways while exercising a good deal of WP:IDHT. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Can't disagree with the IDHT part, but here's the question -- is a 24 hour block -- especially for the wrong reason likely to improve things? NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Support block -- Can see how he keeps bragging, even when he is blocked. OccultZone (Talk) 11:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Answering Ent (and adding it on here because, well, nowhere else is appropriate): After looking things over and consdering it, my choice of words in the original issue was admittedly quite poor. Accusing somebody of narcissism is a personal attack, however, given the situation, actions, and overall mess that was going on at the time, it was not an actionable "NPA" - it was provoked, and the editor had not previously been warned, which I should have been clearer about at the time. For my lack of clarity, I apologise, and I also apologise for allowing IHTS' goading to keep me from assessing it further and clarifying what I meant sooner. (And, as I said before, it changes nothing about the actions that would have taken place.) For that, I administer a self-trouting, and resolve to speak clearer and triple-check my words before clicking 'submit' when the heat:light ratio is increasing. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC) What dishonest manipulation, User:The Bushranger. Here I clearly asked you to redact your PA: So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Here was your reply: Let's be very clear here: there will be no redaction, as there was no personal attack to be reinforced. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. The fact that you have shopped your complaint to (at least) four admins and gotten "two threats, one insult, and one nothing" should indicate that the problem is not the 'personal attack' you are claiming. There comes a point where your refusal to listen to what everyone is telling you and continuing to insist they're all wrong and you're right becomes an indication that you are not capable of being part of a collegial and constructive editing environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Also, you say he PA was "provoked". Where's the provoking diff? There were no exchanges between users any time recent prior to the AN. And I handled myself professionally at that ANI up the point of the PA. You blame the victim by saying I provoked that PA. Where's any recent diff prior to the PA that you say provoked it?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I criticized you for that action (on IHTS's talk page explicitly, and I at least implied it by agreeing that it was a PA) but I appreciate your statement here and think it was appropriate. Whether or not IHTS is as accepting, who knows. This whole issue has exhausted my patience, honestly, and I'm generally a pretty patient person. I'm going to let other administrators deal with any further enforcement and/or evaluation of the IBAN, for whichever party. I've got plenty of other pans on the stove right now. -- Atama頭 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Whether or not IHTS is as accepting, who knows. Just so you don't have to spend forever "not knowing", Atama, there has been no redaction or apology whatsoever for this: If someone behaves in a manner that is indistinguishable from a certain sort of behavior - in this case, "classic narcissist/Diva behavior" - then pointing this fact out is calling a spade a spade. Which was, in that case, the fact: your behavior is, again speaking absolutely frankly, exactly that. [...] - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lieutenant of Melkor

Firth thing off - I am INVOLVED in this situation and have no doub that will be Lieutenant of Melkor (talk · contribs)'s first line of defence. Nevertheless, LoM appears to have been abusing Twinkle to edit war, plenty of recent diffs at Gan River (Jiangxi). They have also used Twinkle on what appear to be non-vandal edits aka standard content disputes, a few diffs include this and this. They have also used Twinkle to remove talk page posts (yes, mine, boo-hoo) - not nearly as severe as the edit-warring but shows that their problem of properly using Twinkle continues. Unless it is determined I am over-reacting, I would ask that the tool is removed. GiantSnowman 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wider editor issues - see this where they appear to admit to harassing Eldumpo (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that this is only a small fraction of edits using that tool and (yes, I know, this may be WP:NOTOTHERS) others use Twinkle to revert good-faith edits all the time without being whined at (I acknowledge many of the edits are good-faith, but I don't like leaving links to anything in edit summaries); you are also aware anyone has every right to remove posts, except for block notices while blocked, from their own talk page per WP:TPG. Overreaction, much? I would like to point out the Texas-sharpshooter approach GiantSnowman has undertaken; (s)he has overlooked the fact that I duly restored the references Eldumpo added, and that within the same message at User talk:Eldumpo I offered a conciliatory gesture and a promise at the same time. Also, my invitations to discuss the matter have been ignored, rebuffed and met with disdain by GiantSnowman. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 16:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, "Lieutenant", because of one little language template thingy you make this wholesale revert of content addition? That's ridiculous--besides Twinkle abuse. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Drmies, did I not restore the references and clean up after myself? That's ridiculous--besides not being a neutral party. Until more reasonable eyes come, I'm signing off for the next few dozen hours. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 16:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You can be as arrogant as you want to be, but that revert was ridiculous--that you fixed it a day later after some more back-and-forthing doesn't change the matter. Also, the grammar of the last sentence you copied from me doesn't make any sense since "not being a neutral party" cannot take the same "that"; clearly "ridiculous" refers to a situation or an event, and those aren't parties. And this, you should realize, is not a party either. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also, "Annatar" was Sauron, not Melkor, so your signature doesn't make much sense. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• There's not much difference between clicking on the undo button and clicking one of the Rollback buttons Twinkle provides. When they've used Twinkle, they seems to be pretty good about using edit summaries. As for removing edits from their talk page, I can't see any conflict with WP:BLANKING. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removing talk page posts using Twinkle is a minor issue, a distraction If you will. How about abusing Twinle to edit-war at Gan River (Jiangxi)? GiantSnowman 17:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding this comment from LoM about me 'escalating' the situation - well I've tried to discuss the matter, and indeed raised the mis-use of Twinkle before but my attempts at discussion were removed not once but twice - both times mis-using Twinkle, of course - hence why I felt the need to bring it to wider attention. GiantSnowman 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Point of Order The only way to remove twinkle is to block the user. I expressed strong objections to having the "Do not Service" twinkle blocklist being removed, but here we are and now the two options are a Topic Ban on twinkle (with a subsequent block if they violate the topic ban) or a block to prevent them from using Wikipedia at all. Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Then I suggest a topic ban, for now. They do not have the correct attitude or clue to be trusted with it. GiantSnowman 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. We can't block Twinkle, from what I know that's just not something we're technically equipped to do (at least not anymore). This isn't like revoking rollback rights because of a misuse of that tool. I guess we could impose a "Twinkle topic ban" if it's deemed necessary, but I wish it was easier than that.

Using Twinkle's rollback isn't the same as hitting "undo" though. For one, WP:TWINKLEABUSE suggests against rolling back good-faith edits without a proper edit summary. For another, clicking the "undo" button takes a couple of extra steps and forces the editor to slow down a bit and review what they're doing, so it's a bit less prone to mistakes. So I wouldn't dismiss the misuse of Twinkle as a non-issue, it can definitely be an issue and there can be good reasons to restrict its use. (The fact that we don't have efficient methods to restrict it is a problem.) -- Atama頭 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, the whole point of not allowing rollback (and, by extension, certain functions of Twinkle) to be used on non-vandal edits is because they don't allow one to leave an edit summary explaining why the edits are being reverted, and so imply that the reverted edits are vandalism when they're actually not. But here, at least on Gan River (Jiangxi) and in the other diffs that GiantSnowman provides, they actually have left meaningful edit summaries via Twinkle, so I don't think the Twinkle use is actually a problem. (Actually, if we're being technical here, the one at fault for such is you, GS, as you appeared to have used a tool to revert that didn't leave a meaningful edit summary.) Wanting people to take the few extra steps that it takes to go the "undo" route is nice and all, but it ain't policy. As you say, Atama, the thing says: Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Well, all these edits had appropriate edit summaries, so I'm not seeing the misuse. Edit warring is still edit warring, of course, but in this case, I don't think there is any misuse of Twinkle aspect to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @GiantSnowman: Hold on, you brought up Gan River (Jiangxi). How are Melkor's edits (with edit summaries) worse than your straight-up reverts? [266], [267] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I used rollback to revert non-constructive edits - the removal of valid references - before opening a dialogue with the editor. LoM's misleading edit summary where he claimed to be restoring language information when actually he removed a number of valid references, or his simple "unexplained" (even though I had already posted on his talk page) are nowhere near sufficient. GiantSnowman 17:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, like I quoted, Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Whether or not they can be considered "constructive", Lieutenant of Melkor's edits were certainly in good faith, so yeah, it would appear that, if anyone is abusing rollback and/or Twinkle here, it's you. Don't you think it's a tad hypocritical of you to complain about Lieutenant of Melkor's use of Twinkle in an edit war when you used rollback in the very same edit war? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, like I said, I did not - and still do not - view his edits as "good-faith", which is what I meant by "non-constructive." How can the removal of valid references for no reason really be considered anything other than vandalism? Yes, it would have been better for me to have clicked 'undo' rather than 'rollback', but my edits were to restore valid content removed without explanation (allowed by rollback!), whereas LoM's edits were not only far greater in number but also far more disruptive. Nice attempt to BOOMERANG, however. GiantSnowman 18:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• GS, I'd take it easy here if I were you. WK is not out to get you and he has a valid point. It's clear that abuse of Twinkle is a bit more difficult to pin down than rollback abuse, and really, that shouldn't be the real issue here--I pointed at a diff, above, that I find much more troubling than the abuse (alleged or not, whatever) of Twinkle. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's a fair cop: I didn't look into this as much as I should have, though I still think you (GS) were not reacting to this as ideally as you could have. LoM actually did have a reason for reverting: the first edit that Eldumpo made in that series removed the foreign-language information from the lede, and this is what LoM wanted to restore, judging from his edit summary. But Twinkle being Twinkle, LoM actually reverted all of Eldumpo's edits, not just the first in the series. If this wasn't intentional, that was careless of LoM to revert without looking at what he was reverting; if it was intentional (which does seem likely), then it was disruptive of him to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, okay, fair enough, I see where you're coming from, though your rollback-reverting is still something that I don't think is right here. Those reverts of yours were not improved by the lack of an edit summary; on the off-chance that LoM was only trying to revert one of the edits and accidentally reverted them all, a no-comment revert would not have helped them figure out what's going on. But whatever, I'll trout myself for that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re:my editing - yes, I acknowledge that and have said that. Shall we trout one another?
• Re:LoM's editing - either way, at last we get further acknowledgement that his editing was poor. His response and attitude, however, have been even more concerning. He told me not to edit those kind of articles because my degree was unrelated to the subject, which is one of the most baffling things I have come across in my 8+ years here. GiantSnowman 18:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The trout goes to the Snowman. The most important post of an ANI thread is the first one, and when it contains totally incorrect / lame assertions, e.g. implying there is something incorrect about using Twinkle to remove a post from one's own talk page, or using Twinkle with an edit summary for non vandalism edits, it's not reasonable to expect responders to fill in the gaps. And edit warring on the page without using Talk:Gan River (Jiangxi)?? Come on, this stuff should be wiki-101. NE Ent 18:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been distracted by the talk page issues, and completely ignored the large related to this editor's use of Twinkle. I'd advise you to read WK's post directly above yours, and Drmies' earlier on. 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I ignored their use of Twinkle, because they're not breaking any policy by using it. Please provide a diff of them using Twinkle without an appropriate edit summary. NE Ent 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said - LoM's misleading edit summary where he claimed to be restoring language information when actually he removed a number of valid references, or his simple "unexplained" (even though I had already posted on his talk page) are nowhere near sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Prevarication in edit summaries is clearly disruptive editing, but it has nothing to do with Twinkle. NE Ent 19:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's fine then... GiantSnowman 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I wanted an explanation in the edit summary itself, and nothing less. None of my edits qualify for appropriate usage of unexplained rollback, and neither are yours. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally messaged User:GiantSnowman regarding concerns I had with some of Melkor's edits, in particular the removal of references, especially when it results in no cites left at the article. I think the edits made at Gan River are really poor, and were only restored after intervention, and a number of uncivil talk posts to Snowman. I am not going out of my way to remove Chinese language from intros but am adding sources to articles often without any sources, and thus any cites should be reflecting the text before it. I wouldn't have minded them being re-added as long as the cites remained. I believe there's a big difference between removing references and removing such uncited language info at the start of articles. Melkor's talk page post to me is also unhelpful. Eldumpo (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Eldumpo: Chinese characters in the lead are not "uncited language info", they are a key element in China related articles per the Chinese style guide.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: - and how do I know that someone has entered the characters for 'Gan River' and not 'Sewage Dump' etc.? I don't care how much of a "key element" is it, it needs to be verified! GiantSnowman 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @GiantSnowman: There is no need to bite me, I was trying to bring some balance to this discussion. Are you suggesting that every China related article needs to have a reference verifying that a translation of its non-Roman characters is valid? Apart from the inherent difficulty in doing that, such a policy would also need to apply to Russian, Hindi, Mongolian, Thai and a number of other ISO character sets.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur, since when did translations fall under WP:V? That's ridiculous. If you're unsure if a translation is accurate or not, get someone who knows the language to check. -- Atama頭 16:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Directly quoting from the introduction from WP:V - "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Italics are my own. GiantSnowman 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

But see WP:BLUE. If we required citations that "x foreign language word means y", we'd first of all, have to go on thousands of articles and cite menial things, and most of the cites would be poor non RS dictionary cites. KonveyorBelt 18:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, BLPs aside, there is no requirement that a citation be provided in the article to pass WP:V - the verifiable reference must only exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Again quoting directly from WP:V - "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That applies here, seeing as this material is the source of contention. GiantSnowman 09:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richard Nosehard

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

---

Will someone, i.e. a mod or admin, block my old account, please? I forgot the password to it, there's no email address associated with it, and I don't use it anymore. However, as far as I know, the password is not secure. I'd appreciate it if it was blocked already. JacketBoy2000 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, admins can't block at request, but you can ask for a courtesy vanishing. See Wikipedia:DISAPPEAR for more info. TheMesquito^buzz 20:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem... If there is no email address, and don't know the password for it, how can anyone possibly confirm the account is yours? What I would do to confirm is ask someone to either log onto the old account, or send an email to the old account's email address and wait for a reply. But it sounds like neither would work in your case. So even if admins would block an account on request, that can't happen because there's too much of a risk that we'd be blocking an account for no reason because a random person claimed to be the old owner of that account. -- Atama頭 21:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid no admin will block here, because of the confirmation problem. However, let it be said, since the opposite has been stated, that admins can and do block on request. There's a whole category of admins willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, of which I'm a member. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Ah, I did not know that, I striked the text stating otherwise. Sorry! TheMesquito^buzz 01:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:GagaARTPOP

This user has been continuously making non-constructive edits to Lady Gaga articles after being told to stop. Most recently, the user uploaded this copyrighted image to Gaga's main article claiming it was fair use. User also persistently inserted tour date info for ArtRave: The Artpop Ball repeatedly (this being the most recent) despite being reverted and asked multiple times by myself and IndianBio to stop as it went against WP:SYNTH. Admin C.Fred asked for the user to discuss on talk page, which the user refused. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously did not think it would come down to this, but yeah, repeated warnings have fallen on deaf ears, and the user runs amock doing these non-constructive edits, including uploading a series of copyright violating images. A trout slap of some sorts is needed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the warnings we previously gave were already trout slaps, and doubt another simple trout slap would do much. Could another admin please consult the user? Comments from myself and IndianBio don't seem to be acknowledged. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Jayman85 manually edit warring to push an unacademic POV despite final warnings

Jayman85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jayman85 (whose behavior reminds me a bit too much of Jaredkunz30) has tried (as I count of this post) nine times as of this post to disguise the views of Mormon apologists as equally valid claims by secular academia at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. He's received multiple warnings and explanations from multiple users, and explanations of site guidelines. He replied by accusing everyone else and (non-Mormon) academia of being biased, and claiming that nothing can really know anything about history ([268], [269], [270]). He then resumed edit warring, despite receiving a warning about it.

This guy isn't going to pay attention to anything but a block. I understand that yeah, he probably should be given the chance to improve, enough rope to hang himself with, but I'm pretty sure (given how much his behavior reminds me of Jaredkunz30) he's not going to improve and is only going to start tugging for rope right after getting out of his block.

If he wants to prove me wrong, he needs to realize he's messed up and act on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ian.thomson (who has not returned my discussion on his page) has ignored that the phrase in use 'Mormon Apologists' is biased. My edits have not removed data or knowledge, I removed 'apologists' as this slights the reader to view any dissenting opinion with the original author as wrong. I don't know how someone can claim that given the lack of knowledge anyone has of the timeframe. As far as the related name, I will waste my time in stating I don't know who that username is. Regardless, you cannot claim a neutral stance if you invalidate any dissenting opinion. Jayman85 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have responded. You just didn't bother to check. And how is describing Mormon apologists as Mormon apologists biased? They're Mormon and they're trying to defend a position that no one else accepts. They're Mormon apologists. Only someone who is dishonestly trying to present their claims as equally valid as would have a problem with that.

And as the sources cited state, there's plenty of archaeological evidence for the absence of horses, pigs, etc.

And it is a neutral stance to present stances as invalid if mainstream academia invalidates it. Outside of a few WP:Fringe Mormon pseudo-scholars, no one thinks that the Book of Mormon is right when it says that America used to have horses. If you want to believe that they were there but all archaeological evidence disappeared shortly before white people showed up, that's your right. But if you want to pretend that academia is split on it, that's not jsut lying to yourself, that's lying to others. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And now Jayman85 has tried to delete this report. I take back what I said, he's nothing but a useless vandal, please perma-block him. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jayman85: one more edit like that and you will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 19:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we may have a misunderstanding here. The word "apologist" is often misinterpreted. Although it is similar to the word "apologize" it does not have the same meaning. An "apologist", by definition, is a person who uses apologetics; it simply means a person who defends a position through the use of information (usually, but not always, a religious belief). It should not be taken to be a pejorative, on the contrary an apologist is someone who tries to use reason and facts to advance a position rather than simple statements of belief or opinion. At worst, labeling someone as an apologist shows that they are an advocate of whatever they are arguing for with apologetics, and thus may be biased toward that position, but it's not the same as labeling someone a kook; an apologist can be a crankpot (just as any scientist or doctor can be) but the term itself does not make that implication. -- Atama頭 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was just the apologist issue in isolation, I'd be more willing to dismiss it as that. He was also trying to make Mormon claims appear to be universal arguments, and turn the evidence of absence of certain animals into mere uncertainty (which he has tried to argue for on different talk pages). In that light, his mission has to be POV-pushing, the apologist issue being just part of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ian.thomson, and the removal of this report is the last straw. Blocked for 31 hours for tendentious editing and vandalism. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

TfD discussions "refactored"

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

---

Meteor sandwich yum has "refactored" a group of four TfDs [271]. The TfD's are from April 20, and still open. I reverted early [272] [273], but that was undone.

My first care is that the discussions now are distorted and unrecognisable. I have seen no base (like a WP:guideline) that shows this is useful or good practice. It is urgent, in that any closer now could conclude "useless TfD process". I propose (request) that it is reverted, and that user:Meteor sandwich yum is convinced that indeed that is not the way to do. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed diff. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:TPO applies here somewhat. It's not an egregious violation, in that it's not changing the meaning of what anyone else said. It could even be argued that this is allowed as fixing format or layout errors. But I think you're right, this is causing technical problems. MSY's intentions are good, but the execution was bad, and incorrect. WP:TFD itself has a method for combining multiple templates into a single discussion:

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

That is what MSY should be doing, if others agree that it's best. They shouldn't first ask if it's okay then just do it anyway when nobody responds. -- Atama頭 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking how to set up start TfDs. The discussions are disrupted. At this time in TfD process, is bad and may lead any closing admin to conclude "corrupt discussion". This makes it urgent too. A pity you spend time on this, Atama, and did not act into reversion. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes if someone could undo all the refactoring – there are only a couple of edits not due to it that would need to be restored that I can see - then trout MSY for their well meant but disruptive editing it would be appreciated. It needs at least someone non-involved, probably an admin to make it stick (an attempt having already been undone).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd already fixed things back. You'd said that there was nothing that said it was a good practice to do what MSY did, and I thought that it would be helpful to show you what good practices are supposed to be in this situation. I missed where you said "I propose (request) that it is reverted", the way you phrased it (instead of saying you request that it be reverted) reinforced my assumption that you'd already done it (again). I'll revert everything back to a point before it got screwed up. -- Atama頭 21:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, it didn't work. One thing you both need to understand about Administrators, is that we aren't "super editors". Our opinions aren't really more important than that of any other editor (sometimes they're treated that way but officially they aren't). So my changes don't "stick" more than any other editor's would. I'm sorry if your expectations were higher, but for the most part admins are just normal editors with a few extra tools and privileges.

And that's why I instead made the argument suggesting why this was bad, because that is what might resolve this issue. -- Atama頭 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And one thing you need to understand is that you don't threaten people with a disruption block 'cause your edit's been reverted for removing a thread pertinent to the Tfd. Really, where do you get off? — lfdder 21:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please show where I threatened to block. As an involved editor at that page, I can't act in an administrative role, which includes blocking you. I'm pretty blatant when I threaten to block someone (I'll either use a template or state that any further actions will result in a block). In any event, I'm withdrawing from this altogether, since both my advice and actions haven't helped. How about everyone here just fights it out instead. -- Atama頭 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is the implication, isn't it? The page you so kindly pointed me to says right at the top: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely"....and you did accuse me of disruption. I didn't claim that you'd threatened to personally block me. — lfdder 22:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And another ANI thread gone off track beyond repair. Bad OP reading, internal admins quibble, chasing other admins away, OT diversions (really, OT by admins). Good for evaluation later on, where it belongs: WT:ANI (I can advocate there that WP:ANI has the worst discussion quality at enwiki). For me: not helped. Thanks for all the fish. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (not an admin)

How have you not been helped? Meteor sandwich yum's changes have been reverted like you asked. — lfdder 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks lfdder. Done while I was composing my response. I struck. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Crumbs: please close. And this is the link: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Unusual IPV6 rapid-fire IP switching/editing activity on Reno television stations

• KTVN
• KRNV-DT
• KOLO-TV
• KRXI-TV
• KAME-TV

This series of articles involving television station articles for the Reno, Nevada area has had content culled from them without explanation by a series of IPV6 addresses which seems unusually adept at jumping on another IPV6 address within moments of their last edit, doing it several times in the last few days on these articles. This makes asking why they removed content useless as they've jumped around before a talk page notice can flash up (though they have time to blank Cluebot notices several times before jumping off). I don't think I've seen this much rapid-fire jumping of IP's before in all my time here. I've put the five pages up on RFP, and I really want to know what's the cause of this rapid-fire IP resetting so we know how to deal with it in the future. Nate • (chatter) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

An IPV4, 108.233.160.134 (talk · contribs) just removed content on KRNV-DT, so that might help a little. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The IPV6 chain now has reported me and Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) on AIV for our justified reversions of the vandalism. Some action needs to be taken before further damage to these pages takes place, including some kind of rangeblock. Nate • (chatter) 02:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that the addresses editing KTVN share only the first four chunks of characters, and the last four quartets are seemingly completely random: it looks to me as if you'd have to block every single IP beginning with 2602:306:CE9A:860. If I understand rightly (confirmation or correction by Jasper Deng would be helpful), this rangeblock would affect 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses (eighteen quintillion), so I daresay that's not an option. Semiprotection is the only possible route. Nyttend (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The 18 quintillion might seem a lot, but as I wrote in the IPv6 rangeblock guide on MediaWiki.org, counting addresses is not a good way to assess collateral damage with IPv6. In this case, this is almost certainly one user (/64 on AT&T) and definitely rangeblockable if you find the editing disruptive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection and reversion of the AIV report, Nyttend. The editing on each of the pages has been rapid-fire and even during the AIV report there were 3-4 jumps of addresses and I've never seen that before (I've dealt with proxy-jumpers and basic mobile-IP jumpers before, but not this kind of complexity). If a rangeblock can't be done, hopefully the semi-protect will bore them off after awhile. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, /64 rangeblocks in IPv6 are to increasingly become run-of-the-mill and for this ISP are always possible without much collateral. If I saw this as an admin, I would've instead made the rangeblock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's because you understand the principle, which I can't understand. Thanks for the help! If you can give me the range, I'll happily block it; just provide me with the block link, which is Special:Block/Nyttend with my username replaced by the range. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Mainly for future reference, Special:Block/2602:306:CE9A:860::/64. --Jasper Deng (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; block implemented. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you Jasper and Nyytend for untangling this along with the IPV6 advice; I'm satisfied and ask for a close on this.Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Arjunkrishna90

Arjunkrishna90 has been engaged in an edit war with me on the Wikipedia's page on Arjuna. This individual and I quote states "ALL YOUR EDITS WILL BE REVERETED" on my talk page. I tried to have a rational discussion with this individual and clarify the issues we had to which this person responded by insulting my intelligence and stating that "human stupidity has no limits." I understand the Mahabharata is an ancient text and scholars keep debating about when it was compiled. The consensus now is between 400 BCE and 4 CE. And there is a consensus among scholars and academics that the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune), which is a compilation of the various manuscripts of the epic by scholars at Pune school, to be the most comprehensive an reliable of sources for the Mahabharata. This is what's used in universities that study this great epic. I tried explaining this to Arjunkrishna90 but to no avail. Here are a list of the issues I have with this individual's contributions to the Arjuna page:

He/she makes selective quotes from the Ganguly translation. He/she does this to misinterpret that Arjuna wasn't a "peerless warrior." In the same version of the epic there are numerous instances and by several individuals where Arjuna is referred to as a peerless warrior and "foremost of warriors." I have extensive background on the subject and with this knowledge I state that if you read the scholarly accepted versions of the epic, no character in the Mahabharata is referred to this honorific more times than Arjuna, with the exception of Krishna. Other are referred to as foremost of warriors but not as much Arjuna. I just want the readers of this page to get as true a picture as possible of Arjuna in the epic and Arjunkrishna90 is making this task very difficult.

Arjunkrishna90 inserts erroneous information that is not found in any scholarly compilation of the Mahabharata. For example, he/she refers to an incident in which the sun sets before Karna (another character from the epic) can kill Arjuna. No such act/incident exists in the Mahabharata and I suspect Arjunakrishna90 got this from a TV show on epic that was aired in India in '80s. Arjunakrishna90 is citing this as factual.

Arjunkrishna90 in our exchanges is citing folklore and recent renditions (not accepted by scholars) such as the Sarala Mahabharata, which was written in 15 CE (over 11 centuries after the last recorded text of the original epic) as his/her sources.

Finally, Arjunkrishna90 has no regard for the integrity or veracity of the information he/she posts and inserts information from folklore and TV shows.

I read other user comments on Arjunkrishna90's talk page and I believe other editors had similar concerns regarding this individual.

Again, I did tried discussing these issues with this individual but he/she keeps accusing me of Vandalism and refuses to engage in scholarly and civil discussion on the subject.

I hope you'll consider my request.

The following are the links to the pages to the changes I made and Arjunkrishna90 keeps reverting

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjuna&diff=606582277&oldid=606582237

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjuna&diff=606582237&oldid=606582194

Thank you, Thamaragirl (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot find his editor's talk page on Wikipedia anymore and do not know how to notify him/her about this discussion. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

To editor Thamaragirl: A user's talk page is located at User talk:Username. So this user's talk page is at User talk:Arjunkrishna90; that is where you should place the notice. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 01:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI on ANI: bad closure

Comment removed by me, despite this being one gigantic storm in a teacup. All of you: go edit an article or something now, please. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

---

See this recent ANI (this page) closure: [274]. So I pose a question. Then 17 admins come in talk all sideways, and admin 18 comes in and solves it. All fine, so I ask to close the thread [275]. Then the closing admin finds it best to name & blame the two who did ask & solve, in the ineditable closing statement. I restate: WP:ANI has the worst discussion quality of enwiki. (Simply said: why did not closed with an easy "OK, Q&A agree") -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: I ask that my and lfdder's name be removed from that closing opinion. Smear someone else please, from your admins throne. Or maybe, maybe, don't smear at all. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You took this to Drmies page and didn't wait for a response, although I did there. I can't quite figure out why you are doing this, why you are complaining, and what you hope to get from this. The close looks pretty consistent with other closes, I don't get the complaint. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. Atama was helping. You were complaining. Then you wanted the section closed. I closed it. The problem is? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

68.228.153.247

68.228.153.247 doesn't seem to understand the admonishments that have been given regularly over a number of months regarding the submission of questionable television production codes--and I'm pretty sure this isn't the only IP they've used to do so. User continues to fabricate production numbers for various cartoon series. I suspect they believe production codes should match the season number, episode number and cart number, when in fact, studios can use a variety of numbering/lettering conventions to identify a project, because it is an INTERNAL coding system, used for billing and production purposes, and that it may not match the expected airing order, what with networks routinely re-scheduling episodes per their whims. The fact that Season 1, Episode 3, cart B would not by default be designated 103b is escaping this user's comprehension. Season 1, Episode 3, cart B could be designated any number of ways, from "103b" to "335" to "BBX411105" to "Chipmunk" or whatever the case may be. There has been a very liberal reporting of official "production codes" in children's television for quite some time. Virtually none of these codes are sourced. In this edit the user tried to split the difference and assign arbitrarily an A and B cart to episode production numbers that were sourced. This is a patent fabrication, since individual carts can have entirely different production codes from the released episode numberings, that may not be released in any way to the public, because as I've said, it's an INTERNAL coding system. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. That is definitely a long term problem with plenty of prior warnings given. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki

Hotwiki seems to have a problem with other editors posting useful information on the articles on his Watchlist. Take X-Men: Days of Future Past for example. I added information on Hugh Jackman's guest appearance on WWE Raw as part of a cross-promotion between the film and WWE. Despite using verifiable references, my edits were reverted by Hotwiki, who claimed that they did not meet notability standards. Apparently, he is the only one who has a problem with the edits, as no other editor has made any similar complaint. Hotwiki had already violated the 3RR with his frivolous claims of non-compliance to MOS:Film#Marketing, and he continues to do so.

In addition, he posted this rebuttal in response to my warning:

I do have a problem with your input, they are unnecessary, uninformation and doesn't meet the standards of Manual of Style for films, so please stop editing. Thank you. And for the record, I don't not own any of the articles here, I just to revert things that aren't needed and if you review my work on that article, you would know my contributions really helped that article. What did you do before that was so good?--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

- Areaseven (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Areaseven's input doesn't meet the standard of MOS:FILM#Marketing. I really don't think we should mention every single TV appearance in promoting the film. Hugh Jackman's WWE promotion is hardly notable. The critical commentary he gave was from Twitter users. Areaseven wouldn't even bring up "Twitter reaction" as his critical commentary if I didn't tell him about this Manual of Style for films. And I don't think "Twitter reaction" is enough for the said material to be kept.

And just because no other user complained about your edit, it doesn't mean your input cannot be removed.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And can you please list down the moments where I removed an useful information on the articles on my watchlist? Do you even know my watchlist? I only removed things that are not needed, unsourced material, speculation and crystal ball stuff, and I could show you those edits of mine. Please don't accuse users without an evidence--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HotWiki's posting is borderline of a personal attack and not assuming good faith of the user's actual edits. Telling someone to "stop editing" and asking "what did you do before that was so good" is not very welcoming to other editors. Instead of being hasty with an editor and calling their edits "unnecessary", HotWiki should've explained why their edits were reverted, and ways they could improve their editing, instead. And that would also help in avoiding the episode edit-war that was potentially taking place on the page. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack is not the issue here. Since when do we include "fan reactions" in articles especially "Twitter fan reaction"? This is Wikipedia may I remind you.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your actions were called into play, and your words are formed from your actions, which have included several personal attacks, especially with this incident. And not once did I mention "Twitter fan reaction", as I do agree. But once again, I remind you: it's the tone and manner of how you handle yourself in your words and/or actions that you may need to be looked at. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And who was accused of having a problem with other editors posting useful information on the articles on my Watchlist? Me. Bottom-line, I wouldn't having an argument with Areaseven if he only listened to me. Like I said, his contribution doesn't meet the standards of MOS:FILM#Marketing. First, his contribution was lacking of critical commentary, which I mentioned when I removed his edit, then he backed it up with fan reaction from Twitter. Lets not make this about my attitude, because thats not the issue in this first place. The issue here is Areaseven's contribution of posting questionable marketing info and putting fan reaction as the critical commentary for the questionable marketing info.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your attitude here on Wikipedia is the issue here. You simply could not agree with another editor's helpful edit, and you took it upon yourself to take this issue personally. - Areaseven (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

To mirror Areaseven, the issue here is you and your attitude HotWiki, as this Incident report was opened up about you, and you once again prove my point by saying "f he only listened to me", because you're assuming he needs to listen to you. Areaseven's edits were in good faith, though his execution was not quite right. But you also strongly handled this situation wrong, as you've notably done in the past with other editors, which I've witnessed through your talk page discussions and your edit summaries. And either way, it also doesn't excuse you from entering into a borderline edit war with the user. And looking at your edit history, you never once took the discussion to Areaseven's talk page, which Wikipedia recommends. And it also recommends and suggests that using an edit summary as a discussion board is not valid for having a "discussion" with another user. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats and COI issues

• Peter rees tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Peter rees tv claims to be Peter Rees, the subject of Peter Rees (producer). He has made some contentious edits to the article, as well as MythBusters, that have been reverted, both as an IP and through his recently registered account but he seems to have some valid concerns. What brings me here though is the legal threat that he made in a post at the Help Desk, where he said "I will be forced to take legal action against those who publish this story if it is not corrected".[276] There are also concerns that, while he claims to be Peter Rees, he has not verified that his is indeed Peter Rees. As a new editor he is probably unaware of the various issues, although I have informed him that editing Peter Rees (producer) is a clear conflict of interest. Given the legal threat it may be prudent to block the user, at least until he has verified that he is who he claims to be. He probably also needs some guidance in other areas but after the issues at Heleen Mees, I'm really not up to it. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, there is a more significant concern about WP:BLP, and I had posted this at WP:BLPN. The user who claims to be the subject has been reverted, putting back into the article this: "He left the show shortly after a dangerous electrical prank was played on a MythBusters crew member. Rees ordered the crew to connect a 100,000 volt electric fence transformer to a show prop, and then convince Adam Savage to touch the device." With this "Adam Savage on His 100,000-Volt Cattle Prod Shock". FORA.tv. 22 May 2010. as the supposed source. Having seen the post at the Help desk, I've now taken it out of the article. If he is the subject we should be more forgiving of his outburst given the poor quality of the source, the seriousness of the BLP accusation and the reversions. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep that's a legal threat. But WP:DOLT is still important here, and DeCausa is right that the statement sourced to the YouTube clip should be removed. If a better source presents itself, then that's another matter. It's likely that the safest way to present such a claim, since the facts are going to be disputed, would be to attribute it to whomever claims it... that is "According to X, Rees did Y". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue that DeCausa mentions is no longer an issue because the claim has been quite rightly removed from the article. The previous reversions of the editor have been made for quite understandable reasons. These edits, as an IP, removed the original claim and replaced it with original research, both related and unrelated to the incident as well as adding a series of inappropriate claims about the hosts of MythBusters. In effect he substituted one bad claim for others. This edit completely destroyed the article. A check through the article's history shows the same edits, probably by the same editor using different IPs, being made previously.[277][278] Yes, WP:DOLT is relevant but it's an essay, but Wikipedia:No legal threats is a policy with legal considerations, so it has more authority than WP:DOLT. This editor has edited Wikipedia since at least 2010 and should realise there are better ways to do things than what he has done. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue is only not an issue now because I took out it today. When he made the legal threat, it was still there. At that point the history of the problematic BLP wording was as follows. It was introduced 23 July 2013 [279], he removed it on 9 April 2014 [280] in an entirely inappropriate way by adding inappropriate material. On 29 April 2014 [281] it was restored at the same time as his inappropriate additions were removed. So, today, he again removed it [282] but again included inappropriate additions to his removal. It was once again restored [283] at the same time as his additions were removed. He then removed it [284] but this time without adding any of his additions but it it was then nevertheless restored[285]. So on 29 April and 2 May he had seen this poorly sourced BLP issue restored three times by Wikipedia editors. Removing his additions does not excuse the reintroduction of the material that WP:BLP tells us should have been removed. Absolutely WP:DOLT applies. DeCausa (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I should say that WP:DOLT and WP:NLT are not mutually exclusive. The point is that while legal threats are not acceptable from a behavioral standpoint, when one is made, the solution is not to revert, block, and ignore. The reverts are understandable insofar as the edits that were reverted did a whole lot more than just remove that one claim... but one must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, if we start talking about blocking the subject of an article for a breach of WP:NLT, we at least owe it to them to not have provoked that legal threat by breaching WP:BLP. I know, I know...two wrongs don't make a right... But it feels inequitable. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming that the editor actually is the article's subject. While I'd like to assume in good faith that the editor is who we say he is, we have no actual evidence that he is, which is why he should be blocked until he provides such proof, especially given the legal threat. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

True that there is no evidence, but looking at the edits it would seem unlikely that anyone but the subject (or maybe his representative) would be interested in making them. That doesn't seem a reason to block to me. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the YouTube video and knowing that there is only one producer who is no longer with the series, it is unlikely that anyone but the subject is who Adam Savage was referring to, but that's not enough evidence to keep the claim in the article. Nor should we allow an editor to claim he is a notable subject without evidence. Anyone could create User:Peter Rees. If it is the subject's representative then he should be blocked immediately, as that's a clear breach of Wikipedia:Username policy as usernames that impersonate other people are not permitted. In any case, a block would not meant to be permanent and would be lifted when the editor confirms his identity via OTRS. WP:LEGAL says "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding" and there is an outstanding legal threat. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Peter rees tv and done my best to explain WP:IMPERSONATE and proper identification through OTRS, while being careful to disable autoblock and to permit the creation of another account. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"In the News" - parochial exception, or the norm?

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

---

OK, now I've found the right place, it's complaining time.

My initial gripe was with the (imho) indefensible decision not to post the Gerry Adams news on the front page (if the idea is that people are supposed to make reasoned, informed and sensible arguments). But we are well beyond taking issue with how that crazy decision came about, into 'wtf'? territory regarding the integrity of the people involved in general.

Having complained about that "no consensus" closure on Wikipedia talk:In the news, it was shut down immediately by Rambling Man, at the request of 331dot. I complained about that at Talk:Main Page, but it was swiftly removed by Rambling Man and 331dot, on the technicality that it was the wrong venue. When I found what I beleive is the right venue, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), what do you know, it was shut down by Doktorbuk and 331dot.

What, I hear you ask, connects Rambling Man and 331dot and Doktorbuk? I'll tell you. They all apparently comment a lot on the In the News page. Now, considering that the main thrust of my original complaint was about the lack of quality, reason or indeed basic intelligence of the various comments there (including having specically mentioned a comment made by Doktorbuk about the LA clippers), it's beyond the pale that I now seem to be being harassed by the very people I'm criticising? Surely even Wikipedia has something to say about such naked self-interest?

Indeed, in irony of ironies, 331dot is now shamefacedly accusing me of harassing him! My crime? I said I would tell people in the outside world about the things that happen on Wikipedia, using hiM as the poster boy example of the sort of dysfunctional things that happen here

Other miscellaneous complaints:

• 331dot's attempted closure of a section criticising his own behavour - something he has now elevated into a "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion"
• Rambling Man and 331dot's failure to tell me where the correct venue was to take this issue further (for obvious reasons)
• Rambling Man's failure to tell me about this place, even after I asked him directly where I could complain about him (for obvious reasons)
• Rambling Man's quite ridiculous threats to block me for telling 331dot about the poster boy thing
• The various accusations/insinations by people (including someone claiming to be a teacher no less) that I am a 'smelly sock', from people who apparently don't have enough evidence to do anything more about that, except call me names, perhaps in an attempt to make me cry, or some other lame reason - it all seems designed to make me go away, so they don't have to respond to my legitimate complains about how the rejetion of the Adams story came about

So, I guess my question is, is this evident circling of the wagons and refusal to answer even the most basic criticism of their process, unique to 'In the News', or is it just normal - is this just how criticism is dealt with by everybody at Wikipedia? Or is someone here, someone who has no dog in this fight, going to do the right thing by Wikipedia's reputation, and start taking names? Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's posts, including the above one, speak for themselves. It's not about what was said or what was done, but how they went about it. THey are clearly disappointed with their supported ITN nomination not being posted and have taken to a crusade. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your actions also speak for themselves. Do you really think people are stupid? Do you think they can't see that you're one of the people I've been criticising for the way they commented in that Adams section? Do you think they can't see that you were the person who requested my subsequent complaint at Wikipedia talk:In the news be shut down. And do you think they can't see that it's been you who then has directly shut it down yourself, at the Main Page, and then the Village Pump? You can fool some of the people, some of the time.... Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not shut it down; I restored someone's else's shutting it down. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. I guess that makes you completely innocent then, in your eyes. Wow. I didn't punch him first, your honour! If anyone wanted to know who else was shutting it down as well as you, they only needed to read above - I did name everybody involved at each stage, given that what links you all together are is pretty much the point of this complaint. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought yourself to ANI, Lokie, because if not, I would have. This user has been tendentiously editing, posting long blocks of aggressively worded and angry comments in response to those arguing against his rationale for posting the "Gerry Adams" nomination topic for ITN. The closures of said threads in the various venues in which he brought them to were not because his arguments were going unheard, but because the discussions were getting long-winded, disruptive, and borderlining on personal attacks. Yet he continues to insist that Wikipedia is engaging in a grand whitewashing, to the point where he has accused it of being a "cult". I don't think that his behavior amounts to a long-term block, but he must be reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and this sort of battleground behavior does not foster collaboration. --WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice theory. OK then, if you redraft my original complaint without the bits that are supposedly "long-winded, disruptive, and borderlining on personal attacks", we'll test if it's a good one - we'll see if Rambling Man allows it to be reposted on the page. After all, he seemed confident nobody would be remotely interested in it, so if nobody replies, that will be that, and I will have my answer. I only started this "crusade" as some people are so stupidly calling it, after he shut that original complaint down. But if it helps you to blame me for reacting the way any normal person would to such obviously self-interested censorhip, go ahead. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the forum! As I said, sorry it didn't work out for you, better luck next time, like if Adams gets charged or convicted. Otherwise this is business as usual and doesn't warrant the tens of KB of Tl;dr being issued across multiple Wikipedia pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, Rambling Man 'welcomes the forum'. That's why this is about the 5th time he has tried to deflect attention away from his role with this 'nothing to see here' act. And I don't know why he keeps trying to portray this as merely sour grapes on my part, but as he's done it yet again, I'll just repeat, yet again, that my complaint goes well beyond that, for me (as if he remotely cares). Anyone who wants the full details of why I think that decision should be considered well beyond 'business as usual' (unless it's just to be accepted that 'In the News' is just a forum for people to talk absolute made up crap, as Rambling Man himself has done quite frequently), then they need only read the section at Wikipedia talk:In the news, which he shut down. Anyone who wants to know why I am annoyed at what has happened since then, only needs to read above. He has absolutely no need to keep trying to mislead others about what happened, or deflect attention away from my accounts, unless of course he has some reason to think that would be to his advantage. Like maybe, people not realising that apparently he seems to quite like getting to decide for himself what is and is not newsworthy enough for the front page, whether it is or isn't news in the real world (part of which of couse is the unfettered ability to shut down complaints when they occur), and he doesn't really want to be put to the trouble of actually explaining why he comes out with such utter stupdity as he goes about giving that opinion, like the recent claim that because the news of the arrest has finally dropped down the page after three days, this shows it wasn't news anyway, not for an international site like Wikipedia anyway. I mean really - either he has some kind of brain injury to think that makes any sense to anyone else but him, or he is showing everyone else at Wikipedia such a massive amount of disrespect by thinking they are just so stupid that they are going to just accept such obvious nonsense as fact, and incorporate it into a calculation of 'consensus' (which sadly appears to be the case with Adams). Either way, he's not anything like what you would expect the average Wikipedia insider to be, but that's just my opinion as an outsider. Maybe from inside the asylum, perhaps he's admired for these special abilities. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you're still not quite getting it are you? It's very simple. Many people disagreed with the nomination. A few agreed. There was insufficient consensus to post. End of. Now please stop filling up Wikipedia with your rage. You need to calm down a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to all my previous answers, the contents of which won't change no matter how you try to change the narrative here. The no consensus decision was flawed, you either undertand that's my issue and attempt to give a good counter-argument, or you can just keep on trying this rubbish. Your chouce is clearly the latter. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'll give you my thoughts. Firstly, I'm going to assume good faith that since you're new, you didn't know the most effective way of getting your complaint heard, and therefore I'm going to treat the claims of forum shopping as excusable and understandable. Now, for the actual content in question, the point that appears to have been made repeatedly by numerous people is this - Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. We have a very strict biography of living persons policy, and in particular, we treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure The Sun and the Daily Mail can't wait to trip over this story, just like they couldn't wait to scream from the rooftops that Rolf Harris was a kiddie fiddler par excellence .... but just because they do it, doesn't mean we do it as well. As was said in the initial debate, if Adams is charged or convicted, we can revisit the story then. Like the Rambling Man said, people looked at your proposal, suggested it erred too much into violating our enforced BLP policy, and said "sorry, not suitable". It's an old cliche, but I can now strongly advise you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, as you're not going to get the result you want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not have a dog in the fight, but you didn't bring anything like a decent point to this table. It's an old cliche, but why don't you get your head out your ass and actually read the policy you think you're enforcing? As someone had already pointed out in that original discussion, BLPCRIME has absolutely nothing to do with this. Is Adams relatively unknown? No. Has the news of the arrest been ommitted from his Wikipedia biography pending conviction? No. Was there any doubt that he has been arrested in connection with a murder? No. So there we are - that's the entire paragraph of BLPCRIME, and not a single part of it remotely supports the idea that this news shouldn't have been reported on the front page. As for trying to claim that the TV and press coverage this news has got the last three days has been tabloid in nature - what an utterly disgraceful thing to say. It cannot be right that people can get away with telling such blatant lies about what's been happening in the real world, outside of the bubble of unreality you seem to want Wikipedia to exist in. This has been the headline story on the BBC TV news, and in every major reputable newspaper. You and Rambling Man and whoever else might wish it wasn't, but you need to open your eyes. The rest of the world is reporting the facts, only Wikipedia is trying to pretend that readers are so stupid that if they did so, they would interpret the headline 'Adams arrested in connection with a murder', as 'Adams is a murderer'. Anyone opposing this on that basis isn't enforcing any policy that I can see. Unsuprisingly, nobody can prove otherwise either, all they can do is keep screaming with incresing intensity, that it's a 'violation'. Hardly the sign of a convincing argument. Not even really an argument, it's just shouting really. And if innocent until proven guilty really was the reason for all this hysterical screaming about 'violations', then it really beggars belief that you could even think there is any material difference to Wikipedia putting on its front page 'Adams arrested in connection with murder' and 'Adams charged with murder' - in both of those cases, in the eyes of the law, he's still actually innocent. Are you really so clueless not to even realise that? It seems so, given everything else. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One word: WP:CONSENSUS. It's key on this project, and no matter what you say, consensus to include it on the front page failed. No need for additional rants, it's just the way this project works. When it's closed as no consensus, there's no appeal the panda ₯’ 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Read my complaint. Yes, consensus is key - but if you go look, consensus is not about ignoring the fact people have lied about basic facts, misquoted policy, and generally talked nonsense, to come up with a conclusion that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In the time you took to post those two rants, you could have compiled a nomination for Max Clifford, who has been convicted of child abuse, and might have had a better chance of being accepted and put on the front page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance to this issue? Zero? No surprise there then. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

By creating a new ITN nomination, you will prove the community that you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and not to waste everyone's time. I think our conversation is over, and the only thing that remains to be seen is which admin's patience will fray sufficiently to hit the block button first. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

By answering my criticism of your response, you'd be showing the community that you're actually concerned that you might be totally misapplying policy. By declaring the conversation over, you make it pretty clear what you think of the community. You're clueless about the policy you claim to be enforcing. That was clear from your response, and your subsequent evasion has merely confirmed it. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I'm so disgusted at the blatant and deliberate mis-application of BLPCRIME to this issue, I've raised it on the policy talk page over there. Hopefully someone can stop this nonsense by making it even more clear, although it's pretty damn clear as it right now. People just need to stop lying about it being remotely revevant to issues like this. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, another venue, possibly different people to hear your arguments. Are you therefore content for this thread to be closed as your discussion has been relocated? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Another shameless attempt to decieve people about what's going on. It's not even surprising any more. The discussions are obviously different in nature and purpose, but you already knew that. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How long until this makes it to Jimbo's talk page? Or better yet, the Wikimedia Foundation?--WaltCip (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Lokie, by going from talk page to talk page, is showing all the characteristics of a troll. We get it, you're disappointed that a hobby horse failed to get chosen for the front page. Stop beating along since deceased equine creature. Move on. doktorb _words^deeds 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what I am saying. It's simply dishonest. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, if 5 people had been saying it wasn't even in the news (a total lie), and 5 people were saying it should be posted because it was notable, if someone then had the stupiditiy to close that as "no consensus" - you wouldn't then be ignoring the obvious flaws in that judgement, and you certainly wouldn't be shutting down the inevitable subsequent complaints. But yet, you are doing it here. Why? What is there to gain for Wikipedia by rewarding people for lying or misrepresenting policy/reality? Because if you remove the lies and halftruths from the opposition case, you don't have much left to counter the people pointing out the obvious, that this was a notable news event - and Rambling Man/331dot/DoktorB's attempts to prevent that complaint getting an airing are why we are here, no matter how many times Ramlbing Man tries to deceive people into thinking that's not the case at all. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Evildoer at Ashkenazi Jews. Repeated disruptive POV pushing over an extended period on a single issue

Evildoer has a long pattern of persistent disruptive POV-pushing, not only on this article alone. His thesis is that the Ashkenazi by scholarly consensus came from the Middle East, and he refuses to countenance any scholarship that contradicts this, suppressing the dissonance in order to thrust this into pages as a truism. Late last year he worked intensely to get this in(1):(2):(3):(4):(5):(6):(7):(8):(9):(10): One user User:Jeppiz described this flurry of edits as a 'a massive NPOV violation' for removing a lot of sourced content , and Evildoer's response was simply to (11) revert him, then, on second thought (12) self-revert, to give others time to respond, then again, (13) self-self-revert because he decided he didn't need to listen to anyone. User:Debresser, acting as talk page umpire, was so exasperated he warned Evildoer that if he persisted he would be taken to arbitration, reverting his material as '1. pointed, 2. contentious 3. ignoring ongoing discussion 4. no consensus.'

Evildoer took note, and disappeared. By consensus through December 21-27, the lede was stabilized, and the POV push Evildoer had inserted disappeared with two edits by Debresser, here and here.

Evildoer popped back three months later and without announcement, reintroduced the controversial and now elided (by consensus) phrasing, with a new source (14) in this edit. When successively challenged for breaking the consensus, he persisted in restoring his old version, pleading (14)I don't recall any consensus on this passage. Moreover, it is sourced material that appears further down in the article.

Seeing this lately, I restored the consensus of December, only to be (16) reverted by Evildoer immediately, who argued he had a 'new' consensus. So I looked at what he had done.

The 'new source', which he copied and pasted from elsewhere, failing to note there was no page indicated, was Bernard Dov Weinryb's The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland from 1100-1800, Jewish Publication Society of America 1973 pp.17-22. I examined it closely. It failed verification. Weinryb's book in fact espouses a conclusion diametrically opposed to the one Evildoer draws from it. It examines a dozen theories about the Ashkenazis' origins only to dismiss them all as speculative. I therefore notified the page I would remove it, unless something could show I was wrong, within 24 hours. Evildoer threatened to revert me if I did, indifferent to the fact that he had been shown to use a false source. Unintimidated, and since no one responded to my request, I removed the text and source after a day, and was (17) immediately reverted by Evildoer. Please note that he has, in the face of my demonstration on the talk page that Weinryb cannot be used to support that sentence, reintroduced him in support of it. This is a flagrant disfiguring of our obligation to provide wiki readers with reliably sourced information.

Evildoer has once more made a preemptive edit, been shown the edit is flawed source-wise, but insists that it cannot be removed without consensus. This upturning of WP:Burden and contempt for collegial editing is characteristic of a consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, all in the service of a single minded pursuit of stamping pages with an ideological meme about origins. This is a long-term problematical behavioural pattern, and not a content dispute Please advise.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In diffs 1, 2, 4: I reverted because it looked like it was WP:UNDUE. The majority of sources present at the time supported Near Eastern/Israelite origin, with only one RS contradicting it. I believed that nitpicking on the accuracy of the sources belonged in the genetic section, and I still do. The lede is meant to sum up who they are without getting bogged down in details. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, and I will make an effort to fix that.

Diff 3: Restoring a cat that was not a subcat/parent cat of the other (at the time). They meant the same thing. I didn't see a reason to remove it.

Diff 5: Self-explanatory. We had not laid out a specific criteria for inclusion in that box, therefore I believed it was a mixture of blood, culture, language, and geographical origin. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, there is stronger cultural, geographical, ethnic and linguistic affinity for Samaritans and Levantines than for Central Europeans.

Diff 6: Also self-explanatory. There is only one DNA/scholarly (without obvious political biases i.e. Joseph Massad, Ali Abunimah, etc) source that ascribes a non-Middle Eastern/Levantine origin to Ashkenazi Jews, and that is Zoossmann-Diskin's study from 2010, which was not present in the article. Instead, there was a study explaining that the majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were European in origin.

Diff 7: I was wrong here. In hindsight, it's easy to see why other editors believed it was about genetics.

Diff 8: Would have been easier to link to the study itself, not a news article pertaining to it. Furthermore, the DNA test did not arrive at the conclusion ascribed to it in the article (i.e. that Ashkenazim are predominantly European in genome, rather than in maternal lineages).

Diff 9: Here I removed an onslaught of secondary sources, all of them pertaining to the same study in an apparent attempt to pad it out and make it appear as though it has more weight than it really does. See WP:UNDUE. It was an obvious attempt at POV pushing.

Diff 10: I did what I said I would do in diff 9. I restored all of the genetic sources, including Costa's which Nishidani tendentiously claims I am trying to censor.

Jeppiz revert: See explanation above for diffs 8 and 9, and to a lesser extent 1, 2, and 4.

Diff 13 and Debresser's first revert: Should not have removed the info in the related ethnic groups box. You will notice that we have since come to an agreement and I have left it alone, since then. As for the rest, it's essentially the same problem outlined in Diff 8. The source did not say what the article said it did.

Debresser's second revert [286]: I never altered that sentence after he put it there. However, he later added this portion (which Nishidani is now trying to remove, without consensus) here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923.

Diff 14: This version did indeed enjoy consensus, as per this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923. Nishidani violated consensus. After Nishidani, and later Debresser, tried to revert me, I pointed out this error to Debresser and he agreed, admitting that he made a mistake. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=history

Nishidani is correct that it does appear further down in the article. That's where I initially found the source, and transplanted it to the lede.

I have made a few mistakes, but Nishidani's complaint is riddled with dishonesty, and I am in the process of compiling a case against him myself. Beyond that, I provided more academic sources per his request, and I will remove the Weinryb citation.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the walls of text above, but I agree that this article needs close scrutiny by some outside observers, rather than being left to the usual group of involved editors whose views are as predictable as the tides. I have not edited this article, but have been concerned for some time that it is being used by some editors involved in the Israel/Palestine debate to push certain points of view related to whether Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Israelites, which I believe are being used as a proxy for pushing viewpoints as to the right of Ashkenazi Jews to lay claim to Israel. Number 57 19:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See Number57's contributions here and judge for yourselves whether he is the best editor to comment on the neutrality of others.     ←   ZScarpia   20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be genuinely interested to hear in which direction (pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian) you consider those comments to be biased, as it seems that editors of both sides think I'm biased against them (and equally editors from both sides come to me for help). But, yes, if anyone does have any concerns about my neutrality, I'm more than happy for those comments to serve as a barometer :) Number 57 20:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy if all I/P editors were banned from this and other pages, even if for some it would be just suffering from a blanket ban. I come across pages like this and see editors, whose knowledge of Jewish, European and specifically Ashkenazi history and culture is all google-improvisation, plugging away at just one thing, genetic proof all Ashkenazi came from the Land of Israel. The fact that I have strong private views on the I/P area has not impeded me from writing most of the articles about Raul Hilberg Irving Goldman, Franz Baermann Steiner Eugenio Curiel, Gertrud Kolmar and other Ashkenazi whose example and works have influenced my thinking. Each of those pages cost me a few hours or days work. Easy. I've put months of attention on this article, and most of it is reverted automatically precisely because of the suspicion you allude to. I've failed several times to redo the article because of this deplorable fixation, which impoverishes one of the most fertile creative human communities on record. I have from the outset argued that the article in the Jewish Virtual Library by Shira Schoenberg on 'Ashkenazi' should set the pattern (it has nothing about the prehistoric speculations on origins), written by competent enthusiastics who know about Ashkenazi lore, rabbinical learning, the Cossack and other genocides, the Pale of Settlement, Mendelsohn, Heine, Marx, the haskalah,Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Carl Emil Schorske's Vienna, Freud and psychoanalysis, Einstein and the Hungarian-german Ashkenazi contribution to modern physics, and other things too many to be enumerated. I've almost never complained of anyone, even of editors I deplore. I make the exception here, because Evildoer knew the material he was editing back was erroneous and unsupported, it was proven before his eyes, and yet he simply reverted it back in. That is an extreme example of contempt for process, for listening to what editors say, and for consensus. It requires administrative oversight. His further edit, if you wish me to analyse it, makes the situation even more bizarre.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This would mean that you would be banned from editing there too, seeing as you are a regular on I/P articles.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I generally understand the implications of what I write. And I wrote self-evidently saying what you think I missed: by all means get me too off such articles, if that is what is needed to get them written.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You will see these kinds of debates raging on virtually every single article related to Jews or the Middle East in general. It is hardly a secret that most of these articles are edited largely by political campaigners (usually of an anti-Israel slant, as the Zionist ones are almost always outnumbered and T-Banned quickly), but I couldn't care less about that. All I'm trying to do is make sure sensitive articles like these remain fair and accurate, without turning into horrendous, libelous screeds that would make Joseph Goebbels proud.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is Nishidani regularly engages in POV pushing and who is now attempting to silence an editor who does not share his point of view on Jews and our origins. Keep in mind, the editor Nishidani wishes to silence is a Jew who only wishes to bring balance and sensitivity to the Ashkenazi Jews page. Nishidani's edits and comments demonstrate an anti-Jewish sentiment; which is to say a sentiment that runs counter to beliefs held by most Jews about the origins of our people as a whole. Nishidani is now attempting to defend the removal of a paragraph in which the origin of Ashkenazim is explained as being Israelite. Debresser, an editor who usually argues alongside Nishidani, admitted that the paragraph was removed without consensus. Nishidani claims that there "two consensuses" - an impossibility to be sure. Gilad55 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I don't know the specifics of this article, but Evildoer187 has been edit-warring for several years over the Middle Eastern origin of Jews. See his edits to the various categories of Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring? There are dozens of people on both sides who disagree on the status of those categories. If you believe it's just me restoring those cats, then it's obvious you're not paying attention.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been paying attention. You're the SPA who is edit-warring over them. See WP:NOTTHEM. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't been, otherwise you'd have noticed the participation of Gilad, Kitty, Yambaram, AnkhMopork, among others (and those are just the people who agreed with me) in these same edit wars. WP:NOTTHEM is not an excuse. Thank you for proving my point.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It'true that the article on Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a heavy WP:POV. Despite the existence of extensive, modern DNA studies suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews are of mainly European origin, such opinions are sometimes "banned" from the article by one side, sometimes they are pushed as the only studies by another side. Both approaches are wrong. We know that Israel is a sensitive issue and there are political reasons both for including or excluding a number of facts. This is true for both sides.
  This is a much wider problem than User:Evildoer or User:Nishidani. The only thing we can know for certain is that these edit wars will continue unless a policy is set by Wikipedia. We had years of fighting over Macedonia until WP:MOSMAC settled the issue. I'm not going to comment on what Evildoer or Nishidani did or do, but I would encourage AN to consider whether a wider invention would not be needed. When extensive modern scientific research is regularly silenced because it says the "wrong" thing, then Wikipedia has a problem. There is extensive modern DNA research saying Ashkenazia Jews are mainly European and there is extensive modern DNA research saying they are mainly Levantines. If the scientific world cannot know for sure, neither can we. It follows that both sides should be presented. Until a policy on that is laid down, these edit wars will go on.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi Jews are of mainly European origin". This is incorrect, unless you are referring to Zoossmann-Diskin's study from 2010. The study you are thinking of says the maternal lines are mainly European, whereas the paternal lines are Near Eastern. The fact that you are still clinging to this idea, after having been shown that you are wrong on more than one occasion, is a demonstration of bad faith on your part. I do agree, however, that a new policy needs to be set down, and it should probably go far beyond a mere 1RR sanction (as can be seen on Arab-Israeli conflict articles).Evildoer187 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding on to the above points, I believe some kind of balance needs to be reached on these sensitive topics (including Israeli-Arab conflict articles) so they are not dominated by one side or another. Or perhaps a policy that allows only editors who are proven to be neutral to edit these articles (i.e. people without any particular interest in these topics), whereas other editors can send in requests which will then be evaluated and approved/rejected, based purely on their merit and adherence to Wiki policy. I don't see any other way out of this. The way things are now, editors with a political agenda can just storm right in, outnumber the opposing side, and tilt the narratives of the articles to reflect their own prejudices (this goes for both sides, mind you). Simply placing good faith on other editors in this particular area is not a good idea. At all.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you'd be willing to stop editing these articles and all categories "of Jewish descent" in favor of neutral editors? I'm not saying I'd be one of them, it's just I never thought I'd ever see you suggest this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I doubt it could ever be implemented. People in general seem to have an uncanny knack for being irrational when it comes to anything related to Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm surprised to hear you describe editors who focus on editing articles on Judaism and Jews as being irrational. Personally, my interest is in all categories of descent and ethnicity but I've never run into this amount of conflict before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually like Evildoer187 to qualify what he means by 'irrational'. An inability to be able to discern where WP:OR has come into play? An inability to distinguish between WP:POV and neutrality? Perhaps, Evildoer187, your definition is proscribed to anyone who doesn't agree with you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, by 'irrational' I mean this [287]. Notice that all of the citations he restored pertained to the same study, so the word 'some' is clearly a misnomer. Moreover, it constitutes WP:UNDUE. There are many other examples I can give you. Do you want more?Evildoer187 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'irrational', and your behaviour, reminds me of Spinoza. He fell out with his community precisely over this, risking the death penalty, and the Enlightenment and the haskalah flourished in the wake of his acute perception of the problem. As has been remarked: Heidi M. Ravven, 'Spinoza's Rupture with Tradition -His Hints of a Jewish Modernity,' in Heidi M. Ravven,Lenn Evan Goodman (eds.) Jewish Themes in Spinoza's Philosophy, SUNY 2002, pp.187-224, p.208: 'For a stable society to be a realizable goal (wikipedia's encyclopedic project in this instance) there has to be another way to establish agreement than mere emotional irrationality. In the final two books of the Ethics, Spinoza shows us how to emerge from the irrational investment in others and in the multitude that obtains in the most primitive imaginative life. . .Spinoza warns us here that more often than not a person cannot but conform to social pressures. One pays the price- that of one's own integrity- in the bargain. For "it needs an unusually powerful spirit to . .restrain oneself from imitating (others') emotions".'

All editors who edit knowingly on behalf what they perceive to be a 'group', national/ethnic or whatever, identity are liable to allow their rational assessment of edits to be affected by the perceived 'group' interests implicit or explicit in articles. The 'rational' editor is one who never allows these emotional attachments to sway his judgement, which operatively means (s)he's going to be seen as a 'damaging' editor to any group of editors who think in collectivist terms.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There aren't any editors on that page who are not swayed to a certain extent by personal biases. That's Wikipedia's perennial flaw. It places too much faith in the "inherent good of people" (Jimmy Wales' own words) without realizing, or ignoring, that a lot of people really are not good and are only here to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own prejudices. My only aim in this area is to see these articles remain balanced without veering into Al Jazeera/Stormfront-esque bias (as per the example I gave). Myself, and perhaps Gilad are among the only editors left who can provide the Jewish/Israeli perspective to balance out the predominantly pro-Arab ones that are gradually making their way into Jewish articles. Admittedly, I did not take your word seriously because I don't trust you (e.g. the fact that you once referred to Purim as a "celebration of genocide" would raise red flags for any rational person, and tells them that you don't belong anywhere near a Jewish article), and that's why I restored it. I hadn't actually looked at the sources yet, but I assumed they were accurate since they remained in the main body, unchallenged, for months on end.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First Gilad, then Evildoer hinted, and now he has made explicit that he reverts me on sight because I'm not to be trusted anywhere near a 'Jewish' article. Could any administrator who is unfamiliar with Evildoer's allusion to Purim examine the note attached to the top of my page (User:Nishidani) and then notify Evildoer he is engaged in a violent assault on my integrity by suggesting I am an antisemite? This has been repeatedly examined by many editors and admins, and the inference Evildoer is making has been repeatedly rebuffed.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsuitable comments by Gilad55

I am not going to get much involved in this dispute, but I must protest quite strongly against the arguments of Gilad55 who appears to claim that ethnicity, not sourced facts, should be the criteria for editing. Defending (or accusing) an editor because they are a Jew (or any other ethnicity) shows a profound lack of understanding what Wikipedia is about. Likewise, accusing someone with whom one does not agree for being "anti-Jewish" is also remarkable. And the definition Gilad55 uses for "anti-Jewish" ("a sentiment that runs counter to beliefs held by most Jews") just defies belief; if a major DNA study comes to a result that is different what most people believe, then there is nothing "anti" about that. Given this flagrant lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and given the troublesome nature of the user's edit history, I'd lend an ear to anyone suggesting Gilad55 should not edit articles related to Jews, Israel or Judaism. Both the comments on this page and the actions of the user shows that this user is not on Wikipedia for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity should not determine who gets to edit an article. However, even a cursory glance at Nishidani's editing history shows him to be someone who probably should not be editing on Jewish topics, or anywhere near them. Not a single one of his edits, as far as I can tell (and I have watched him), have depicted Jews in a positive light. That alone is a serious cause for alarm.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There it is then, once more. Cursory glancing is your problem, and I think you'd better retract that. Read the edit histories and contributors behind the articles on Raul Hilberg, Irving Goldman, Franz Baermann Steiner, Eugenio Curiel, Gertrud Kolmar, Hugo Salus, (Ashkenazi) or Mizrahi like Ezra Nawi, Bruno Hussar, Albert Antébi, to name but a few, most of which I wrote. I have a total inability, well known to those who know me or read my academic work, to think 'ethnically' or in terms of 'nationality', and the problem I encounter here is that many POV-pushers think the respective differences between Albert Einstein, Theodor Adorno, Spinoza, Osip Mandelstam, Lenny Bruce, Abraham Isaac Kook, Dov Lior and Pamela Geller all miraculously dissolve when you categorize them as, which they happen to be, Jewish. I only see individuals. Perhaps that's why I get the 'antisemite' label thrown my way, as Evildoer has just insinuated. Collectivists cannot understand opposition to anything they personally believe as anything but opposition to their collectivist identity, to everyone else in the vast group they imagine to constitute their basic identity.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Refocusing

What I what close administrative scrutiny of is, in synthesis, the following facts.

• In December, Evildoer was told by two neutral editors that his behaviour on the page consisted of gross POV-pushing and if he persisted, an AN/I complaint would be made. He disappeared. An agreement was reached to elide the problematical assertion re Ashkenazi origins.
• He popped back up 2 and a half months later, and inserted the same phrase back into the lede, without prior discussion on the talk page, challenging the consensus, and the peace. He had a 'new' source for it.
• I eventually checked the 'new' source. It was Weinryb. Nothing in Weinryb endorsed that formulation, and therefore Evildoer erred in using it.
• I analysed the source on the talk page, gave Evildoer and others a day to correct me if my analysis was wrong.
• Evildoer clearly, only then realized with the link that nothing in Weinryb supported his WP:OR.
• I said I would remove the WP:OR. Evildoer said he'd revert me if I did, in full knowledge that in reverting my removal, he was restoring a false source for an WP:OR statement.
• Since no one intervened to challenge my analysis, I removed the WP:OR and it was immediately reverted back by Evildoer, including, with the disproven Weinryb, 'new sources' putatively backing the old statement.
• I complained here, and Evildoer immediately admitted his revert was wrong. He removed Weinryb. Again, this was wrong. Weinryb, in the link I provided, specifically dismisses Evildoer's phrase about the Middle eastern Israelite origin hypothesis as 'speculative'.

The beginnings of Jewish settlement in Polish lands are buried in the dim past and are as obscure as most beginnings, including Poland’s own. . .Whatever may have been the reasons for immigration, there is no documentary evidence of its origins.’ p.17

(After dismissing the Khazar hypothesis for Ashkenazi origins) ‘the rest of the hypotheses and speculations have little or no basis in reality and lack any factual value for dealing with the early settlement of Jews in Poland.'p.22

• Evildoer had read this, in the meantime, and refused to admit it contradicted flatly his WP:OR phrasing that Ashkenazi:ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews traces back to immigrants originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East'.
• So he used Weinryb to prove a statement he'd made, without consulting Weinryb. When I showed the error, he read Weinryb, and removed him, though Weinryb clearly declares that things like 'the ethnogenesis' of the Ashkenazi are all 'speculative' and without any 'basis in reality'.
• He kept his text on page, stubbornly, adding more sources for this. What are these new sources?
• (1)William Henry Anderdon’s Fasti apostolici 1884. Analysis? The book deals with events between the putative ascension of Christ and the martyrdoms of St Peter and Paul. There is nothing in this of the origins of the Ashkenazi. No page indication is provided.
• (2) Josephus Bella Judaica. Analysis? Josephus lived 900 years before the first mention of the existence of the Ashkenazi, and the book, which I am familiar with, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Ashkenazi.
• (3) Josephus, The Jewish War, Gaalyahu Cornfeld.' Analysis. This is another name for the same source in two, cited in total ignorance, as though it were a second source. No page number is provided. Nothing about the Ashkenazi
• (4) William Whiston The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Analysis? Same problem as above. No page given. Josephus's relevance to the origin of the Ashkenazi whom he did not know of, is totally obscure.
• (5) 'Encycl Britannica entry on the first Jewish Revolt, which took place 900 years before the emergence of the Ashkenazi.
• (5) Behar et al. The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people (2010) A genetic paper, which does not support in its mixed theory, his contention, and all genetics papers were excluded by consensus in December from the lead.

This is incomprehensible behaviour. There is absolutely nothing rational in doing what he has done several times, just in the last few edits, and no editor should be obliged to have to talk to the wall for days, weeks, and months as people like him, assisted by Gilad, just keep pushing back the same stuff which the archives long disposed of. As often, attempts will be made to talk around, beyond or through the facts until the comprehension of this simple abuse is lost in chat. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already addressed nearly all of this above (save for his analysis of the sources I provided), and I won't bother to do it again. Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should address all of his argument. It's pretty damning evidence. As for my experience with you, I've never encountered an editor who reverts those he disagrees with as often as you do. I could say more but it would take away from Nishidani's case as it involves categories involving Jewish descent, not this Ashkenazi article. At the root of it all is your insistence that every individual who has had even one ancestor who is Jewish (no matter where they live in the world) can be classified as "Middle Eastern" or "Asian". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I already did address his arguments. Needless to say, Nishidani's version of events is not accurate as I've demonstrated in my initial reply. As for you, you do have a habit of coming back to an article/category months or weeks later and putting in an edit that you know has no consensus. This is the pattern I've noticed from you. How do you excuse that? And as much as I don't want to get into the descent argument here (again), you know as well as I do that descent is not negated by moving to another country and living there for a certain period of time. It is contingent on ethnicity, as any source will tell you. White South Africans in America are still classified as European (on this website), although they immigrated from Africa, not Europe. That's just one example, or are Jews unique relative to every other diaspora group? It's the idea that because Jews were displaced a long time ago and lived in Europe for centuries, that they are now Europeans and no longer Levantine/Middle Eastern, that I object to. I simply don't buy that argument (because it's nonsense), and neither did at least half of the people involved in that dispute.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1. As can be seen in this diff [288], both attempted to pad out what would otherwise be considered WP:UNDUE by linking to several tertiary sources reporting on the same study (which didn't even arrive at the conclusion the corresponding passage said it did), in contrast to the wide selection of studies provided that contradicted it. In short, it was an attempt at POV pushing, and a rather transparent one at that. The "related ethnic groups" box, as I explained above, seemed to me (at least at the time) to be about more than just blood, but also culture and geographical origin. We were able to reach a compromise on that bit, and I have not touched it since then.

2. Yes, I put it there because it was a non-genetic source (and the initial dispute was about genetics) and because it was already used further down in the same article, saying the exact same thing.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And you, Evildoer187, are claiming that every one of your edits, to "article/category months or weeks later," has consensus? Because if that were the case, then I doubt you would be having to keep defending yourself here on AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(Question on the side: Why do we allow user names like "Evildoer". Would we allow "Murderer of children" or "Death-maker" or "Serial rapist" or "American terrorist"? Why is "Evildoer" different? BMK (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

OK BMK, I'm getting giddy so it's bedtime. But hey, one more for good measure, on usernames: dude, if it's beyond your ken, why not leave it alone? And: 'fore you know it we'll have user names like "Malleus Fatuorum"! And now I kiss you goodnight, in token and confirmation of our long wiki friendship. :) Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an in-joke for the I/P area: there's a guy whose handle suggests he's spoiling (antisemitic?) plots, and another who says he's not going to be a nice guy any more, all with the same POV.Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz, the edits you are thinking about came after someone restored a non-consensus version of the article/cat.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Stay focused on the specific complaint. My evidence argues that, in full knowledge that Weinryb did not support your edit, and after a due warning was given to you that reverting back a false source and an unsupported statement was 'actionable', with a full day conceded for you to sort out your confusion, you still automatically and almost immediately reverted my rule-consonant removal of dubious matter and a source that failed verification. This translated into my wasting 5 hours of work to read about 400 diffs, and three archives to confirm my long-standing impression you are problematical. I finally made the case, and immediately you o and admit, 'yes, I'm wrong on that' and edit out Weinryb, while leaving the WP:OR in, and adding five absolutely fatuous sources in place, which are self-evidently irrelevant. This, on any reading, suggests you mess around, play, create havoc, disturb the serenity of editors who take their duties here seriously. It's called attrition. It takes no time for any editor to play at attrition: it takes huge amounts of time for editors who follow the rules to clean up. People who do what you did cannot but know that frivolous reverts in the face of facts cause endless wastes of time for serious editors. Perhaps that's the point of such gaming.

I might add that this kind of confusion is general. Galassi has now reverted you on Weinryb, and reintroduced him into that text, where the WP:OR lies undisturbed. His judgement was correct, that Weinryb is not, as your edit summary said, 'controversial'. But, as shown, Weinryb cannot be used to support that statement about Ashkenazi origins. One can only use Weinryb to gloss a statement of the kind:'there are many theories about Ashkenazi origins, all speculative.' The normative solution is, in all such cases, to open a thread (which I did) for editors pushing a controversial proposal to hash it out with colleagues. You refused to use that recourse. I repeat: editors should not be forced to put up with this frolicky, perhaps even tacticxal, insouciance to the rules. It is what drives most potential editors out of articles. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You hadn't achieved consensus for removing it, and I was so busy that day that I did not have the time to look at it. However, looking at it now, you are correct that it does not belong (hence why I removed it yesterday). I told you not to remove the passage as I was busy fetching other sources to use, and as I reverted you, I put those additional citations in (thereby not violating talk page consensus). However, you rejected those too.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BURDEN. Onus is on the insertion of text, not on its removal. Zero^talk 16:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to pay attention to this, but hey I took a look at the edit of Evildoer that Nishidani highlighted and it is frankly amazing. Not a single one of the sources given supports the claim being made, and it is hard to believe Evildoer didn't realise that, since it is either completely obvious (as for Josephus) or had been pointed out already on the talk page. Zero^talk 16:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Those sources detailed how Jews arrived to Europe i.e. they did not manifest themselves organically via the adoption of Judaism by native Europeans, but by immigration, slavery, etc of Judeans brought to the territories of the Roman Empire. They were adequate sources, in my opinion. It's impossible to know when and how the Ashkenazi Jewish communities were born (since that time period in Jewish history is not that well documented), but we do know (from genetic studies, linguistic/cultural evidence, etc) that they originally came from the Levant and mixed with local Europeans (mainly Southern Europeans) at a later date.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If you are convinced those sources 'detailed how Jews arrived in Europe, give me the page numbers where this is explained from each source. (clue. Josephus doesn't give an explanation of how Jews arrived in Europe because he wrote in Rome, well aware that the Jewish community he encountered there had been established 200 years earlier than the date of his writing and before the Fall of Jerusalem).Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and where did that Jewish community come from?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, because scholars haven't elucidated the issue. I regard all history as hypotheses mostly: it's not a subject for anyone uncomfortable with the provisional or uncertainties. However, you cited without pagination Max Dimont's popular book, Jews, God and History, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962, and I eagerly wait on proof that you have read it for what you say Dimont says. Had you actually read that book you would not have asked me this question, for your eye would have caught his remark that ‘as many as a third of the Jews of Italy were not descendants of Abraham and Moses but descendants of Romulus and Remus, in as much as their ancestors were former pagans who had converted to Judaism as far back as 100 AD.’ (pp.213-214).

Personally, I remain unconvinced by the statement, though his prose is neat. Had you read it, you would have seen that some Jews have no problem with a perspective or possibility you constantly try to erase from wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical. And yes, I am aware of that passage. I never said that there was no mixture with native Europeans.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I presume, by the fact this is here, that all articles and topics relating to the Middle East, Jews, and so forth aren't covered by discretionary sanctions yet, but only a certain selection are? If so, it's a bit surprising and maybe an amendment request is needed to arbcom to make it broader (and even more global, which I suppose will maintain some level of consistency). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That would not be enough. There needs to be something else introduced that can prevent biased narratives from dominating these articles. Even with the 1RR Arbcom sanctions on I/P articles, they still exhibit an obvious pro-Arab bias/slant, as other editors have previously remarked on, albeit not in this particular discussion. Say what you will about CAMERA, but I highly doubt they would have felt the need to do what they did if there wasn't a serious problem on these articles. The same would happen on Jewish articles as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was and is a serious problem in these topic areas, and I don't think this particular noticeboard will resolve it. My other comment was reflecting on some other (pretty unrelated) topic areas where its apparently in force. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think articles dealing, directly or indirectly with Jews should be singled out. That risks inadvertently creating an 'exceptionalist' environment. Israel figures almost not at all in the first millenium of Ashkenazi Jews, at least from 900-1882, except if you look at rabinical books and attempts to make a connection are misplaced. It is like imagining that the 'Holy Land' obsessed Europeans for a millenium because theological books treat it as central. In the real historical world, such religious angles were marginal to society.

I've always argued that where problems exist, the imposition of 1R, and, in important articles, insistance that the RS bar be set high, so that only academic sources be permitted, would stop a good deal of edit-warring (if only by forcing potential edit-warriors to actually read books, or chapters of books, rather than fishing in google for anything that might back up a preconceived claim). One of the reasons why Jewish history should be easy to write, and be written with celerity and depth, is that the scholarship on every aspect of it is the subject of a huge magnificent academic output, fascinating in its own right, diligent, scrupulous, sceptical, and often iconoclastic. Almost nothing of this scholarship is being reproduced on wikipedia precisely because the I/P political obsessions have created a climate of suspicion in some editors which suggests to them everything 'they' do is motivated by a desire to attack 'Israel'.

Little of this scholarship seeps down into the mainstream or popular press which, in compensation, gives intense coverage to the Middle East conflict. That is why, simply insisting that encyclopedic articles draw on scholarship, not memes and googled tidbits, would cut the Gordian knot. I mention Toch below, and, checking youtube this morning, heard his book discussed at the conservative Bar-Ilan University. What Toch says at the end of the presentation (The Economic History of European Jews: Late Antiquity+Michael Toch+ YouTube at 24:55 onwards) (2 minutes) sums it up eloquently, if hoarsely. He says he is trying to overcome the 'abnormal' focus on Jews and Jewish communities as though they were an historical isolate, we must normatize their 'exceptionalism' and place them and their history back within the realities of historical life, like all other communities. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. What you call 'exceptionalism' is needed in this area, just as it is on other controversial topics. We're not exactly arguing about t-shirts here. The origins of Ashkenazi Jews are highly politicized, and that's something we need to remember. The 1RR doesn't work on I/P articles, and it won't work here either.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the Ashkenazi is 'highly politicized' is true and untrue, like most sentences that lack a context. Scholarship admits of complexities, the absent of records, the profusion of theories, and, Socratically, say: 'we dunno, but for me, the probability is this or that, or that theory'. Scholars who theorize it live within a wider discursive framework where politics in the largest sense does enter the equation, but they are trained to take cognizance of this, and if they lead with their chins, allowing their doubts to be drowned out by facile solutions, they know they will suffer from peer censure. At a public level, yes, in propaganda, identitarian discourse, and whatever, it is politicized, and witlessly so. It is poliicized because the broader commentariat, and the public it addrsses, are fed one line or another: Israel's security is based on the doctrine of return. If the Ashkenazi majority are not descended genetically from the Land of Israel, then, some think, we have a problem in explaining what happened. Anti-Israelis, even antisemitics hunger for any theory that would rupture the connection, shrieking or giggling with malicious joy:their cover's blown! the establishment of Israel, and therefore Israel itself' was theologically and genetically invalid.

This second level is the only problem, and it can only be overcome by editors stepping out of the memes, defensive or aggressive, and surveying serenely what scholars say, and their views vary. Your error, and it is not uncommon, is to toe a known publicist line which is at odds with the complexities of 'Jewish' scholarship. No scholar in the field could recognize what you do with the scant evidence at your disposal. I don't mind whatever restriction is made, as long as editors who edit articles are held to high standards. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A simple empirical test on Evildoer's bona fides

Evildoer made several edits (he is not bound by 3R apparently) in reverting me. He now admits he didn't read Weinryb when he first used him for his WP:OR sentence. I believe he does this all of the time, but rather than squabble or assert suspicions, he can disprove me by responding to a simple test.

In one of those edits, he added an absolutely extraordinary claim:

The first European Jews were invited from Babylon to Europe by Charlemagne, with the first groups settling in the German Rhineland, spreading to France.’

It is extraordinary because Jews in Europe are attested from pre-Christian times, and are certainly attested (Michael Toch 2012 et al.) not to speak of the Sephardim of Spain, far earlier than Charlemagne's time in Spain, France, Italy and Greece. And secondly, it is nonsensical, because it says European Jews lived in Babylon until they were invited to be the 'first' European Jews by emigrating under the aegis of Charlemagne. That is just perhaps extremely clumsy English, but it makes for absurdity.

As evidence for this claim, Evildoer adds 4 sources.

• (a)Nathan Ausubel, Pictorial History of the Jewish People, New York: Crown Publishers, 1953
• (b)Max Dimont, Jews, God and History, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962.
• (c)Encyclopedia Judaica. "Ashkenaz". Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972
• (d)Simon Schama,The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words (1000 BCE - 1492), Publisher: Bodley Head.

Note that (1) he provides no pagination, just as he didn't for Weinryb. Note secondly that he provides no link to google books. This means, as always, that the editor is throwing the burden of proof, or disproof on the unlucky person who wishes to verify everything. All he need do is show, with either a diff to the books or a transcription with he page number where, in those four books, passages confirm the precision of the statement he introduced.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On a purely technical point Nishidani, I don't think there is a requirement he shows a link to Google Books. That said, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a page number and an exact quotation/transcription from the source if it is a specific line or particular paragraph in the source. Did you actually request that on the article talk page? And Evildoer187, would you mind providing page numbers in any citations you introduce in these articles? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist. Point re googled links accepted. Evildoer made his edits before I made this complaint. I did not request page numbers then. The Weinryb instance only confirmed he won't listen to anything I say in remonstration or counsel (as he admits above, which I just noticed, he reverted me without looking at the source because he thinks I'm an antisemite and not to be trusted on anything). That has been tacitly obvious, but, evidently, to continue to negotiate and plead, as you suggest I might or should have, on the talkpage, would have been pointless.

I'm quite happy to give him a day, even two, to show neutral administrative eyes that those edits, unlike numerous earlier ones, were done in close consultation with the sources cited. I know and have verified that they're not, but no one need trust my word. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. It might take a day or two though, because I don't have the exact quotes off hand and work has been hectic. I use Wikipedia at work. In the meantime, I can provide this if JVL is a reliable enough source. "The Romans vanquished the Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt.html

And also this. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.html

"I shall also distinguish the sufferings of the people, and their calamities; how far they were afflicted by the sedition, and how far by the famine, and at length were taken. Nor shall I omit to mention the misfortunes of the deserters, nor the punishments inflicted on the captives; as also how the temple was burnt, against the consent of Caesar; and how many sacred things that had been laid up in the temple were snatched out of the fire; the destruction also of the entire city, with the signs and wonders that went before it; and the taking the tyrants captives, and the multitude of those that were made slaves, and into what different misfortunes they were every one distributed. Moreover, what the Romans did to the remains of the wall; and how they demolished the strong holds that were in the country; and how Titus went over the whole country, and settled its affairs; together with his return into Italy, and his triumph." Here he is referring to the Judeans (or "Jews", which is etymologically derived from "Judean"), and it is clear that he is saying that the Judeans were taken back to Rome as captives. I intended to add these sources before, but let's just say I was interrupted.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this evidence of? You were asked to justifying your use of sources like Josephus for :(the Ashkenazi are a Jewish ethnic division) 'whose ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews traces back to immigrants originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East.'

What you provide in ostensible response only showcases a lack of knowledge of elementary principles of policy:WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:Primary sources etc. Could any admin please clarify to Evildoer what is being asked of him. The principle he refuses to understand is that whatever an editor adds to a text must paraphrase, while avoiding plagiarism or infringing copyright, what an RS or several state of a specific point, issue or topic. When one requests source verification, as here, the editor must show a clear correspondence between the sentence he has composed, and the content in the sources adduced to justify it. Evildoer never does this, and above is just more proof he doesn't get it. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What I provided was evidence that Jews were brought to Rome as slaves. Nevertheless, it appears that I've made a major and embarrassing mistake, as I will explain below.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying Nishidani and how patient you have been otherwise throughout this, but if you are happy to give him the day or two that he requested like you told me in your above comment, there is no need to rush ahead with a further response in the meantime (and as you would know from experience like him, the more text that is added, the less likely you will have a useful outcome from this - and repeating the same concern/allegation and request may not result in much either). I understood from his comment that these are other sources that he intended to provide and which he has with him at the moment, which he says are relevant to that. However, in order to provide a response to the clarification which is being sought by you and me in relation to the actual quotes from the 4 sources he initially provided and the page numbers in those sourcse, he will need to be back at work. After that time once we receive his response, we can assess what needs to be said to him and what restrictions need to be imposed, if anything. Are you OK with that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer was explicitly asked to provide a source for an action of Charlemagne (d. 814). S/he thinks that this page which doesn't mention Charlemagne might do, or this book written 8 centuries before Charlemagne lived might do. I cannot find any mention of Charlemagne in the book of Schama, after searching two editions; I doubt he is there at all. The second edition of Encyclopedia Judaica doesn't have it either; we can wait to see if Evildoer can prove that the first edition cited by him/her does. Dimont's book says "Charlemagne encouraged Jews from other parts of the world to come to his empire" but doesn't say that they came from Babylon, that they were the first European Jews, or where they settled. Now, the reason why Evildoer didn't provide us with page numbers for these sources, is that s/he simply copy-pasted them from the internet. You can see the first three of them, exact to the very comma, on this page which, you will notice, doesn't mention Charlemagne either. Such woeful disregard for proper editing process cannot be allowed. It seems to me that Evildoer simply does not understand, or chooses to ignore, the concept of proving a source for a claim. S/he should leave or be topic-banned, as the last thing we need in this area is someone with a strong pov and little knowledge who doesn't understand the rules. Zero^talk 05:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I confessed to my foolish error below. That being said, you're not exactly a reliable editor in this area either.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ncmv, I'm fine with giving Evildoer plenty of time to demonstrate I am wrong in believing he is, and has long been, consistently prevaricating. If, within 2 days, he manages to supply the data requested, whatever the judgement about his behaviour re Weinryb, I'd also accept that I be sanctioned for WP:AGF in this regard. Individual editors don't count, the composition of articles that can result in wikipedia obtaining a reputation for quality the equal of, if not superior, to any other existing encyclopedia is the only thing that matters.(I also apologize for reformulating the complaint twice. I did so because Number57 remarked, perhaps with justice that my original presentation was a wall of text, leading me to wonder whether WP:TLDR might come into place.)

Thanks Zero, I suspected that, but didn't track where he copied and pasted it from. I just checked Schama, Dimont, and Ausubel) For those who dislike suspense, what Evildoer wrote, ostensibly from those sources, is a garbled version of a legend not accepted by scholarship, which you can get a glimpse of at Makhir of Narbonne, an antiquated page in need of serious updating, but one that will allow anyone at a glance to confirm for those not familiar with Jewish history and the Carolingian period that 'the first European Jews were invited from Babylon to Europe by Charlemagne' is wildly counterfactual, and could never have been asserted by an historian of Schama's stature (I checked: Charlemagne isn't even in his index). It can't be true because Charlemagne's court as that of his predecessor Pepin the Short already had numerous local European Jewish advisers (Michael Toch's book, which I introduced to this article, covers those communities in the Late Roman Empire extensively, destroying many stereotypes that have made them an 'exception' to other social groups in late Antiquity). In any case, he is contradicting himself: (a) in his WP:OR additions from Josephus above, he argues that the first European Jews were brought to Italy after 70 CE, in the wake of the Roman conquest of Judea; (b) in the second, the 'first European Jews' came from Babylonia at Charlemagne's invitation in 797 CE!).

The European Jews, descended from people established for a millenium in Southern Europe, indeed helped Charlemagne organize the very embassy to Hārūn ar-Rashīd which later legend embroidered to make out one Babylonian scholar was sent back to Europe. But miracles are always possible, and I'm happy to wait a day or two here for one to happen.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Using fake references would be extremely damaging to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and Evildoer should urgently provide page numbers to allow checking of the four references. The article currently has slightly changed wording with five references with no information about which part of the book is supposed to verify the text. It is unreasonable that such vague references should be used, and if Evildoer is unable to speedily resolve the issue a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there was quite a lot more than I have mentioned here, in the spate of reverts of anything I'd done (only to mention the edits done in one day, vs months over which one has had to endure this). He added to the text’s consensual remark on Yiddish, that it was a mix of Hebrew and the language of the country in which they were living.

'A mix of' is wrong, because it suggests Mischsprache, a technical concept out of place here. (b) it is POV driven because it implies the basic language was ancient Hebrew retained from some hypothetical immigration from Palestine ca.70CE (c) and he sourced it to Weinryb again, without providing, once more, any page in Weinryb. Weinryb in fact described Polish Yiddish as a German vernacular that was judaized later by absorbing Hebrew words (p.79). I.e. once more he used Weinryb without either looking at it, or understanding it. In linguistics, this is a serious error, though it may look trivial.

In mechanically reverting my edit, with an RS indicating Ashkenazis had various identities, he changed my identities back to ‘identity’, while retaining the source I introduced. Double bad. The source, like very many, mentions that Ashkenazis have plural identities (Chinese historians and sociologists, speaking of their very recent diaspora use a similar term zhonggen 重根 (multiple roots), for the 6th category). Evildoer retains the source but falsifies its concept of pluralism, because ideologically he wishes to plant the concept of a unitary Jewish identity everywhere.

In partial exculpation of his use of Weinryb, I should note that he just trusted User:Yambaram, who introduced that pageless source, and the falsified information, down the page way back on Nov.9 2013, trusting that since they have shared POVs, no checking was needed. But let us restrict things to the specific request for the pages and content of the four sources. There is no 'urgency', and we should give Evildoer time to present his case. If he fails, at a minimum, all of those edits should be reverted back to the consensus.(Editwarrers mainly change leads: much of this has been vitiated by ignoring the fact that all leads summarize the article, and edit warriors ignore whether their lead changes reflect the article (hard work) or challenge its contents).Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not check who inserted that source. Granted, I should have looked through the book before adding it to the lede, but I assumed it was true. Nevertheless, I made a completely idiotic mistake wrt those above 4 sources and Charlemagne. I saw them sourced in that manner elsewhere, got confused, and assumed they were accurate (seeing as I don't exactly have the time to pore over books anymore). Anyway, this is the source I should have used for the lede passage on Jewish origins in Roman slaves taken from Judea (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics). Nishidani is right here, and I was wrong. I will remove the corresponding passages, and apologize for my apparent carelessness. It is a mistake I will not repeat in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your owning up to an error, Evildoer. But that, and several other errors, led someone like myself to waste 2 days (=in real terms, denying myself the pleasure of reading two novels) slowly working round your resistance to acknowledging from the outset you were wrong. You knew from the outset, surely, that you hadn't read Weinryb, or Josephus, or then the 4 sources. A retraction costs us nothing if admitted simply and immediately when the evidence falls. We are all fallible It is less so if extracted like blood from a stone, while you repeatedly played the 'Nishidani-antisemitic' card. Here behaviour is examined: ANI is not, as your counterbid below suggests, for working out an editorial compromise. And in any case, that line is futile of compromise, for it is wrong, apart from being extremely dated. RS will tell you that 100 years before the fall of Jerusalem and those captives your antiquated source theorizes about as forefathers of European Jewry, estimates for the local free population of Jews in Rome run as high as 20-30,000. Cicero whinged about them, with prejudice, because they gave significant support to his adversary Caesar. Effectively below, having been shown that a dozen successive sources enlisted to warrant the statement you introduced were false and deceptively thrown in, you suggest it can be settled by yet one more source, which says what you want the article to say. No. The only honest retraction would be to admit the sentence, and the sources used to justify it, was, from the outset improperly constructed, and to allow that all of that flurry of your activity to cancel the consensus now be reverted to the page as it was when I last edited it. That is all that interests me. If you wish to argue for something in the lead from here on in, you should feel obliged, given this precedent, to first propose it on the talk page, and wait for scrutiny, analysis and consensus to accept, confirm, modify or reject it because you have been shown to be unreliable. I'm not interested in punishment. I am intensely interested in not having my time devoured by frivolously insouciant editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you had indeed reverted and apologized. Thanks. I still think it advisable that you spend a period making work page suggestions before venturing to edit at least there. That article needs serenity, close attention to scholarship, sedulous reading on each point of several sources, in drafting most things. Quick insufficiently prepared edits on difficult subjects lead to edit wars almost invariably, and when they occur, the actual body of the article, which needs drastic pruning and re-elaboration, stagnates.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your advice was not heeded, Nishidani. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not read his advice until just now.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Try this

"Tacitus declares that Jerusalem at its fall contained 600,000 persons; Josephus, that there were as many as 1,100,000, of whom 97,000 were sold as slaves. It is from the latter that most European Jews are descended."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics

Evildoer187 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A sources from 1909 that says "These appear to be all the figures accessible for ancient times, and their trustworthiness is a matter of dispute." So even this sources says there is a problem. The lack of technical expertise in this area has been reason in the past and I dont believe anything has changed here. I do think that all is done in good faith but from a non-academic POV = lots of myth bases edits. At this point I believe its clear that you need some guidance - in two respects - first on what is considered reliable and secondly on how to understand the sources as a whole. -- Moxy (talk)

They appear to be speculating on the exact number of slaves taken, not the origins of Ashkenazim. I have asked for a tutor (forget what they're called) on editing, but none have been forthcoming.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

None of your sources provide "evidence" of your POV, that there is this unbroken lime of ancestry that connects everyone who has ever had a Jewish ancestor, whether they are Canadian, Brazilian, South African or Chinese, so they should be considered to be of Middle Eastern and Asian descent. Granted, this debate is beyond the scope of this complaint. But it is this same POV that causes problems in so many articles related to Judaism and Jews. You're not alone in this belief but it is an opinion that is not supported by referring to ancient texts. You're starting from an assumption (a unitary Jewish identity and heritage) and then look for texts that you believe confirm your point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that this belief in an unbroken, unitary ethnic heritage that overcomes all barriers of time and geography is not unique to Judaism. It's quite common and is the source of many disputes on Wikipedia for other ethnic groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I find your comments to be needlessly inflammatory and not civil, which is itself an indication of POV, at least in this context. I never said that every single Jew in the world had Middle Eastern/Levantine ancestry, but rather that (per genetic studies) the vast majority do, and that's what matters. It's the same reason we classify Romani as Asian, Afrikaners in diaspora as European, and so on. Otherwise, why even have a Jewish descent category at all? Ethnically pure nations don't even exist, except perhaps on some remote island. These are things that you don't seem to understand, and this is why I often have to revert you. Regardless of where in the world they live, a Cherokee is still a Cherokee.

And you can call genetic studies unreliable as much as you'd like, but they fall under the WP:RS scope, and we can't just remove them from the equation because you don't like what they say. Evildoer187 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call genetic studies unreliable, you're putting words in my mouth. I haven't passed judgment on them because, from what I've read, there is conflicting information, there are isolated studies that are less than conclusive. I think that their value needs to be interpreted by someone who is up-to-speed on scientific studies. Either these studies are cited from academic journals, which require some background in science to understand, or they are being taken from popular literature like magazines and then they have been simplified for a general readership and hold less weight. But my field is social science, not natural science and I can't weigh all of the conflicting research done on ethnic DNA studies and say which results are more compelling.

But this is an issue for a talk page discussion or the WP:RSN, not AN/I. I'm sorry for my part in this discussion going off on a tangent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As if nothing has transpired here, Evildoer is back in the article pushing his pov with the help of an encyclopaedia more than 100 years old and an article on the web written by a student. Can we please have some attention from administrators? Zero^talk 01:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, in that edit Evildoer restored a source which, along with many others inserted by User:Tritomex, with Evildoer standing by, I noted on the talk page was wholly unacceptable, way back in December 28, 2013. E.g. This is hackwork, full of untruths or distortions and the source is written by a certain Johanna Adrian, who turns out to be a student at the European University Viadrina at that. This is unacceptable for our RS criteria.Johanna Adrian, student at the European University Viadrina. What is frustrating here is that the archives or past discussions don't stick. Problems resolved or consensuses are reversed, and disproven matter recycled.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits as obviously without consensus and not reliably sourced. BMK (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, they were reliable sources. Why does it matter how old that encyclopedia is? And that other source was used in another article on this site. Evildoer187 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer. I don't think you (a) understand wikipedia practice, even its most elementary principles, from WP:OR, WP:RS etc., through to WP:CONSENSUS, the last of which, operatively, for you has meant 'you edit on page' and then me and others can't touch it until we get a revert consensus on the talk page. After all the work, and desistance from asking for harsh applications of the law, showing that you repeatedly prevaricate, and only yield to the facts when the evidence for deceptive gaming is overwhelmingly laid out before third parties, you just went ahead and reverted my simplest edits (diversities/fixing Weinryb and the WP:OR down the page) and pushed on, without even a courtesy note of explanation or argument on the talk page (where I had opened a section for you to make proposals. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I see no option, no leeway for generosity or lenience, and therefore ask that you be permabanned from articles dealing with Judaism, suspended indefinitely until he can appeal with evidence that he is capable of contributing productively to wikipedia generally. It is far too important an area to be left to incompetent and obtuse POV pushers.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I specify Judaism because, as other editors more familiar with his record than I have stated, Evildoer has an SPI fixation on inserting over multiple pages essentially the same POV, regardless of context, content and sources, and seems impermeable to any rational evidence that suggests his doctrinal certainties are, from another perspective, just points of view, often controversial and marginal.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest including categories along with articles. Categories have been even more contentious than this one article, with disputes going back to November 2013. Nishidani's new suggestion of a temporary, indefinite block would cover edits to both articles and categories until WP:NPOV and WP:RS can be more fully understood and integrated. The goal here is to gain edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies, not to remove editors. Liz ^{[Special:Contributions/Liz|Read!]] Talk!} 10:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above proposed topic ban. I believe a better option would be to find an editing tutor (forget what they're called) who can help me learn the ropes and edit more effectively. I have tried to find one before, but nobody volunteered, and those I requested never replied. I am willing to try it again.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that I needed to notify anyone before editing the article further. As you can see, BMK reverted my edits, and I left it alone. If my edits were wrong, they're wrong. I'm not above admitting that.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

'banning yet another editor who isn't entirely dismissive to the traditional Jewish narrative is not going to make the article more neutral. '

It's not me, or anyone else, who is 'dismissive of the trad. Jewish narrative'. The TJN was elaborated by great 19th. historians like Heinrich Graetz (very influential despite severe criticism from scholarly sectors of Reform Judaism, and even orthodox rabbis like Samson Raphael Hirsch), and started to be knocked to pieces by Salo Wittmayer Baron several decades latter. Whatever happens, I suggest you try to find the time to read all several volumes of both just to observe the different ways the history can be interpreted. But both are now long superceded. A multitude of studies emerge each year, and there is, even in Israel's great historiographic production, little interest, except as an object of historical sociology, in the so-called TJN. There is nothing unique in this: all national identities are jerry-rigged for political purposes ( asErnest Renan formulated as far back as 1882) and only when the nation is self-assured, and its identity safe, do you get a willingness to begin to dismantle the foundational myths (Invented tradition). There is no place for the TJN in encyclopedias, except in so far as an encycl might develop an article on them.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate (what a potential tutor might do). You write:

Why does it matter if the source is 100 years old?

Well, you see, what you chose was something written 108 years ago. It fits your point of view. However, when someone like myself edits into the text (and immediately has it edited out) a view which contradicts that position, one written 60 years later by a great Jewish historian, you are given food for reflection. What you sought out in sources is old, and is contradicted by newer evidence. The contradiction emerges when you read, say, Cecil Roth. He is writing on exactly the sae topic, Ashkenazi/European Jews origins.

 :'Was the great Eastern European Jewry of the 19th century preponderantly descended (as is normally believed) from immigrants from the Germanic lands further west who arrived as refugees in the later Middle Ages, bearing with them their culture? Or did these new immigrants find already on their arrival a numerically strong Jewish life, on whom they were able to impose their superior culture, including even their tongue (a phenomenon not unknown at other times and places – as for example in the 16 century, after the arrival of the highly cultured Spanish exiles in the Turkish Empire)?) Does the line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry of today go back to a quasi autochthonous Jewry already established in these lands, perhaps even earlier than the time of the earliest Franco-German settlement in the Dark Ages? This is one of the mysteries of Jewish history, which will probably never been solved’.Cecil Roth, I. H. Levine (eds.) The World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, Jews in Christian Europe, 711-1096,, Volume 11 Jewish historical publications, 1966 pp.302-303

When you see an editor presenting evidence that contradicts your own, evidence that is fresher, you either ignore the disturbance or stop to think, which can be uncomfortable (Cognitive dissonance, which is what all scholars must accept as a premise for the integrity of their research), and try to find a compromise, or, otherwise, search to see what the state of advanced opinion on the issue is. Can you see that? Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there also has to be the acceptance that when editors challenge traditional ethnic and national narratives, they are not attacking the people of that ethnicity or nation. It's the origins myth that is being debated. And as Nishidani alludes to, this challenge to traditional narrative happens with just about every ethnicity and national history (even for long-established countries). Disputes about this come up fairly regularly on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Proposal: Evildoer187 to be topic banned from articles dealing with Judaism.

• Support Evildoer has neatly deflected the evidence above—when called on the use of four fake references, the reply is "I made a completely idiotic mistake wrt those above 4 sources and Charlemagne". Six hours later we have what is accurately described above as "Evildoer is back in the article pushing his pov with the help of an encyclopaedia more than 100 years old and an article on the web written by a student". Evildoer's reply is the innocent "To my knowledge, they were reliable sources." It is totally unacceptable to post four books as references with no page numbers, then evade responsibility by saying the four books were a "mistake", then continue with significant changes based on obviously unsuitable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose What more can I do, other than acknowledging that I made a mistake and rectifying it (as I did)? Why does it matter if the source is 100 years old? As for the second source, it was used here as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#From_Rome_to_the_Crusades. I do not believe a topic ban is appropriate, not only because A ) I've made important contributions to them and B ) simply banning yet another editor who isn't entirely dismissive to the traditional Jewish narrative is not going to make the article more neutral. Quite the opposite. But if it makes everybody happy, I will leave the Ashkenazi Jews page alone. I realize that I have become somewhat obsessed with this topic, as of late.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Evildoer's insistence on certain things pertaining to Judaism has gotten quite out of hand. He continuously POV-pushes and often refuses to accept others' views when they go against his. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction. You could not (or would not) understand that Jews are defined (by themselves, and by others) as an ethnoreligious group, unlike Christians, Muslims, etc which are faiths only. Therefore, "Jewish descent" applies to anyone with Jewish parents. You based your objections on your repeated assertions that "Jews are not a race", citing an outdated book (in the sense that there are now mountains of genetic studies contradicting it) to support this view, even though it is completely irrelevant to categorization procedures. I understand that some people are still sensitive to direct (or even indirect) associations between Jews and anything that could be interpreted as having to do with "race", but this isn't my concern.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support unless s/he begins mandatory mentoring. BMK (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept a mentor. However, I have had trouble finding one in the past. If anyone has any recommendations, please notify me as soon as possible.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb again

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

---

There's more drama going on at Suzannah Lipscomb. User:MdeBohun, who, redacted has reverted/removed sourced biographical details 1234 times today. She has been accusing User:TheRedPenOfDoom of having an agenda redacted. I have no idea who TheRedPenOfDoom is (other than a long-time editor), but it appears MdeBohun absolutely does have a conflict of interest here and has been warnedabout it previously. Woodroar (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we creating WP:DRAMA about about something completely unimportant? Is dedicating a book to her husband really noteworthy enough for inclusion? People dedicate books to family members all the time, I can't think of many other articles where dedications, especially run of the mill ones, are mentioned. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The dedication is indeed trivia. It was added by an IP [289]. But it is Red Pen who is insisting on keeping this. It looks like a toxic situation of "tit for tat" reversions and claims has escalated. Aggressive deleting/readding, with no discussion at all on the talk page appears to be the problem. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If we take the remove trivial information from the article approach the article becomes even thinner. It is clear from the editors comments [290] they are removing it that there reasons other then just general improvement of the article. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"If we take the remove trivial information from the article approach the article becomes even thinner." What an astounding argument! Should we add all the people listed in the book's acknowledgements then? If we want the aricle to be more substantial, add material on the contents of the books, or views of reviewers.
Editors often have personal or ideological agendas. The question for the community is whether the edit itself is justified irrespective of any agenda. This "fact" was added by an IP. Its removal is entirely justified on grounds of Undue Weight. I certainly don't think relatives or subjects of articles should have a right to remove any well sourced information they don't want to be public, but in this case it is trivial, and likely also added in the first place by an editor with an agenda. This should be discussed on the talk page. This has developed from a "tit for tat" over adding the date of birth, which was aggressively removed. As far as I can see there is no controversy about her date of birth. Overwhelmingly dates of birth are uncited in biographical articles. I can't see why it was removed without grounds for dispute. of course MdeBohun has been deleting stuff willy-nilly for not discernible reason (why should the subject's middle names have to be kept secret?) This is just the kind of aggressive deleting/readding content without looking at the context that just pisses off good faith editors and produces a toxic atmosphere on articles. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For a bit of (recent) background, see my comments here where I insist that Lw1982 was mistakenly identified as a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama, but suggested that they may be a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or have some other connection to MdeBohun (perhaps knowing her outside of Wikipedia).

In addition, I noted that MdeBohun made an attempted outing attempt in a recent edit summary, which I revdeleted (I don't think any more than that is needed since it was only done in the edit summary) and will be leaving her a warning on her talk page not to do so again. -- Atama頭 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This will be a big mess for WP:OVERSIGHT to deal with. :( -- Atama頭 20:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I reading that summary correct, is she implying a relationship or is it just the awkward wording? Because then we do have a COI issue on both sides. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just clarified it with the user via email. It was the awkward wording. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I removed it. It is trivia, and we are supposed to be nice to subjects that way. It was also OR because the citation given was the book's introduction. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• So I did what I could to remove the WP:OUTING attempts. I contacted Oversight in case they needed to take action as well. I won't get into what I redacted (that would defeat the purpose) but they were attempts to give real-life identities to editors who have not disclosed that themselves on Wikipedia. The only thing I didn't do was revdelete ANI itself, because I'd have to revdelete so many revisions it would be a crazy mess. I wish there was a better general understanding of our outing policy. :( -- Atama頭 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have considered that before bringing this here and repeating accusations from all sides. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a common mistake with these kinds of incidents, I volunteer at WP:COIN frequently (I have for years) and it's especially common there. The difference is that COIN won't get 100 edits in an hour so it's easier to deal with. -- Atama頭 23:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

as a "book dedication" it is trivial. as a marker of an important life event, it verifies an important life event that is most clearly NOT trivia. that the subject now wishes they had made other choices in their nontrivial life events is not something that Wikipedia articles cater to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That this primary sourced trivia is a marker of any notable life event is amusing, laughable, it's worthless primary cited trivia and I wonder why any experienced Wikia user like the User:TheRedPenOfDoom is edit warring to include it in the article - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are almost alone in your assertion that marriage is trivial. The people who are editwarring to remove it certainly dont consider it trivial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So what is your intention TRPoD? Are you just trying to establish that she is or was married to someone named Drake? If so, that sounds like the usual biographical information we'd have in one of our articles. But there should be a better way to do that than just mentioning a book dedication. That just seems like a really weird way to go about things. -- Atama頭 22:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to the motivations here. That certainly would speed things up. There must be something that bothers TRPoD about the removal of this trivial paragraph, so it would be helpful if they could just tell us what it is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, without having to out anyone I can easily establish that MdeBohun has a self-declared COI. See this edit summary where she "made changes at the request of the subject". I'll repeat that nobody other than MdeBohun should suggest or even speculate on any real-life identity for MdeBohun. -- Atama頭 22:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that relevant item to all parties is the marriage - a standard biographical item which is considered by the vast majority of people to be a non trivia item - about which certain parties are for some reason dead set on whitewashing from the article. Yes the phrasing is rather unusual for an entry but given the highly contentious nature, that particular phrasing appears to be the one upon which there is no actual doubt or any possibility of SYN given the sources that have been presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, trivial it is, and not worth noting--why would it be? Just because it is true? Might as well go through the acknowledgments of each and every book mentioned in Wikipedia. In a biography on the subject it is trivial unless, of course, secondary sources have made anything of it, which isn't the case here. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, it is not the "dedication" as a "dedication" that is at issue. What is at issue is that the dedication is the author talking about the non trivial major life event that we do mention in all biographies - her husband/marriage.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is the author saying something nice about her husband (and it may well be a true statement, who knows). We do not mention "her" or anyone else's husband/marriage in all biographies, since it's simply not always relevant to the reader. Again, if this is relevant, then it should be relevant in every single case. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I find this dilemma baffling. The fact that she was married is basic information that can be included. But to use a separate section devoted to a book dedication to bring up this fact is so unusual, I don't think I've seen it before. Sure, marriages are mentioned as are children but book dedications? I don't think you will come across many in all of Wikipedia. Why the stubborn insistence on including this information, written in this exact way, in this article which is probably rarely even viewed? Is this worth fighting over? And if, yes, why? Why Lipscomb and not the thousands of other authors? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point the "stubborn insistence" to include is because Wikipedia article content needs to be based on what sources say and not what swarms of SPAs want to whitewash from an article based on what they claim is the wish of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you feel this strongly that all book dedications should be noted on an author's page? And, for every person, living or not, all marriages need to be mentioned on their Wikipedia article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

we can discuss dedications and facetiousness all you want but I dont think that will be productive.

and yes, I think that when we have reliable sources about marriage, that should be included in articles and it should absolutely NOT be removed as part of campaigns to re-write history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The issue won't go away because the arguments for inclusion are policy based (albeit weak) and the arguments against, are not. As I said at DR/N, if Ms. Lipscombe now wishes she had not married the man, or dedicated a book to him, she needs to avail herself of the services of a time traveller, not Wikipedia. I can suggest one, but he's only done it once before and her safety is not guaranteed. Guy (Help!) 01:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Guy, that's a red herring. More truthful is to say that it is possible to decide on including it because it is verified, but that actually including it is an editorial decision. Don't say that this is one-sided, as if the removers had "an agenda"--your comment about some marriage is the first time I hear about this, and it can actually suggest a motivation for those wanting to include it, but I won't speculate any further. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the removers unquestionably does have an agenda (the one who filed at DR/N). I think I made it clear there that I think this is a trivium. However, there is no way we would omit to mention that the marriage ever took place if it's sourced, because that would be a failure of NPOV. I have not even looked at that, only at the filing party at DR/N. Guy (Help!)

I'll go have a look at that--but my point is really that there need be no agenda one way or another for the removal to make sense. I have none, and Orange Mike's argument below, that just doesn't cut any wood for me, as the Dutch might say. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not, birth, majority, marriage and death are the four events which have the most profound legal significance for a person. I am all for removing trivia, but being married is not a trivium, though a book dedication might be. That said, if we don't have better sources for the marriage then I'd question whether this person has any significant biographical coverage outside Wikipedia, and I am strongly opposed to teasing biographies out of dust jacket blurb and press releases. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact of a marriage is a totally life-changing event, one we should never omit from an article without a policy-based reason. The only argument I am seeing against its inclusion is that somebody claiming to be close to the subject says she wants it out, which is both trivial and unsourced. Sure, I'd rather have more sources of information than the dedication; but it's pretty darned certain that such a dedication would not have appeared if the marriage had not existed. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This whole aurgument "marriage is really important and should be noted" is b&llshit. This is about a non notable book dedication that people want to include to push their own twisted agenda. Let it go. --Malerooster (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your competence is in question if you think it is about a book dedication. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

But Mike, then our text should read, "According to a dedication in this here book, she is married to someone named x". That strikes me as silly. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This source (the dedication) does not sound independent of the subject. Where are the secondary sources establishing notability of the info in question? It's a BLP, we're supposed to be very strict about info once it becomes contentious, though on principle I generally would rather delete the whole article instead of letting the subject get control of the details. Ms. Lipscomb's notability appears sort of marginal. AfD wouldn't agree but in a saner world, we don't need the article. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

the "notability " of marriage has been established by thousands of years of culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

SPA removing AFD tags and adding unsourced material to BLP

Akinwunmi Ambode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Subject was brought to the attention of Wikipedia:BLP/N#Akinwunmi_Ambode.

SPA user adding unsourced material to BLP, and removing AFD tags. Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User continues deleting AFD tags [291] despite warnings. Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

‎Ryulong gave final warning and restored AFD tag. Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A new SPA just pops out of nowhere to do the same as this user: Sevla Inad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably a SP. Can the article be semi-protected? Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Protected at least for the duration of the AFD. They can make their case there if they want. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Villageboyban for 24 hours as they continue to edit-war to remove the AfD template.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Odd editing is going on at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (and List of Wharton School alumni, but that seems to have slowed down.) If you look at the revision history, all kinds of brand new accounts are making one or two edits and then leaving. Some of the edits are fine, some are heavy WP:BOOSTERISM. There could be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or a class project or something because of the editing behavior. The edits have become disruptive and I recommend semi-protecting the article and more eyes monitoring it. I brought this issue here just because I thought it so odd. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please create an SPI for that. A quick checkuser showed something around 100 new accounts from the same IP; I'm wondering if it's a class project or something, but it certainly needs deeper analysis (and I don't have the time this morning.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bahooka claimed on Talk:List of Wharton School alumni that "Wharton claims they are the largest at 92,000 alumni, the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University claims they have the most business school alumni at almost 100,000 living alumni. We do not have a secondary source on either claim. I recommend we just put the number of alumni rather stating it is the largest business school alumni network in the world until a third-party citation is found." Then Bahooka removed Wharton's claim. However a powerful new account like me easily restored it on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wharton_School_of_the_University_of_Pennsylvania&diff=606883997&oldid=606880082). As can be seen from above, hundreds of accounts exists, and hundreds of accounts are coming in the future. As claimed by a Checkuser above, Checkusers are helpless themselves, and in no way can fight off hundreds of new and existing accounts. So, best is to just leave Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and its related articles. As anything removed from these articles WILL GET RESTORED.--Jeepsralph (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

there is some ambiguity regarding this claim. Retracted information accordingly-- so best for you guys is to f off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepsralph (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeepsralph indef'ed per personal attacks and then bad-faith editing at Wharton School Publishing (un-fixing obvious template syntax-error, removing deadlink tag on a dead link). Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania ‎semi'ed. DMacks (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

...and now that user was kind enough to confirm his socking and intent not to follow WP behavior policies. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I just blocked a big pile of 'em. There are probably still more. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody doesn't know how the history function works. And after this, TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make you want to hire a Wharton grad, does it? EEng (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

CFD of Category:Pseudoscientists

Please could some experienced admin(s) keep an eye of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists?

The debate is attracting a lot more participants than I have seen at CFD for some time, and there several suggestions that sock/meat puppets may be swelling the numbers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how much this has to do with this but it may be attracting a lot of editors because of several different discussions referring to Pseudoscience that have popped up lately, here and on DRN. Not entirely sure how related they may be.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspect some people participating in the CFD may have came from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (diff). Would the result of this CFD count as WP:FALSECON? Probably. -A1candidate (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely. There are many eyes on this. Guy (Help!) 01:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't rule out those who came from FTN. -A1candidate (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably does, most of them are policy savvy. As to fringe, the idea that the cold war is still going on is waaaaay out there. Guy (Help!) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read them? How policy savvy are subjective statements such as "The cat is appropriate for some articles and should not be deleted? If you want to convince me that the Cold War is over, you're free to do it at my talk page. -A1candidate (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes I have.

2. I don't have to,m the consensus view of the relevant professional community is that it ended in the last decade of the 20th Century...

3. Which is relevant because as an advocate of an obviously fringe POV, your snide remarks about FTN are going to be accorded little weight. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It was also the consensus view of the relevant professional community for quite some time that the world was flat, that smoking was good for you, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous POV edits

An anonymous user with two IPs so far continues to revert the "notable people" list of Eureka, California. The most recent diff is shown on Eureka, California: Difference between revisions as are the previous edits from April 26 to the present. The anonymous editor apparently misunderstands the "notable people" lists and thinks it's only for where someone was born. As seen all over the project, the "notable people" are not restricted to "born in." I would appreciate some help with this, Grant was involved with the earliest days of Eureka at Fort Humboldt prior to quitting his US Army commission before the U.S. Civil War; it's not like he just occupied a desk for a couple weeks and went home. Many local histories contain information about this period of time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this is exciting. NOT. First of all, one may well discuss whether being stationed somewhere is enough to warrant a "from"--I suppose it depends on the having been stationed there possibly having been of any kind of relevance to life and career and world history. By the same token I have removed the relevant category from Ulysses S. Grant just now--it is unverified, even unmentioned in the article (given this edit summary, you should agree), and there is no argument or even mention of "Eureka" anywhere on the talk page or in the archives. Second, this is ANI. You should not think that we (ahem, any of the admins) are likely to take any kind of action over a content matter without vandalism or BLP issues involved until there is any discussion on the talk page at all. I see you left a note for the IP editor (we're all "anonymous", even if you edit under your real name), but that does not suffice. You want to argue for inclusion, then argue. But not here. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So sorry to bother you. I do agree with you that people should not be on pages where there is no mention of them having been, however the relevant material on Grant's service in Eureka and why that was such a seminal moment in his career is on his page: Promoted to captain in the summer of 1853, Grant was one of only fifty on active duty, and assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at Fort Humboldt, on the northwest California coast. Without explanation, he shortly afterwards resigned from the army on July 31, 1854. The commanding officer at Fort Humboldt, brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, a strict disciplinarian, received reports that Grant became intoxicated off duty while seated at the pay officer's table. In lieu of a court-martial, Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum to sign a drafted resignation letter. Grant resigned; the War Department stated on his record, "Nothing stands against his good name." Rumors, however, persisted in the regular army of Grant's intemperance.{{efn|According to biographer McFeely, historians overwhelmingly agree that his intemperance at the time was a fact, though there are no eyewitness reports extant. Years later, Grant said, "the vice of intemperance had not a little to do with my decision to resign." Grant's father, again believing his son's only potential for success would be in the military, tried to get the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, to rescind the resignation, to no avail. Thus I think he should be included on notables list of Eureka, California. It is listed in the article that he served at Fort Humboldt, and Fort Humboldt is entirely within the city limits of Eureka.

I thought this was the right place to deal with multiple anonymous IPs making edits and edit warring, apparently I was in error. Please next time however, spread a bit more WikiLove to people asking for assistance? I really have had very few problems on Wiki over the years I've been here, and have little experience with asking for help, so perhaps I am in the wrong place, but would you be so kind as to tell me where "not here" is? It is the same amount of time and effort to be kind and caring, giving link to proper place and helping to solve problems. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• If what you cite is correct and verified, and it includes the name "Eureka", you might have a good case but it's still one to be taken up on the talk page. I'm sorry if you don't feel very loved, but ANI is for disruption and admin intervention, and this is just not one of those cases: being dragged here is quite something, and doing it if it's not justified isn't very wikiloving either. Good luck making your case, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have put this information on the talk page. I would point out perhaps the header at the top of this page is needing to be fixed as it reads "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." I asked for the help of an experienced editor, I don't see why you're saying "dragged here..." when reading the instructions it seems as though one asks for help with edit warring and reversion edits here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius and off-wiki at Wikipediocracy

During April I had unpleasant exchanges with User:Coat of Many Colours at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius after I defended User:Nathan121212, whose edit they reverted with the edit summary "WP:NPOV. Plainly partisan." in bad faith in my opinion (see also article talk page from Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius#User:Nathan121212). Coat of Many Colours implied I have a COI (I do not), and accused me of being "entirely" responsible for "let[ting] standards slip" and "shambolic juvenilia" in the Progress of the trial section I have barely edited ([292] [293]). Please note I am not saying the Trial of Oscar Pistorius article is perfect. I would never have started that particular section per WP:NOTNEWS and I can only recall making one minor edit to it other than tagging. As one of many volunteer editors, I am not "entirely" responsible for the section, the article or any other Wikipedia editor's edits as they seem to think.

By their own admission Coat of Many Colours also edits as an IP, in one instance apparently referring to themselves as a third party, where they tell me "I frankly think you lack the expertise to function here" and suggest I may be "involved with Pistorius' fan base" (which I am not, and never have been).

off-wiki stuff

I decided to let it go and interact with them as little as possible as I have better things to do, until I found an explicit personal attack by Coat of Many Colours targeted at me off-wiki at Wikipediocracy date 14 April 2014 (I have saved a screenshot in case they edit it or remove it.): "[Coat of Many Colours wrote:] The resident editor HelenOnLine, who doesn't post adoring fanmail on Oscar's website or caretake his BLP with anne like devotion as fas as I know, didn't think this a partisan edit. EricBarbour wrote: HelenOnLine, where have I seen that name before?..... [Coat of Many Colours wrote:] That would be sister Elissa viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2882&p=59621&hilit=HelenOnline#p59621. She means well, but she's a tad tempermental / hell just mental, forget the temper. Brilliant lawyer though, you have to give her that (not that she's ever likely to contribute any of that to Wikipeda again)." I am not a lawyer incidentally and the off-wiki post by someone named Elissa they refer to contains false information about me (as far as I can tell the hidden note re non-free images in question on Reeva Steenkamp was originally added by User:Hydrox not me).

I really wanted to let this go, but I don't think that is an option any more. If I don't speak up, they will just keep doing it and spoil Wikipedia for everyone else. HelenOnline 10:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the references to the off-wiki stuff because it's not actionable here. A site for griefers, griefing. Who knew? Stick to issues actually on Wikipedia please. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have included it per Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki attacks, especially as the user has denied that they are making personal attacks: "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." HelenOnline 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Only on-wiki attacks are actionable. If you must include the off-wiki stuff, separate it and collapse it. What goes on in the various anti-Wikipedia talking shops is really not that relevant or significant. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I have offended Helen. I thought we had a good relation as evidence this interaction.

To set the scene here, Helen came to the Oscar Pistorius article on 15 February 2014, the day after Oscar Pistorius shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp and did valuable service correcting POV edits, including numerous edits to the effect either that Pistorius had admitting murdering Steenkamp or that he shouldn't be assumed guilty of shooting her until proved otherwise. In the end she became one of the article's most prolific contributors. As for me I've been editing since November and interesting myself in the Pistorius trial article since its inception. Mostly I contribute to the visual arts.

My experience of Wikipedia has been mixed. Contributing to the visual arts means you are likely to run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's copyright overseers. Indeed I did and eventually I complained I felt harassed by one especially punctilious overseer. It happened that an ANI was opened at Commons about this particular editor and I contributed. One of the editor's supporters then referred to me in a post at Wikipedioacracy, a fact I discovered accidentally on a Google search regarding the editor in question. I signed in on mu Wikipedia account name and defended myself. Thus my own introduction to Wikipedioacracy. There are other Wikipedia editors, including administrators and bureaucrats, who contribute at Wikipedioacracy. It maintains the same standards as does Wikipedia regarding personal attacks. I'm not aware that I've been accused of making one there.

I recused myself from the Oscar Pistorius trial article after I could not get agreement about the merits of a particular edit and retired my account. I had made it clear on my Talk page for some time I intended to close the account once I had finished editing at the Pisorius trial. Equally I had made it clear there that I wasn't prepared to enter into edit wars and the like.

On reflection I returned, noticing that the edit I complain of has still not been balanced. I contacted all the editors involved, including Helen setting out my position and a proposal. Helen said that she wasn't prepared to get involved any further, the other editors (including the originating editor) supported me, basically telling me to go ahead.

I don't know what the trigger really is for Helen's ANI here. I propose to continue as I suggested I shall(i.e. edit tomorrow evening along the lines suggested). If that turns out to be unacceptable then I shall retire from editing at the article. I don't have any problem with that.

The "personal attack" (in Wikipedia) is an old charge. I didn't see it had any real validity at the time. Of course I've been uiters versigtig since not to give offence. I'm aware that I'm something of a bully when it comes to the written word (total wimp real life syndrome, familiar thing) and I do tread carefully because of it. Wikipediocracy however is a good laugh and I do charge in joyously there on all fives brandishing my mojo thing right left and centre up anything that comes my way.

As for "admitting" IP editing (is that a crime?) I do edit IP quite often by mistake. I share my computer and can't maintain an auto login and I sometimes simply forget to log in and don't notice the alert. I do wish we could have a beep as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The trigger is finding insults and untruths posted about me off-wiki, adding insult to injury. Editing as an IP is allowed, but pretending to be someone else defending your position and making personal attacks while doing so is not (see "Editing logged out to mislead" in WP:SOCK). HelenOnline 15:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of my IP edits at the article (there may be others because I'm with a ISP that regularly shifts its users' IP adresses about, but as far as I know that's all of them). Regarding the second IP contribution you refer to, that wasn't from me. You have to understand, Helen, that Wikipedioacracy is not the only forum outside Wikipedia interested in its goings on and in particular what goes on with its coverage of the Pistorius trial, imagine. This is an issue which I am trying to put right. If you really think I'm wrong-headed about it then go ahead deal with it, but not like this. I've been as pleasant as pie to you on Wikipedia. I'm sorry I've pissed you off outside it, but that's life eh? You can always open an account and defend yourself there. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The admins can decide if it was you or not, it seems pretty plain to me. If you think you have been "as pleasant as pie" to me here, you need a serious wake-up call. HelenOnline 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I take you up on your claim that you never made WP:NOTNEWS edits at the article? It's true that you made only the one minor edit in the "Progress" section (to an edit of mine which, as it happens, was balancing POV for Pisorius pointing out that the majority of his text messages to Steenkamp were described as normal). But you were, were you not, responsible for initiating all of this about the "stumps" and provoking those IP edits you say want admins to decide their origins:

The opening statement of prosecutor Gerrie Nel noted that the murder case against Pistorius is based largely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.[39] Contrary to statements made in the bail hearing, the prosecution's case in the trial is that Pistorius was not wearing his prosthetic legs at the time of the shooting,[42][43] or when he broke the toilet door down afterwards.[44] Prosecution expert witness Christian Mangena, a police ballistics analyst, testified "the shooter was most likely not wearing prosthetic legs".[45][46][47] Prosecution expert witness Johannes Vermeulen, a police forensic analyst, testified Pistorius was not wearing his prosthetic legs when he broke the toilet door down with a cricket bat after the shooting.[48] Pistorius pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him, including murder and three gun-related charges.[49][50]

I'm not a lawyer either (to clarify) but I should think those IP responses pretty much on the money. In all seriousness I think it at least possible that the prosecution may want to clarify that when the trial resumes.

I hope I've been constructive here. I don't feel I can have more to contribute. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made no such claim, please don't put words into my mouth or try to change the subject. I am also not going to discuss content issues here as it is not the place for it. HelenOnline 18:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect, Helen, when you said above "I would never have started that particular section per WP:NOTNEWS and I can only recall making one minor edit to it other than tagging", that can only be construed as saying you don't approve of WP:NOTNEWS edits, and yet you made one, several in fact, but not in the "Progress" section. Your position on that "Progress" section is much as the same as mine, that we shouldn't encourage ongoing edits, but whereas you think that fundamentally a section like that is biased, I believe it can and should be managed and serve a purpose as a record of ongoing media (both MSM and social) and I made it clear from the outset that was my interest.

I do hope you're going to let me go now, Helen. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fluther

Could an admin please unprotect this page? I came across the subject at afc and the company was acquired by Twitter. I am going to move the afc article to the Fluther page. Whether it stays independent or gets redirected/ merged to Twitter I leave up to the experts, but there is no reason why the subject's page should be protected since we have an article on the parent company. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Could you at least link the AFC article? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fluther. Looks it meets our notability requirements now. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Good enough for me. Unprotected, @Candleabracadabra:. Not a big deal, but for future reference, WP:RFPP is the preferred place for protect/unprotect requests. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, but on closer inspection it seems that the company itself was not acquired. Just its development team. So if someone wants to nominate for deletion or whatever I haven't looked into the sourcing.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• We will see. When deciding to unprotect, all I can do is apply the "snowball's chance in hell test", ie: a reasonable chance it might survive. It passes that, barely. I did check enough sources before unprotecting, and we should be before moving stuff out of AFC. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was definitely a lot of coverage of the Twitter purchase. There was some coverage before that and after that. Whether it's enough? I don't know. But I would say it would warrant a deletion discussion so I don't see anything gained by leaving it in permanent AfC purgatory. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and threats by User:Jazbar

There's an ongoing edit conflict at Party of Slovenian People, involving myself and User:Jazbar. I added controversial, but appropriately sourced info about a marginal Slovenian political party which was removed several times without explanation by an anon [294] [295]. After my final restoration, it was removed again by Jazbar (again without an explanation [296]). A few minutes later, he posted what I consider a threat at User:Jazbar/sandbox (permalink), in translation "Gentlemen criminals, I know who you are. Greetings to Jernej from NM", where "Jernej" is my first name as stated on my slwiki user page. Personally, I assume that the non-logged-in IP belongs to the same user, but even without that, I think that he violated several Wikipedia rules. Can somebody please look at it? I won't engage in edit warring, so please also return the content if you think it's appropriate. Thank you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jazbar continued with edit warring [297] after the content was restored by another user. In his new message here, he continues with personal attacks and tries to assert article ownership. I don't know why my complaint has been ignored, but his behavior sets a bad example. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Massive POV Pushing from user: Jyoti.mickey

User: Jyoti.mickey is keep pushing POV on article Abhinav Bharat and removing sourced materials from the article making it unblanced from a neutral point of view. Please, check this diff[298] with the current revesion[299] particularly he changed all my edits from the Allegations of involvement in terrorist activity which were sourced from reliable sources here[300] with this source[301] and specially here[302] where I tried to omit the weasel terms and put as per source but he reverted and added back the tags. He also removed the word right-wing here[303] even without looking at the sources. Then also removed the category far-right politics in India while the very first sentence says it ultra-far-right from at least 2 references. The article is not neutral after removing sourced contents like here[304] particularly sections like Relationship with Sangh Parivar groups, History including the Caravan magazine findings here[305]. He also removed the arrest of some of the leaders of the group and the misterious shut down of the group's website here[306] all of which were cited from sources with no original research, anyone can check. Edmondhills (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please check the diff 295 and 296. I think my edit summary is descriptive and presents my stand clearly.

For 297 the change was re-inserted by me within minutes. It is _present_ in the article much before you mentioned it here and in the article talk page, where I had mentioned the change in a separate section.

When you put right-wing the reference you mention was _not_ present, you added _new_ sources in a _subsequent_ edit after I mentioned in my edit summary that the references do not say so. The opening statement is "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization". Would you call that neutral when there was a much less charged lead earlier? Doesn't it contain weasel terms?

How is this article related to 'politics'? I asked same question in my edit summary.

Basically I think I put my edit summary quite clear each time. I object to you doing bulk over-write of the entire article from a very old copy and discarding all the intermediate edits with perfectly fine and descriptive edit summary. Why can't you do that? You can find a diff for each of the edit from one month back or so. I have absolutely no objection if you take the article to last good state and make your edits incrementally with descriptive edit summary instead of bulk over-write of entire article from much older copy. Here is the single edit where you bulk reverted. It is not convenient nor possible for me to respond to all diffs you have pointed above, from my side it will boil down to the above argument and I am dead sure I give a descriptive enough edit summary each time to make my stand clear. The article talk page also stands proof I responded promptly and took to discussion any matter of dispute. Jyoti (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, you removed the word right-wing as this wasn't cited[307] then why did you remove text on History section instead tagged with a {{cn}} tag[308]?Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that the opening sentence of the lead is highly biased? That is why. After bringing the discussion here you have made 9 more edits to the article, aren't we supposed to refrain from doing more edits to the same article before we complete discussion here? Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, explain what is biased in opening sentence which is properly sourced with references? You need to stop editing from your POV. I edited the article with only sourced material that is verifiable so I don't find any harm doing that.--Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the problem is not limited to the article mentioned by Edmondhills and thus this may be more than just a content dispute. There have been issues at Narendra Modi, for example, involving this contributor's alleged POV and there are quite a few warnings on their talk page relating to it. I'm off out, though, so diffs will have to follow later. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush, I think we discussed this on the talk page of the article and reached a consensus about the edits on Narendra Modi page. We reached consensus on on all four edits in the article talk page discussion started by me, we retained two of my four edits. Do you not agree to this? Jyoti (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are the four talk page discussion with consensus reached within one day for three and withing three days on another. I have done exactly four one line edits to the article a few weeks back(and ever) and had started discussion on each one and we reached consensus. 1, 2, 3, 4.Jyoti (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Th issue is not whether the consensus reached or not the issue presented here that you are pushing POV not just in Abhinav Bharat but also in other articles.Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to convey that the talk page discussion above and the related edits demonstrate pov pushing? By what logic? Does every discussion implicitly convey a pov pushing. Sitush, I would prefer you to comment on this one. Do I not have the right to hold a different opinion and discuss it, did I edit the article even once after those discussion or caused any disruption? Did I not agree to your suggestion unconditionally that the article is in volatile state and lets leave it for now? And you also noted that you were not aware of the entire situation in the fourth discussion. Is this termed as pov pushing. Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why this editor is removing referenced materials in the name of original research like this[309] or even this[310] and putting back dead links like here[311] where this dead link[[312] was replaced by this live link [313] from the same source. My last revision was this[314].Edmondhills (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My main concern and motive for behaving the way I did is, this is the article a day back, you transformed it into this which is basically an old copy herehere. Here is the single edit where you bulk reverted. You ignored all previous edit summary and re-inserted from much older copy. Why would you revert entire sections, including section headers and loose all intermediate edits?

For the first diff you provided please check that the statement was reinserted immediately, it is present in the article much before you pointed it here. The second one, I have not mentioned original research in the comment. When you copy-pasted from a much older edit all intermediate edits are lost and I found it extremely annoying and tiresome to pick new contribution from it and re-instate them along with the changes lost or changes rejected with valid edit summaries before. The dead link also got in when I tried to restore to the last good state.

You inserted charged terms like 'dictator', I think that is pov pushing. Jyoti (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If the term is not present in the sources then feel free to remove it. I was BOLD and added what is cited in sources so Again, the diff[315] you provided shows I just put back referenced text which you removed :-).Edmondhills (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have edited your reply above inline and changed its message. Your earlier reply can be seen in the diff: "I didn't charged terms like 'dictator' but this is your OR". Jyoti (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I gave a diff in which you introduced the term. Do you disagree? How is it my original research? Jyoti (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed a lot of sourced materials from the page in your subsequent edits to the page. You actually not reverted back but deleted the sourced material and put back the old texts in the article. Even after fixing dead links like[316] you also changed them[317] and specially in this edit you called original research, not present in source[318] and removed the whole paragraph which was exactly cited by this source[319]. You're playing with edit summery but your edit summaries were incorrect. You have to maintain neutrality instead of showing sympathy for an extremist organization. Edmondhills (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And I restored to an older version because you removed several text from the article because the references were dead which is also against WP:404. Edmondhills (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly this edit[320] showed how you just pushed POV by changing the wordings. The source[321] does say Investigations have revealed that serving and retired army officers associated with Abhinav Bharat but you changed to Serving and then tagged in subsequent edits. Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I am responding to this one at a third place. They were restored by me within minutes without you having to point me out. They _are_ _present_ in the article. Stop presenting incomplete picture. You copy pasted the entire article from a month old copy, what about all the edits in between? You admit to doing it above. What about the open discussion on the talk page. And why have you made 9 more edits to it after opening discussion here, aren't we supposed to continue discussion here and mutually agree to one course? I want you to revert to last good state and edit on top of it. Your bulk-copy paste overwrites several edits in between. You inserted charged terms like 'dictator' that is pov pushing. I stand by my edit summary. If there was a mistake I have reverted this once without you having to prompt. Stop pulling that same diff and raking it up? Do you disagree that it has been fixed within mins by me itself? What is your continued contention regarding it? I copied the version before your bulk copy paste that is it. I can do edits on top of it, or you can. Did you even attempting that? Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your restoration is removal of sourced material so this is not acceptable. You should be careful when restoring and shouldn't remove cited materials even if the references are dead s per WP:404.--Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You overwrote with an older copy. You are cross posting in ani as well as continuing to edit the article. Is it okay to do it in less than 24h of you having raised an objection in ani, can we not wait to reach a consensus? You have made 9 more edits and I do have several objections to it like 'dictator', the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization", writing irrelevant stuff under sub-section 'history', adding the caravan story here as encyclopedic content and much more but you are tiring me with nonsensical arguments and raking up the same diff even when I have corrected it before you point out and also responding to you at every place you are mentioning it. Jyoti (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

All 9 edits are constructive and backed by references but reverted them all[322] so please, explain what is irrelevant in sub-sections. And for the lead it is absolutely okay. As per you then Indian Mujahideen's lead is also biased! Is it? --Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have editedyour reply above inline and changed its message. Your earlier reply can be seen in the diff. The revert diff that you give now is much older and the 9 edits that I mention above are much after that revert, I have not touched those nine edits of yours which you did after starting this ani page discussion, there are there in the article even now. Jyoti (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you have made a judgement that your edits are constructive and my edits are pov pushing? I have repeatedly raised one single point only -- why loose all intermediate edits? -- why overwrite with much older edit? I think I am fully justified in objecting to use of 'dictator', and the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization". Since you have passed the judgement and continued editing the article and cross-posting on talk page despite a discussion here what is the course of action? I am refraining from any activity on this article until we reach a course of action here. Jyoti (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is not constructive edits. And there is not over-surcharged statement when it is backed by several reliable sources otherwise you will find all most all similar groups have such over-surcharged statement. Now, please don't say that the sources are biased as they cites your over-surcharged statement. And if you are referring to intermediates edits then you already did so and I haven't reverted you. In my subsequent edits I just put what is cited in references. Its you removed the sources as they were dead then removed text and now you have issue with the lead. Edmondhills (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You over wrote from a month old state. You lost the intermediate edits in that. I am pointing about ach edit (and summary) of that duration. Jyoti (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're just have this one issue of old state which you have already pushed in the article and I didn't reverted you so what point you're trying to make with this? And my concern is you removed sourced materials and references which go against the ultra-right-wing organization and undid my edits where I tried to resolve the weasel words as per sources.Edmondhills (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Whichever admin happens to take this up please check the talk page of the article also. User:Sitush, I hope you will also check once before making a hasty comment. This user is wearing me down with changing goal post and cross-posting. Not once is the user agreeing or responding to going to last good state and editing on top of it. Jyoti (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop your accusations. You removed sourced materials, dead references which can be easily fixed with google search and now accusing me of wearing you down with changing goal post and cross-posting. And thanks to User:Sitush for bringing your edits on Narendra Modi page. Also, admins should check your contributions like this[323] as you seem to have editing from not a particular POV. You are saying over-surcharged statement for an entity which gained prominence for allegedly terrorist activities[324][325][326] and now a SPI aigainst me to ban me. Edmondhills (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I have nothing to add here what I have not already said. Jyoti (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits like[327],[328] and [329] are serious POV pushing. I request admins to take a look at the article's history and do the needful to resolve this issue. Edmondhills (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not go through the whole post here but I think this is a talk page dispute. Edmondhills somewhere above you mentioned that I can't understand why this editor is removing referenced materials in the name of original research like this[330] If that sentence is not present in the source as mentioned by Jyoti then you are just insisting to use a wrong source which is not a right thing to do. You call your edits as "BOLD" edits while Jyoti's as POV!. My advice, calm down both of you. Take a third opinion if required, go for a DR. I see that Jyoti has made efforts to dicuss on talk page, may be you can take it back to where this "edit-war" started and discuss each changes. -sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User TheFallenCrowd at Arthur Kemp

At Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TheFallenCrowd (talk · contribs) is continually reinserting material that is not backed by the source (and calling its removal vandalism). I asked TheFallenCrowd to take this to RSN and they refused, reinserting the material (which had also been removed by Emeraude (talk · contribs) . I then took it to RSN and asked, told TheFallenCrowd that I had and asked him not to keep reinserting it without consensus - and TheFallenCrowd reinserted it. My comment and that of Emeraude is at WP:RSN#Is this source that doesn't mention the subject of the article ok?. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Turkist (Pan-Turanist) users invaded several articles with fringe and unreliable content

They bring unreliable changes and false content to many articles. Their edits are against wikipedia policies. List of these users:

• Hirabutor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Su4kin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kleropides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Radosfrester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They infected many articles. User:Hirabutor is a disruptive user. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the user did not notify any of the editors, I have put ANI notices on all of the users talk pages. TheMesquito^buzz 22:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User Hirabutor may be disruptive in the IP's mind due to his pro-Turkish edits, but it looks like this user makes use of reliable sources. And as long as he can provide reliable sources without using them purposefully, it is consistent with the behaviour guidelines. If you want to check sources concerning their credibility you can also make use of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. User Kleropides looks almost unbiased, about user Su4kin I have no idea, except that he is more concentrated in genetic/anthropological articles. But, just wait a moment... why putting my name here? At all, I see no signs of a forthcoming Turkish invasion. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 11:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Move warring with metals

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

---

(Previous section title: Move edit warring the metals )

Trouble in WP:ELEMENTS paradise. Otherwise respected editor Nergaal started moving article page Other metal to Post-transition metal [331]. After initial talk [332] at user talk by me, it was reverted [333] by another editor. Only then at WT:ELEM Nergaal started a discussion (OK in itself), but the moves continued back and forth and into a 3rd title. This is disruptive.
I state that this is counter to earlier discussion outcomes (so should be re-discussed first), and that it is disruptive. For example, the periodic table articles do not correspond any more.

I request: Please restate the prior situation, until discussion at WT:ELEM concludes:

1. Other metal has the content
2. Other metal get anti-move protection as deemed appropriate
3. Nergaal is restricted by words or by bits to stop this warring.

-DePiep (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Notified Nergaal [334] and WT:ELEMENTS [335]. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Formerly-respected Nergaal has chosen the war path: [336] says: "I haven't been blocked for 3RR in many years, but this topic is so idiotic that I have no issue doing it" [sic]. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) (late sign, +30min)

I have put in a request for move protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection until the ANI is closed. TheMesquito^buzz 22:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TheMesquito. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, here's why your requests @ ANI don't end up going the way you want them to:

1. They're barely understandable - the words appear to be English, but the sentences are not;
2. You ask for specific action, when you should never do so;
3. The actions you ask for often belong on other noticeboards;

So, I can guarantee you'll either make some snotty response like you have above, and/or open some similarly non-understandable and poorly-thought-out thread on the talkpage as well the panda ₯’ 22:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User that was move waring was blocked by admin HJ Mitchell TheMesquito^buzz 22:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re DangerousPanda: guarantee? If you don't understand ANI or a specific post: then stay away. I am not asking for ignorant editors with that bit set to react. I am not asking for a favor from any admin, to please me. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That is dangerously close to Personal attack, calling a editor ignorant. TheMesquito^buzz 22:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

By DangerousPanda? No not that close. But it is, willfully: deviation; unhelpful; introducing personal opinion; making general admin conclusions. In general, I think this contribution by DangerousPanda is showing the low discussion quality by admins right her on ANI. Did you see it did not contribute anything to the essentials of this thread? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a personal attack - typical for DePiep. Of course, this thread is very educational as to what happens when people can't parse his English the panda ₯’ 22:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I hadn't seen this thread. I was just clearing the backlog at RfPP and it was my opinion that blocking Nergaal would be at least as effective as move-protection. Having seen this thread, and in particular the "war path" diff cited by DePiep, I stand by that decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So why did you block him for two days? Just because you can? — lfdder 23:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

He did [337]. 48h is barely enough to restore the damage, never enough to conclude the discussion. What is your issue, lfdder? -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

48h barely enough to repair the damage? You must be jesting. I want to hear why he's opted to block him for 2 days. — lfdder 00:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

??? What do you really want to ask? (or state) -DePiep (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that for the purpose of halting the 'move war', a shorter block would've sufficed. I want to hear what the reasoning for blocking him for 2 days is. — lfdder 01:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No response, naturally. God forbid admins are bed accountable for their blocks. — lfdder 11:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I have moved the article back to "Other metal" and move protected. Someone needs to start a RM if they still want it moved. I also noticed that the article was moved (seemingly with consensus) in March 2014, but this was achieved by a cut and paste move. I have repaired this as well. Number 57 22:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reading careful & being careful (it could be me after all). Sorry I got distracted, good you did not follow. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article talk page Talk: Other metal is now a messy redirect, which is confusing. Can an admin take a look? I realize that discussion of the move is at WT:ELEM. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Not an admin, but I have moved the discussion from the Poor Metal talk page to the Other metals talk page and redirected the Poor Metals talk page back to the other metals (Most likely needs to be deleted before a possible page move) talk page and removed the redirect on the other metals talk page TheMesquito^buzz 23:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, @TheMesquito:, you just did a cut & paste move. Now an admin will need to fix it. The talk page history is still located here while the text was copied here. Rgrds. --64.85.214.126 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted until an admin can fix the redirect TheMesquito^buzz 01:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. Please can everyone stop moving pages via cut & paste. Thanks, Number 57 12:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell DangerousPanda, I asked Nergaal on their talk page if they intend to continue the move war. If their answer is no, please consider unblocking. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If he'd made a GAB-compliant unblock that addressed that, I would have unblocked him much earlier. I've been watching his talkpage, and await his replies the panda ₯’ 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This makes it clear for me that there is still a lot of improvement possible in the wikipedia system. Decoupling the laws and rules in the wiki system from the real world of improving the wiki articles and taking decisions in the light of what and why something happened is not implemented jet. You need to study wikilaw to get your things done, I saw good editors leave after such cases.--Stone (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit- and move-warring is still edit- and move-warring, even if you end up being right (which I'm not saying is going to happen in this case) :-) the panda ₯’ 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So when will you be unblocking him? — lfdder 21:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

When he understands and accepts why he was blocked and gives a good-faith reassurance that it won't happen again, I'd wager. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: then why don't you block him indefinitely? We can't have him running about wreaking havoc first thing tomorrow his block's gonna expire. Cut the crap and unblock him already. — lfdder 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're even more disruptive than usual today, aren't you? If the block expires and he has not learned the lesson, the next will likely be much longer ... there's no valid reason to have indeffed, and without a GAB-compliant unblock request, there no valid reason to unblock. I personally hope he learned from the experience, and won't repeat - that is the second purpose of a block, after all. the panda ₯’ 23:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And who's made you wiki's moral police? Casting aspersions doesn't buy you a way out of the argument. If anything, you're the one who's being disruptive -- by keeping a productive editor blocked to teach them a lesson. Who's even told you he needs any mentoring? (I do things I know are 'wrong' quite often; I know other people do too.) To recap: do show some understanding and shut the fuck up about me being disruptive. — lfdder 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll do well reading WP:BLOCK - maybe you'll understand the purpose (try WP:CIVIL while you're at it). I'm shocked that you'd suggest he needs mentoring now - I know I sure didn't. I'm pretty sure he will have already learned, and I look forward to his return. All the best. the panda ₯’ 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the life of me I can't figure out this history. What I do know is that Nergaal moved four times, which is probably twice too many. I also know that they are not going to move that thing again and so, Panda and Harry, I really hope you don't mind but I think by now the block has outrun its purpose and I'm going to lift it, via IAR or clemency or so. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[338] Drmies did unblock out of due process. -DePiep (talk)

Maintain block as process said. (what is this? an amateur hobby site?). -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the unblock is quite correct: Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate." And see WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOTBATTLE NE Ent 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, any time you want to stop acting like a petty jerk, you can. (Sorry, Ent, I probably shouldn't talk like that, but it's this vindictive wikilawyerish meanspirited gravedancing and backstabbing and tattletaling that sometimes make this place such a nasty place. Thank you, by the way.) What's more, you filed the complaint, great. You placed it here for admins to decide on the matter, which they did. Now go do something else. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies thinking he's Napoleon's grandchild "I asked you to stay away", [339] [340] makes ANI discussion useless. A priory. Now I can predict no admin will check on admin Drmies, but this point I want to state. So far already, another proof that internal admin control is worthless, and that ANI has the worst discussion quality on all enwiki. Then, in these situations there is this (now predictable) admin-personal-attack-editor text. -DePiep (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See here, where I suggested, obviously not explicitly enough, you stay away from my talk page. Don't know what Napoleon has to do with that. Also, it's "priori", with an i; not Priory, and "a priori" doesn't mean in English what it means in Dutch--what DePiep means is that ANI discussions are always already hopeless, of course, which begs the question of why they started this thread. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

When I want to challenge or question an admin's action, I am supposed to do to that admin. So I did, on your talkpage. Of course I did not recall your cursing, because most likely I did not read that post after the first offences. Still unexplained: [341], where you reverted (blanked) in an other persons talkpage. While in fact, I add, it was a remark to you, not to the user. But alas, we can predict the outcome. Criticising an admin for an admin action, any use ever? (I note the pattern: admins on ANI resort to personal attack very easily. Why not the other route?) -DePiep (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"thinking he's Napoleon's grandchild" is an unacceptable personal attack, and your posts on Nergaal's talk page are equally unacceptable. DePiep, stop now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Something else, but not so much

DePiep insists on leaving little "unacceptable" messages on Nergaal's talk page, right under my message about my unblocking Nergaal. I consider this in really poor taste, since DePiep seems to have taken great delight in Nergaal's block, even proposing here that 48 hours was "barely enough to restore the damage". In other words, in my opinion DePiep should stay away from that talk page, and is engaging in a kind of gavedancing. If they wish to take issue with my unblock they can do so on ANI; they should not do so there. In addition, they reverted my revert, saying an admin should know better; I think DePiep does not have much of a working knowledge of what admins are charged with (see above also), and I'm getting a bit tired of their bickering. I would like your assistance in keeping them off that talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the user is being very hostile at WT:ELEM and is not assuming good faith at all, constantly attacking other users. I would suggest that the admins need to look into the actions of DePiep to see if they are breaking any Wikipedia polices. TheMesquito^buzz 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would propose that an IBAN be enacted on Nergaal and DePiep, as DePiep seem to be intent on sullying the other users name, and I don't want to see a good editor like Nergaal (who made a mistake, mind you, in move warring but no one is perfect and seeing his last legitimate block was in October 2007) to leave the project because of attacks from DePiep. TheMesquito^buzz 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

the best answer for bad speech is more speech.
— Mike Godwin [342]

It is not the role of admins to censor discussion on Wikipedia, and, unless, Nergaal has specificially asked DePiep to stay off the page, it's hard to see justification for reverting a single word opinion of an unblock. As a practical matter, it just turns a comment and one talk page notification into four. As far as factors that may influence Nergaal's future contributions to Wikipedia, I'd suggest the community focus on his words [343]. NE Ent 10:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Reporting Katieh5584

for continuously violating the wikipedia entry of Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. She keeps deleting a series of images I hold the copyright for. AmmarAbdRabbo (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You were edit warring over the insertion of images that were already deleted in Commons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The images were still visible to me.Katieh5584 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OP has been blocked by admin DangerousPanda for edit warring. TheMesquito^buzz 23:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And Materialscientist has unblocked them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

An account made simply to vandalize and use profanity

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

---

Over the last few days, someone has emerged with an account to vandalize golf-related pages. And now today, when the person attached to that particular profile was politely asked not to vandalize, they responded by saying "Why don't u f*ck off u mother f*cker" (I deleted the vowel just now, and replaced it with an asterisk.). Here is the person's talk page where they were warned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobynash ... And here is their short but obvious history of vandalism on that profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bobynash. Please see if there is something you can do, if you have time. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the usual place for vandalism reports, but I've given him a 5 day rest. Please don't forget that you're required to advise the other editor when you report them to an admin noticeboard the panda ₯’ 00:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm going to guess that was a "u". Am I right? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, I was just about to notify him as soon as I was finished with this. Thanks again. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Abusive reverting

For the last two months, I've been making the same weekly addition to the 2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup article, and I've never had a problem with anyone doing anything on there. But in the last week, a certain person, for no reason, started reverting my edit on there. Their excuse is that there hasn't been a report added. As I said, in 2 months, I've never had a problem on there - if a report was needed, someone would have complained a long time ago. That user can add a report if they want, but if not, they need to stop. They can't have it both ways. ... .... Here is what it's SUPPOSED to currently look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=606970882&oldid=606945252 .. And here is what that person keeps making it look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=606970882 ... ... As I said, in two months I've never had a problem with this until now, and for no reason, just some user with apparently nothing better to do. It needs to stop. I don't like having my time wasted. They can't have it both ways.

Here is their profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:United_States_Man , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 May 2014

• I simply took off blank headings that made no sense because they did not contain summaries. I even tried to explain, but you just can't get through to some people. United States Man (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, can't get through to some people, people such as the one above me here. There was never a problem in 2 months on there until they came along, all of the sudden, out of nowhere, without any intention to want to help, just to be a disruption. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Is this permalink what you mean by "tried to explain"? It is not satisfactory to revert a good-faith addition (1 + 2 + 3) with no edit summary beyond "Reverted 1 edit...". The proper procedure would be to post a short explanation at the article talk and refer to it in an edit summary. A "did not appear to be constructive" warning is not an explanation whether or not a few words are posted after it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth

Those of you with long memories may remember this review being imposed on User:Cwmhiraeth because she complained about harassment by User Afadsbad and his/her cronies. It's been running for over a month now, and is starting to repeat itself. User:Black Kite who offered to be the uninvolved admin, seems to have abandoned it. Can someone please review, make a decision and close? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor review is different from an RfC, and doesn't usually end in a "decision." I'd be interested in whether Cwmjiraeth feels she is still obtaining useful comments in the review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Even a show trial like this shameful episode should have a conc!fusion. And the harasser is still targeting Cwmhiraeth. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think it is - the usual purpose is an informal discussion where an editor is asking for feedback as it is not an RfC. I think the best is for Cwmhiraeth to close it with a comment on how she will proceed from this. Any further comments by others that are ad hominem or groundless should then be treated like a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I made my comments on it a while back, after reading a lot of diffs and a lot of articles. However, those are just my views; no-one is required to actually take any account of them, and the issue has expanded quite a lot since then as well. Cas Liber is correct here. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IP editor at Old Great Bulgaria

The same case as a few days ago. Blocked for 72h, upon expiry, again the IP user changes dates etc in the Old Great Bulgaria article. Given that the same IP address has been making the same disruptive edits across several editions of the same article (Bulgarian, German, French, Spanish, Italian etc) and does not seem to learn from his blocks, could we please permablock the account and editprotect the article in question for a while? Constantine ✍ 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Strange "French" spamicles

We've had a couple of nonsense articles in extremely bad French reported at WP:Pages needing translation into English: CONSEIL NE dur travail and Examen bonnes raisons pour Prendre contact avec un conseiller Moyen rendement gà nà ral. The first looked to me like a machine translated copyvio, but I was unable to find a source, so I dropped a note to the editor whose only contribution it was, asking them; the second had English phrases embedded in it and spam-type references, so I have blocked the editor whose only contribution it was, but please keep an eye out for more of these in case more than one IP is involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

These are just more spambot accounts doing their thing in French versus English. I believe they are tracking them on meta, but I can't remember the name they are calling this spambot. The spambot has been active for months. Feels like years. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

COI editing by IP - Ministry of Sound, James Palumbo and related articles

I have noticed a significant number of edits by 62.244.189.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Ministry of Sound, James Palumbo, Baron Palumbo of Southwark, and other articles from Category:Ministry of Sound. The IP resolves to MSHK Ltd, which is one of the Ministry of Sound companies, of which Palumbo is founder and chairman. I have tagged the MoS and James Palumbo articles with a COI template, and noted why on their talk pages. I have also left a COI user template on the IP's talk page (and will shortly also provide them with a link to this thread). I have done some clean-up on the Palumbo article. Please could admins take a look at the situation to see if anything else needs to be done? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi page for awhile

Would someone be so kind as to semi protect this here ANI for a bit? (Yes I know WP:RFPP exists -- iar and all that..) NE Ent 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks. NE Ent 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio needs admin intervention.

TL; DR: To resolve a copyvio resulting from an improper merge, please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER. (We can give the deleting admin, @RHaworth: more time to post the reply they are considering. No other admin action needed, IMO.)

Details, applicable rules, etc:

I'm posting here cuz policy shortcut WP:DCV says,

"If a contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted, they may be reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard."

25 days ago, I wrote here:

"... IIRC it's standard, for the article history to remain, for copyright reasons; we MUST give attribution. To the deleting admin, @RHaworth: please restore the history and merge properly in future. WP:Merge: "Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator", but this improper merge does. WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright guideline too.

Despite the ping and recent activity, the apparent copyvio [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAGEMASTER&action=history persists; no history for RAGEMASTER restore the history and merge properly in future. WP:Merge: "Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator", but this improper merge does. WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright guideline too.}}

Despite multiple pings and recent activity , the copyvio persists.

I wrote the above draft post ~1 day ago.

> 12 hours ago, "Considering my reply," wrote RHaworth at talk. (contribs).

I need to reboot. Posting. --Elvey (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read this complaint twice now and I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to report. Something about a bollixed histmerge, yes, but what does pinging RHaworth have to do with it, what is the copyvio, and why do we need to know that someone was considering a reply 12 hours ago? If you could explain in plan English what the problem is, without quoting old edits from other pages, that would probably help admins help you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

TL; DR: To resolve a copyvio resulting from an improper merge, please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER.

RHaworth bollixed the histmerge by deleting RAGEMASTER. Bollixed how? It's standard, for the article history to remain, for copyright reasons; we MUST give attribution. So I told the deleting admin, @RHaworth: : Please restore the history and merge properly in future.

What is the copyvio? The unattributed content merged from RAGEMASTER. Please read WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright if you still don't understand. I linked to it in my OP. --Elvey (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RAGEMASTER is a redirect page as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAGEMASTER back in January 2014. Are you talking about the deleted page history? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is why I wrote, "please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER."...--Elvey (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I created the NSA ANT catalog article. I don't recall that any substantial amount of content of the RAGEMASTER article was actually merged into the target article. An admin can check the deleted article to verify this. It also seems that WP:NOATT might apply.- MrX

I think confusion here is understandable. The article was deleted with the rationale that "The content has been merged to NSA ANT catalog", as the request was made as "{{db-g6|rationale=The content has been merged to [[NSA ANT catalog]]}}". If it were true that "the content has been merged", then we would be violating the copyright of the contributors to PAGEMASTERRAGEMASTER. The question is whether the content was actually merged or the information was merged. Since information has no copyright, there's no copyright issue in merging that without attribution. I've compared the article in history and the new article and I don't see any obvious similarity. I think that user: MrX is probably remembering correctly that no substantial content was copied. User:Elvey, do you believe that actual creative content was merged? If I may have overlooked something, we can always restore the history for a check. It's not like it's a BLP vio or anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Go Maggie! I believe that actual creative content was merged. That is why I wrote, "please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER."... So would you please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER, Moonriddengirl? TIA. --Elvey (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PS I don't see how what I wrote could be so confusing to folks familiar with our policies. Is the confusion due to too little clue and patience among admins regarding copyright? Or is my writing far, far less clear than I think it is? I see so many admin copyright mistakes (like the nonsense posts insisting that I violated the copyright on my own work - even after I made it abundantly clear and obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had merely copied my own original comments from one part of the wiki to another) that the evidence is strong for the former . --Elvey (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the history. Whether there's creative content or not, it's clear that what this is not at this point is "uncontroversial", and, again, it's not like it's a BLP or anything. The will of the AFD is still enacted by the merge. I'm afraid I don't have time to look further for creative content - it's been a busy weekend. :/ If there's anything that needs attribution, we should note it in edit summary at the new article. If not, it should be fine. I think part of the confusion here is the mixing of terms - "merge" and "histmerge" are very different things. With a "histmerge", obviously, there's no history left at the former article. :) The two are melded together. This was a garden variety merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I added {{R from merge}} to the redirect & {{merged-to}}) to the redirect talk; this should prevent similar future deletion requests. Rgrds. --64.85.216.78 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the histories of the two articles. MrX's contributions, such as the initial creation and the list's addition, appear unrelated to RAGEMASTER. User:Someone not using his real name's expansion of the RAGEMASTER item (diff, history), this edit in particular, contains a similar clause ("modulating ... red ... RF") to the original version of RAGEMASTER. I generally ask the user directly, but he retired and has not edited since March. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As a reminder to editors like Elvey and others, undeleting the history is actually only part of the solution to any possible copyvio problems. The contribution history of the article where content was copied to should reflect the fact that content was copied. Otherwise the contribution history of the article content was copied from is somewhat useless as no one checking the article where content was copied to is going to know to check it to find the other contributors of CC-BY-SA+GFDL copyrighted content. Unfortunately it does seem to be a problem that people copy stuff inter-enwikipedia without making it clear it's being copied from elsewhere even when what they're copying may be creative enough to be eligible for copyright. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks again, Maggie. Would you/someone please undelete Talk:RAGEMASTER too; that shouldn't have been deleted either. --Elvey (talk) (continued in new subsection below)

Agreed, Nil. I've been merging the missing content in, - and reflect the fact that content was copied - and hadn't even read your post. I'd really like to see RHaworth and the other admins who seem to have been confused about this ACK that page deletion shouldn't occur at all when a merge is performed. --Elvey (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated modification of movie dates and blanking within movie-related articles

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

---

First off, I don't know if I'm in the right place. This person appears to be engaging in broken-record behavior after repeated warnings (below) about editing movie-related articles rather oddly. They won't respond as to why they're doing this, and don't seem to be improving the articles very much.

50.47.235.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP listed above keeps changing the dates for movies and removing large chunks of film-related articles and templates.
The sort of thing like changing "Belle (2013 film), a 2013 film" to "Belle (2013 film), a 2014 film". [344]
While I tried to assume good faith and think perhaps the movies were made one year and released another, it really doesn't all add up. Characteristically, this user will increment the year of a film or movie by one with no explanation. It's sometimes more subtle, such as replacing 2011 with 2012; [345] even though the film's article says in the first sentence "...a 2011 [film]..."

This isn't once or twice, but a couple dozen times or so. The most recent diffs, date-related: [346][347][348][349][350][351]

Similarly, this user blanks out sections of articles without edit summaries or any hint as to why information should be removed. Why blank out a few related paragraphs concerning awards, special viewings, or accolades, as most recently done here? I really don't get it.
Some more I grabbed: [352][353][354][355][356][357][358]

After warning about blanking [359]/error-insertion [360], trying to get across to them in other ways with a relevant welcome message, a warning template and a personalized note on why edit summaries are necessary, they still don't seem to get it. I can't seem to communicate that what they're doing is probably unhelpful to the articles and templates in question. What do I do now?
...Or, to turn this around... are they making sense, but I fail to see the pattern to what they're doing? Perhaps trimming movie articles they find to be off-topic or inexact, perhaps? I can't really call myself a movie fanatic here. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're in the right place. However, clear cut vandalism goes to WP:AIV, but more incremental, subtle, and complex stuff like this I think is best described at ANI. So I think you're not in the wrong place. Tutelary (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked six months for long-term vandalism of movie articles. The edit filter log shows they have blanked sections of articles more than 50 times since early 2014. A 31-hour block in April had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Cardus

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

---

Greeting administrators. I would like to move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardus over the Cardus redirect. I am adding a hatnote to maintain a link the the individual's article. Thanks for any assistance. As far as the group's notability, I'd say it's borderline. So no objections to taking it to AfD. Some of its sub-projects already have articles.. And it does seem to be somewhat influential with various publications, partnership, and notable involved in its activities. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not use {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} like everyone else does :-) the panda ₯’ 23:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I will give that a try. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

... anyway, I moved it  Done the panda ₯’ 23:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing SPA

Ichrio Nazuki (talk · contribs) account created a few days ago in order to make unsourced POV edits to the Battle of Busan article.[361] User:Oda Mari has already pointed out that this is probably a sock account, but I'm not sure of whom. 182.249.241.38 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I see three small edits to the infobox of this article by Ichrio Nazuki, removing unsourced assessments of the battle with different unsourced assessments of it. He started a conversation on the article talk page on April 30th which has not been responded to by any other editors. I think this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a long-running edit war. Oshi niko (talk · contribs) apparently felt he had "lost", so he created a new account and continued edit warring. He continues to refuse to use refs. User:Oda Mari provided a ref (admittedly not a great one), to the effect that Ichrio has turned to badmouthing her to other editors. "this user has an issue of camouflaging historical facts" clearly indicates he is HERE to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 182.249.241.22 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If Ichrio Nazuki and Oshi niko are suspected as the same person, an SPI can be opened. If the accounts are related, they can be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, as stated above. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

But the problem is that Nazuki is removing an unsourced sentence in an infobox and adding a different unsourced sentence. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but the information he is replacing isn't sourced either. Since the point of contention is how to assess the outcome of a battle, it should really be discussed on the article talk page or DRN, not AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting backup

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

---

Could we have another editor slip in here and help me deal with a rather fiery IP editor? 71.239.82.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to be precise. I removed huge blocks of unsourced BLP text from Nazanin Afshin-Jam and he is simply not having it on the talk page. Help would be appreciated, thanks. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, Mr "not dave" is trying to begin a political battle; I am not. The facts of the matter are as follow. I went to a "celebrity" article, after editing at a serious article, where I have scholarly interest. That first article is Nazanin Fatehi. The celebrity article referred to in this first article was the further BLP text from Nazanin Afshin-Jam, which I found in a mess.

I did the following, in each case, writing a talk section before making the changes:

• updated information on MacKay's current position in government
• created the "Early life" section (so birth and immigration content did not appear solely in the lede)
• moved citations from the lede to appropriate places in the main body
• created a full citation for the Two Nazanins book (and added initial book review-type content)
• tagged three references inline as poor sources, and
• added some section and inline tags in the opening sections, to call attention to the direction this article needs to move.

I also noted that the key biographical detail—before today's work, 9 of 29 references, or >30% of sourcing, were from non-objective sources (i.e., non-independent, where the article subject supplied information to the website; see National Speaker Bureau and Halifax webpages). The citations/sourcing are therefore—for these and further reasons (much unreferenced factual content, bare URL and other footnote format issues, etc.)—substantially deficient. A multiple issues tag was therefore set.

ALL OF THESE INTENDED EDITS APPEARED IN TALK, BEFORE I ACTUALLY MADE THEM.

Mr "not dave" reverted a substantial portion of these changes, without any prior discussion at the article's Talk page. It is for that reason, and for his re-reversion, that the discussion became heated.

His perspective is that since some material in this article is unsourced it must be immediately removed—note, all of the unsourced material was already there when I began my edits, and had been for years. I only moved the material around, and added tags calling for new / better citations. Rather than deleting these, and with them, some information that did have citations, as "not dave" did, I took a softer line, per the added opening two section tags: I was asking previous editors to mitigate the situation, and add or improve references as needed. (Note, all uncited material appearing is positive, and, per the appearing tag, none appears to be libelous, and therefore demanding immediate attention.

Bottom line, "not dave" rushed to judgement. Now Neil has done the same. PLEASE, CONSIDER CAREFULLY, BEFORE TAKING SIDES, OR SIMPLY ADDING TO THIS CHILDISH REVERSION STRING.

Finally, it does not matter that I was originally editing IP. This is unacceptable stereotyping/prejudice, and against WP. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Dave is completely correct as you've been told repeatedly on your talk page: If someone removes unsourced material, you cannot just add it back in with the excuse "it was there before", especially on a WP:BLP. Find sources, then add material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please fully read above and comment, again. Please stop taking side before carefully weighing both arguments. This rush to judgment and teaming up by cliques at Wikipedia is endemic. You have a choice here, to be fair. Use it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What is stopping you from improving the article without re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced content? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Forensic referencing post hoc, by an individual other than the original editor is the poorest of ways, scholarly, to arrive at the original source used by one composing original text. I would have thought this to be prima facie obvious. What is stopping you from taking a mature, nuanced view of this editor conflict, fully reviewing the article history and full article Talk, considering the WPs being violated by "not dave" (and now, yourself), and not simply jumping in and taking a friend's side, as his request here was so clearly soliciting? I will add nothing further here, at all, and likely nothing further at the article site, either. You have made the decisions to set the quality. Enjoy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're actually expecting editors who have added unsourced material in the past to magically show up and add sources now then you need to spend more time here before asserting something is prima facie obvious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And just to add, Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, so I consider that opinion inappropriate for this situation. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

He's back again. Anyone else think that this warrants a block? ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You clique-orented editors are really something—please, understand if you try any such thing, I will elevate this to the administrators I know. Note, for the record here: (1) A moment ago this matter was closed, and you have reopened it to cause this further trouble. (2) These additional "citations needed" are explained in the Talk section. Grow up. Accept that others disagree with you. I am calling on you and your friend Niel, to act consistently at that article—you have said no unsourced material should appear. I am simply calling to your attention the rest of the material in the article that is clearly without sourcing. READ AND RESPOND IN TALK. Stop playing the clique game, or I will take advantage of the real fairness inherent to Wikipedia (though requiring and wasting inordinate time), and contact those I know. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance at that edit makes me think it seems perfectly OK. What am I missing? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, you are missing a whole battle of the day, where "not dave" and Neil objected to me adding "citation needed" tags, rather, insisting that I should have carte blanch deleted all the sentences that were without citation. I objected to this, and they reverted consistently, to remove material that, though BLP, I felt was innocuous—which by leaving it, would would have given opportunity for other editors to complete their earlier writing efforts. Instead, these two editors insisted in deleting all of the text that were missing citations.

Here, in the remaining edits (adding tags), I am calling on them to be consistent. If all unsourced material needs to be removed, remove it all. I do not agree with this; I am merely asking this clique of editors to be consistent in the position they have laid out, and enforced together.

Finally, note, "He's back" violates a host of WP, beginning with presuming lack of good faith (which I have clearly laid out above). That someone disagrees strongly with you, "not dave", is not a reason to block them. But play your games, as you will. Le Prof (Writing from the road, am not an IP editor) 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

These edits are in violation of WP:POINT. Leprof 7272 was upset before because people were removing unsourced information from a BLP that was in dispute, so in retaliation they are adding citation tags all over the article. That seems to be the goal according to this section of the article talk page (and now in this ANI thread as well).

@71.239.82.39: @Leprof 7272: Cut this out, this tantrum can lead to a block. This is a formal warning. Also, please stick to your account, editing as both your account as an IP makes it difficult to respond to you and keep track of your edits. While doing what you're doing isn't a violation of WP:SOCK (you don't have multiple accounts and you're transparent about who you are) you're making things unnecessarily difficult for other editors. -- Atama頭 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

First, there is one editor, me, and I identify myself, always, as Le Prof, whether logged in or not. Any attempt to paint this as a case of WP:SOCK is specious. I log as I can, and this is my business, not yours, so long as I make clear who I am (and the singular IP and my signatures make this perfectly clear).

Second, there is no tantrum here, Atama, just an attempt to try to sort a continuing disagreement. Were "not dave" and Neil above board, they would admit their original revertive edits went too far, and were done in haste, without attention to the extensive early Talk that I dedicated to explaining what I was doing.

Third, the continuing matter is as I mention above—that "not dave" and "Neil" have ganged up to insist that any BLP material that is not sourced—all of which has been in the article for years, none of which was by my adding—should be removed from this article. I simply call on them to be consistent. If all must be removed, remove it all. SEE MY TALK SECTIONS, AT THE ARTICLE.

Finally, I am a mature academic, and this discourse is nonsense. This politicization of matters is what makes this place a growing desert of subject matter talent. Keep up if you will, but this is a clear case of careful scholarly hard work being confronted by proud, superficial (and tech-driven) pseudo mistake finding. Rise above it. See the forest for the trees. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll find that editors are disinclined to do your bidding. If you want to make an edit to the article, you make it. Not Dave did, and stood by it. I did, and I stand by it (contrary to your "above board" nonsense). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The first set of added tags, to the "Education and Red Cross work" section, had their intended effect: someone found an article that (on good faith I assume) must support the three statements in that paragraph. Bravo. Now, shall we block me for marking material that needs to be sourced? Shall we revert my other tagging edits, so there is no indicator that the further work needs to be done? Or shall we follow the Neil and "not dave" approach, and either delete those "citation needed" edits (hiding the work needing to be done) or delete all of the unsourced innocuous text (making it impossible for such good editing as just done on the "Education…" section to be accomplished)—best, shall we do as "not dave" suggests, and block me, so I you all can conduct business together, without the suggestion that there might be other, and even better ways? Your call. I care not. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster attempting to edit ASmallWorld

New users Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster have admitted they are employees of asmallworld and are working together in violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK as well as admitted WP:COI. I think that both users and there IP addresses should be blocked from editing the asmallworld page. The relevant statements and diffs are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607201353&oldid=607200956 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607202846&oldid=607201353 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607200956&oldid=607194331 Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Also both accounts were created today and have not attempted edit any other pages. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Actually the Muriellefinster account was created on 2012-03-27. Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, these two accounts (which have 5 edits between them) have only edited the article talk page. Typically, cases that are brought to AN/I are not preemptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (my comment was deleted in an edit conflict with My name is not dave)

Cool, sorry for the wrong info on the Muriellefinster account. I thought that since they admitted they worked for the company there could be a limited block as to editing that page, since it has in the past been the subject of vandalism from IP addresses and is therefore now semi-protected. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Also I thought the meat/sockpuppeting should be brought up as that is not preventive. The two users are in the same office and communicating, if they are not in fact the same person. So I thought I would bring all three relevant issues to this board. Sorry if that was inappropriate. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

I don't suggest a block on these accounts, mainly because they are doing the right thing by suggesting potentially COI edits on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Did they suggest COI edits? They mentioned edits that are in their perspective 'biased', 'spammy', and 'personal in nature' which are all comments on the content not on a COI. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Memorial Day

This article is presently attracting a fair amount of vandalism. It might be a good idea to semi-protect it until the holiday is past. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)