Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Phoenix article

• DylanMcKaneWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.79.4.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Celtic Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish economic downturn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish banking crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DylanMcKaneWiki joined Wikipedia about a month ago and immediately started moving articles around. There were a number of issues with cut-and-paste moves and non-standard titles. Things generally settled down. Then he started the Celtic TigerCeltic Phoenix article—if we assume good faith, it's a split, but it leans into the realm of a POV fork to prevent only the good side of the recovery. That article has been tagged for a prospective merge into the article on Ireland's economy for a few days.

For the past few days, he has shown a pattern of editing while logged out, primarily with the IP listed above. If you look at the edit times over the past 24–48 hours, it's almost a clean handoff every time one or the other starts editing.

Today, he declared that he was giving in and allowing the merge to go ahead.[1] So, the logged-in Dylan proceeded to merge the article. The IP then unwound the merge, and Dylan logged back in to proclaim he'd changed his mind.[2]

Frankly, that was a bridge too far: the number of articles and templates he's edited in the last few hours will be daunting to correct for all of his edits. While I'd like to assume good faith that he just keeps getting logged out, it's starting to look like there's some intent to disrupt the encyclopedia with his edits—almost to the point of intentionally logging out to avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm reading too much in, but at the least, he needs some good guidance on how to work constructively with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC), amended 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Guliolopez has tried to engage with him, offering tips and advice. I admit to being snarky with him, but have also latterly offered advice, pointed out some of the problems with his editing, etc. Dylan rarely engages (only interaction with his talk page has been to blank it), and when he does it's to talk about us leaving "his" article alone diff. The cut-and-paste page moves have been problematic, the ownership is an obvious issue, as is logging out to perform edits/avoid his earlier block. A more serious problem is the complete ignoring of WP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

When I looked at his talk page before he deleted most of the content, I see a string of warnings for the past three weeks, asking and even pleading with him not to do moves which mess up the edit history of the page. It seems like this has happened on multiple occasions. Have you seen any improvement, C.Fred? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't so much say he improved through the first part of May as his editing just quieted down and there were fewer problems. He went away from the economics articles and focused on shopping centres. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no improvements just because he lowered his amount of disruption. I feel a long-term block is required as it is more and more evident from the several warnings he recieved that he has no intention to learn from mistakes and cooperate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, this dispute is about the Celtic Phoenix article, not the Celtic Tiger article, which DylanMcKaneWiki does not appear to have edited, but which would be a good merge target. Paul B (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's (mainly) about the Celtic Phoenix article, but DylanMcKaneWiki has edited Celtic Tiger, too, albeit when logged out - see this diff from 15th May is an insertion that adds in a 'See main article: Celtic Phoenix' template, for example, and there are more. The "109.7*.*.*" addresses that edited Celtic Tiger are the ones also disruptively editing Celtic Phoenix. WP:DUCK. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And checking what links to Celtic Phoenix, I've found that the IP and/or editor concerned has inserted a chunk of text (that completely ignores WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL) into many articles, which includes a "See main article Celtic Phoenix" template, rather than directing readers to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The chunk had been pasted into Economic history of the Republic of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Post-2008 Irish economic downturn. This is a definite PoV fork... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added the above note because this section was originally entitled by C.Fred "User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Tiger article" with a link to Celtic Tiger below, and the inaccurate statement that "he started the Celtic Tiger article". Obviously just an accidental slip up on C.Fred's part, but there was no reference to Celtic Phoenix at all in the thread. I changed the title and link so the comment now seems semi-irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I had been trying to see what existed on ga.wikipedia; there is an article on the Tiger but not the Phoenix, so I crossed them up in my brain. Sorry about that. Paul B, feel free to whack me with a trout (which happens to be one of the main aquaculture products of Ireland, but I digress). —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin also semi-protect Post-2008 Irish economic downturn, please? It's currently got one whole page of edits by this user (both logged in and not), some small changes, some serious, many removing significant content, and what appears to be efforts to remove/alter admin-only templates. Most edits done with no edit summary. This is extremely disruptive editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And now we have a page move - 2008–13 Irish economic downturn, because in Dylan's PoV, the downturn ended then. He has been repeatedly asked and warned not to do page moves like this, especially moves that may be controversial (and instead to use the requested moves procedure), and he simply can't be unaware that this wouldn't be uncontroversial, especially given it's talk page. Can an admin please do something about this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've unwound the move. @Bastun: Had he been warned about the moving process and using WP:RM before? I know he's gotten prior warnings related to page moves, but I thought those were cut-and-paste moves. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he did another cut-and-paste move today: Post-2008 Irish banking crisis. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has certainly been warned about them before, and I've requested him to use WP:RM. See also his talk page on 1st May and your own prior warning to him. I'm a little too busy right now to hunt down diffs for the WP:RM warnings/requests, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again - can an admin please add semi-protection to Post-2008 Irish economic downturn - Dylan (logged out) is repeatedly removing Financial crisis from the article, not using edit summaries, not genuinely engaging on talk page, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Have added Post-2008 Irish banking crisis to the list above. Similar logged out edits, again removing Financial crisis from the article, without consensus and in breach of NPOV. (A parliamentary committee was told just yesterday that over 110,000 Irish mortgages are in arrears... that should be of concern to the banks...) Can semi-protection be added to this one, too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Semi-protection has now been added to the various Irish economic articles where disruptive editing by the IP listed above was taking place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Note - re-added from Archive 887. Can we get an admin decision or recommendation on this? The user in question has stayed away from the articles in question over the last few days since SPP was added, but is still editing disruptively elsewhere - e.g., a series of seemingly random page moves, redirects and merges, done without discussion. The Quinnsworth merge was repeated again after another editor had already reverted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Update Dylan took a break for a few days but was back today, 4 June. Dylan made this edit (on other pages, too). Apparently, the "BANKING CRISIS ENDED" in 2013. Which means the government was very silly announcing all this just yesterday. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And again.... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[3][4] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the statement he made " I`d rather not comment too much on Hijiri`s comments or edits as I personally find them to be problematic." Nowhere in there is a statement about specific edits. As to your thoughts on the 50 to 100 edits, you do realize that if there is no limit in the past, that you are going to have to look at every edit ever made before changing anything to make sure your edit does not revert something he did right? So if he changed a few words here or there, your going to have to check if a word you want change was changed by him in the entire history of the article. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He was answering another user's (User:Snow Rise's) query about the specific edits he would later revert. He referred to these as "Hijiri's edits". What is the question here? Additionally, Catflap does not need to go back and look at every single edit to know that the edit he is specifically going out of his way to revert is mine. I do not need to be concerned about being accused of violating the IBAN in the same way because (as much as it would benefit the project as a whole) I am not interested in going around tracking down Catflap's old edits and reverting them. And in this case the edits aren't even that old! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... hello? Feels like I'm shouting into an echo chamber here. User:Sturmgewehr88 pointed out to Catflap on the article talk page that his edits constitute IBAN violations and User:Black Kite agreed but asked for more objective input. So far the only two other users who have weighed in have either (a) apparently not recognized that Catflap went back through my edits to the article in order to revert specific portions of them and reinsert the exact text that was there previously (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident) or (b) failed to recognize that Catflap specifically acknowledged that the edits he was reverting were made by me before he reverted them, and was also directly reminded that they were mine afterward, before re-reverting them (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident).

Anyone else wanna weigh in? Maybe warn or block Catflap? Revert to the better version of the article before the IBAN-violating/OR-infested edits? If this thread gets archived with no result I'm just going to have to un-archive or reopen it, so...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Umm, no, you're not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. You have brought something here that you felt was an incident requiring community (in general) and administrator (in particular) attention. During the three days since there has been all sorts of activity on this board, so you can be sure that administrators and editors within the community have looked over your issue and have, fairly clearly, decided that currently it does not warrant their attention. You may not be happy with that decision by the community; it may be a poor outcome for you; it may even be a poor outcome for the community; none of those points, however, mean that you "have to un-archive or reopen it". That would, in mine opinion, be close to a disruptive action, ignoring the consensus that you don't agree with.

I suggest you scrupulously adhere to the IBAN, work with others in the community to improve the article and as many others of the two million (or whatever it is now that there are) that you feel like and wait. If this Catflap is as evil and Machiavellian as you seem to think, we'll discover it soon enough; if not, yay! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:LindsayH: Please read the note at the top: I did not post anything here three days ago. I posted this thread on the much less active WP:AN (on the specific advice of an admin). In several days of the thread being open there was not a single response (presumably because that page is not as active as this one); I posted more as Catflap continued violating the IBAN again and again. After several days, confused, I asked what had happened and if I had misplaced the thread, and apparently I had. Another user moved it here for me, but I suspect that by then it had already passed the IDHT threshold. That, presumably, is what confused both BMK and AlbinoFerret, and AlbinoFerret's further questioning and my answering pushed this thread even further into IDHT territory. So far one admin has unambiguously stated that they believe the IBAN was violated and some others have found holes in my complaint that I have readily filled for them. Prematurely-archived threads do not count as "consensus to do nothing", and de-archiving or reopening them is quite common practice. Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted); the thread was prematurely archived, so I posted on the talk page of one of the admins who had posted and they de-archived it for me.

I would be happy to continue to comply by the mutual IBAN -- I have been doing so for close to a month now. But by letting this direct reverting of my edits fly you are now telling me that you think the IBAN is not mutual, because Catflap08 is allowed directly revert my edits and I am apparently still not allowed revert his. It's not "Machiavellian", though -- Catflap has been quite flagrant about his reverting my edits, even continuing to do so after being told by a third party to stop. I suspect what happened was that two weeks into the IBAN he showed up and joined a talk page discussion I had started, and evaded sanctions for that, which emboldened him do go and directly revert my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I was "confused" about anything, as I read both AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can echo your post BMK, I am not confused and also watch AN/I and AN. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, who could have ever predicted this? I'll get to agreeing adamantly with those who have already responded here with regard to how inappropriately Hijiri approaches these situations and to detailing how the "boy who cried wolf" effect might explain, at least in part, why he is not getting the response he is seeking. But let's start by recognizing another fact: the reignition of this drama represents a failure on the part of those of us who took part in the last discussion. This IBAN was never going to work; both editors work in overlapping and fairly niche areas with little buffer between them and neither showed the least suggestion of backing down from any of the content disputes between them that were the proximal cause of the ANI discussion that lead to the IBAN. Add into that battleground attitudes and personalization (to some extent two way but increasingly represented by the inability of one party to just let things go) and its clear this approach was nothing a but guarantee to rubber-band this issue back at the noticeboards in short order. It's pretty silly to recommend as a resolution to an issue that the two incolved editors simply disengage from one-another when the matter in question was that they could not be disengaged. The truth is, after years of watching it in operation, I'm increasingly dubious that an IBAN ever does anything but prolong disruption connected to grudges between editors, but it certainly needs to stop being used in cases like this where the deeper issues are not addressed first.

Now, as to your complaints, Hijiri, I can form that what was suggested to you by others here is true with regard to at least one would-be contributor; I just couldn't see this thread or the matters you raised as urgent, or even necessarily and community oversight, being all to familiar with the context and particulars of your feud. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors saw the names involved and just skipped over it, and I certainly wouldn't blame them. As it happens, I saw both new threads well before you pinged me, and was about to reply several times before being distracted by other issues (on-wiki and off) that undeniably warranted the attention more. It's not the first time you've pinged me into this feud and it's surprising each time because I've been increasingly clear with each iteration of the battle that I view your behaviours to generally be more problematic and disruptive than those of Catflap, especially with regard to seeking out the fight, but at this point I take these actions as part and parcel of your WP:IDHT way of selectively reading what others have tried to tell you about this contest of wills. I've seen so much of it with regard to how your view (and represent) the comments of others who have tried to separate you two that when I see you say something like "Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted)" I don't for a second suspect that I am getting the full story there. Because I have seen you distort the positions of other commenting parties before (my own included) to suggest thorough support for yourself where it did not really exist or was limited to just a minor point. And for the record, I'm not even saying that you're lying; in most of these cases, you seem to genuinely believe the spin that you put on these events and the perspectives of those involved, which is part of what is making this ongoing battle such a particularly intractable mess.

Whether Catflap pushed the edges of the IBAN with any edit, I don't know, though I do know that the particular edits I looked at did not violate it outright. Contrary to your assumption, the IBAN does not guarantee that he can not edit that page in a direction that is contrary to your vision for it, nor is the reverse Otherwise IBANs could be gamed to try to force preferred version. All of which is exactly why this IBAN was such a foolish notion in this case, because clearly neither of you wanted to give way on this article and related content, so it was inevitable that you would be lobbing broadsides at eachother in one manner or another. For this reason I'm going to propose that the IBAN be dissolved, that we ask you two gentlemen one last time to try to find a reasonable compromise path forward and, if you fail and the issue becomes disruptive between the two of you, we look at which of the two of you is more deserving of a page or topic ban regarding this subject the two of you cannot let go. Whether or not I am successful in convincing others to follow that approach though, I highly recommend that you let this issue go for now, before you get smacked with the biggest WP:BOOMERANG this side of the Blue Mountains. Because the situation doesn't even warrant discussion of whether you or anyone thinks Catflap is Machiavellian; he wouldn't nearly need to be when all he has to do is what he's doing now -- hang back, say absolutely nothing and let you torpedo yourself. But look on the bright side here, you've got at least one detailed response now. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all but one user (the only admin, and the only one who didn't previously express support for Catflap's position, I might add) seems to here be ignoring the fact that I presented specific evidence that Catflap reverted my edits after explicitly acknowledging that they were my edits. It has nothing to do with "editing the article away from ny preferred vision". The fact that a single previous AN thread (not two) got archived with no result after one user agreed that Catflap had violated the IBAN and one disagreed is not evidence that I have been "crying wolf"; if anything, it is evidence that the latest, more serious violation should be taken more seriously. Why is Catflap allowed revert my edits but not I his? Can someone please explain to me how this IBAN is mutual if one of the parties is refusing to abide by it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN does not just mean that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward. Even if that were the case, it's clear (as could be seen at the time) that neither of you were really going to back down on this issue. Those are two of several reasons why it was ill-advised to have instituted an IBAN without those issues first being resolved and it locked us with certainty into a new thread AN thread in short order. As to the "crying wolf" comment, you seem to have misread it -- I was referencing your past battleground behaviour in these matters as the reason why you were not getting the overwhelming flood of interest in this drama you clearly think it deserves. Despite the repeated direct efforts of (and warnings from) both an admin ([5][6]) and the community broadly about following Catflap from page to page looking to re-engage with him and other generally tendentious, combative, and disruptive behaviours, you persisted well past any sense -- and often while citing the "shared" perspectives of other editors who were themselves surprised to learn of their unwavering support for you. Frankly, you more than earned the block Silk Tork had implied was forthcoming if you didn't back off, and if it had been dolled out, likely we'd never have gotten as far as the poorly-considered IBAN.

Look, I'm not even sure how much I disagree with you that Catflap violated at least the spirit of the IBAN and should be called out for it. But these are your chickens come home to roost, my friend. You courted sanction and then only avoided a block for continuing down the path you were on (which you surely would have, as you always have on this issue and with regard to this "opponent") because we instead got steered into this IBAN which was certain to impose itself on the rest of us as soon as you two (inevitably) refused to edit in collaborative fashion on one of the issues neither of you can just let go of. And then you want to cry foul when enough editors don't flock to this nonsense and immediately agree that he should be blocked? Well, I can only say that I think you need to look at this situation again from the perspective of the community volunteers here and in the context of your past behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think "an IBAN just means that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward": I think that WP:IBAN means what it says, that Catflap08 is "not permitted to ... undo [my] edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". I provided clear and concise evidence that several of my edits (specifically, removing the Stone article as a reference for a piece of information she actually contradicts and stating in the text that Miyazawa Kenji rejected the group's nationalism) were directly undone by Catflap (here and here, respectively). The other edits are all problematic in their own ways, for reasons I painstakingly explained to Catflap on the talk page months ago, and completely undermine my earlier hard work on the article (hard work which you earlier praised and for which Catflap earlier expressed a dislike), but those problems are secondary to the direct reverts. So far every user who has checked these diffs has acknowledged that they are reverts and constitute an IBAN violation by Catflap. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Alright then. Catflap08, apparently you violated the iBan between you and Hijiri. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into this circular argument with you for a third time. Several community members here have already explained why the IBAN can't just be a rubber stamp on the last version of an article put forth in a dispute before an IBAN, and I explained that is exactly why the IBAN should not have been insittuted in the first place and have suggested a path forward to resolving that conflict of principles (which you have since !voted in favour of). But even if we take it for granted that Catflap violated the IBAN, you are still missing the larger picture that others have tried at length to impart to you. Because you can argue (and even be completely right about) the technicalities of a particular action taken by another contributor you are in conflict with, but if you bring the matter to AN/ANI, the community members here are going to look at the whole context of the dispute, consider how the IBAN came into effect and why it was deemed necessary and finally ask whether the contributions of either of you are presently worth the disruption you create between you.

Frankly, the truth is that you owe Catflap a huge debt of gratitude for proposing the IBAN. Because without it, you would certainly have been blocked for blatantly ignoring the warnings of an admin (and the recommendation of the community broadly in multiple spaces) to back away from him. If all he wanted was truly to win that content dispute, then he went about it in about the worst way possible, since all he had to do was wait for you to recieve your well-earned block, revert you, and then have the procedural high-ground once/if you were unblocked. Instead, he pushed for an IBAN, seeming to genuinely want to just be through with you. And yeah, you know what, having made that decision and set us down that path, he should have lived with the consequences and not pushed for his version in that article again, if it meant undercutting your edits. And the editors here will probably find cause to see disruption in those actions. But his poor behaviour does not absolve you of your past disruption and WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook that helped set all of this in motion, especially if you are going to keep insisting we put this situation under a microscope...

You keep re-presenting the technicalities of Catflaps edits and whether the constitute reversion, putting up the same evidence again and again and taking any lack of resulting and immediate support for you as evidence that other editors here are either "confused" about these points or that they just aren't looking closely enough. But I assure you, a greater number of us have looked through the edits you keep reposting than you seem to think. Actually, it was while looking through those edits that something occurred to me, something concerning the fact that that you now have explicitly stated that you think it is unacceptable for Catflap to revert your edits on articles with content contested between the two of you. I remembered how you opposed the IBAN at first but then suddenly embraced it, and I can't now help but suspect that the reason is that you recognized that (at least by your own interpretation of the rules) that your version of the disputed content would be the one that would exist in perpetuum. So it seems to me that you believed in the IBAN to the extent that it protected your edits, but you didn't believe in the overall goal it was meant to serve (reducing disruption) enough to abide by the spirit of the community decision and just let this one go past.

But now we have an opportunity to take things in a different direction. If we get a consensus to dissolve the IBAN, and if both you and Catflap still view me as neutral in your content dispute, I will volunteer some time on that talk page to provide a third opinion and hopefully try to bridge the differences of perspective between you two over the sources, to find a compromise solution that is also consistent with policy. If you don't like me in that role, then I recommend WP:DRN, or you could try another RfC. But whatever you do, you're going to have to find a radically different way to approach one-another in the spaces you share in common. Because the only sanctions we have left are blocks and article/topic bans, which I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to consider next time these issues come back here and one or both of you has not been mindful of the amount of rope you have left. And aside from the possible consequences of failing to finally get along and collaborate, it's worth noting that it is just so much easier to reach a middle ground solution that to conduct a months-long campaign of policy battles that draw in and consume the editorial/project energy of your fellow contributors. And yet in addition to being easier, the collaborative approach is also vastly more rewarding.

Please consider what I am saying to you. Having taken an absurd number of paragraphs to make one last effort at making these points explicit, and to draw a distinction between A) what you view as unimpeachable evidence that Catflap is in the wrong in this one instance and B) the whole context that the community will consider when trying to decide what is the most practical and realistic way to stop this disruption once and for all, I know have exceeded the amount of time I was determined not to expend here by a factor of about twenty. But we can all consider our energy well-spent if, when the IBAN is dissolved (if indeed it is), both sides come to the table prepared to compromise and embrace the kind of collaborative approach that serves the encyclopedia best. You two are not meant to be opponents -- you're partners in a project here, and partners of the rest of us, as well. Keep that in mind and you will hopefully never have to worry about the word "ban" coming up in the course of your editorial work again. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment uninvolved non-admin here. We as a community put this iBan in place, whatever its merits or costs. If we wish to dissolve it and try another solution fine but it was in place. I'm also ignoring how things have been reported and tones taken. The brute facts are Catflap knew there was an IBAN in place and it is pretty clear Catflap violated it while it was in place. As such not restricting catflap, however temporarily (I would suggest a broad tBan for a fortnight) for violating his IBAN just weakens any and all existing IBANs. SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: dissolve IBAN, find a more realistic solution to this conflict

See my last posting in this thread (as well as the previous comments diffed at its beginning) to see exactly why an IBAN can accomplish nothing here except to recycle this feud through the noticeboards endlessly. Neither editor has every voiced any interest in letting go of the content issues which brought about the acrimony between them and there is insufficient third party oversight (or even involvement) in the affected pages to keep them from stumbling over eachother's edits and directly butting heads immediately. This was an ill-thought-out community solution (to which I admittedly took part, despite reservations) that needs to be recognized as untenable here, given the circumstances and attitudes of the involved parties. As a first step to finding an actual solution to this conflict, I think the IBAN needs to be dissolved. After that, the best (if still quite underwhelming) suggestion I can give on the next course of action would be to give basic dispute resolution processes one more try. I believe WP:DRN has not yet been explored, for example. If uncivil, non-collaborative, and disruptive behaviours persists, one or both editors should be page/topic banned from the relevant articles/subjects. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Megasupport (as nom) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support First off, @Snow Rise: there is no evidence that I am trying to continue the underlying content dispute; I just don't a user with whom I am mutually IBANned reverting my edits. The only reason I initially agreed to the IBAN was because no one ever told me how hard it was to report IBAN violations. I can choose to assume that if I reverted a bunch of Catflap's edits and he reported me he would het just as poor a hearing as I have. But I have no interest in reverting Catflap's edits. So as is this is a de facto one-way IBAN, which no one agreed to.

I would, though, like to hear back from @Sturmgewehr88: and @Black Kite: first, since they appear to have taken the time to go through all the diffs and recognized that Catflap reverted me, not the other way round.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I honestly think Catflap violated the IBAN when he manually reverted Hijiri88's edits. If he's not going to face any consequences, then the IBAN seems pointless. The IBAN should be lifted and both editors given WP:ROPE awaiting further disruption, at which point TBANs will be in order. As an aside, @Snow Rise: I've heard of "strongest support possible" but "megasupport" is a new one :) ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I did just mean it as a one-off effort to combine humor, exasperation, and emphasis, but now I'm thinking it could be a thing; it could certainly get some mileage in this space! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Removal of the IBAN, and may I suggest a path forward, instead placing them both under a 1RR rule. That should end edit warring at least. AlbinoFerret 07:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the best idea I've seen since this discussion began, AF. Of course, it requires they have a third party editing the page, since otherwise they will each really only be able to add content to the page -- meaning that with an inability to remove content there is a risk of it getting glutted with large amounts of often contradictory information as each party tries to drown out the other's message. But then, my impression is that these two could use some outside perspective and a buffer for the present time anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will need an outside editor, one who has some idea of the topic other than a quick read (like me). Should we start a section on it? AlbinoFerret 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... could I ask if either of you know what exactly the "underlying content dispute" between me and Catflap actually is? Because as far as I am aware, the dispute is solely about whether a source should be attached to a statement it doesn't directly support; not a content dispute, but an issue of one user simply not understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. Before asserting that both Catflap and I (rather than just one of us) are incapable of talk-page discussion without an intermediary some recognition of this point would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, though, I'm not opposed to an intermediary. @Shii: would be great: he knows a lot about Japanese religion, is diligent with sourcing problems, and he and I have rarely agreed about stuff in the past, so there would likely be no cause to call him biased (contrary to popular opinion, I don't follow Catflap around, so I don't know if they have any kind of history of interaction, though). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with both Catflap and Hijiri and consider them both valuable to the project, although that hardly means I agree with them a lot. I also hate IBANs and would happily mediate if some kind of arbitration will take place. But I'm not going to be online 24/7 these days. Shii (tock) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral I am not willing to deal with editors who use insulting language (no matter if they strike it afterwards or not), (to my mind) bad faith edits on articles I concentrate on, childlike comments within their edits on articles about my home. I do hear that the ANI is an IBAN free zone. I also do not want to deal with editors who wish that the “opponent” to be blocked from en.Wikipedia. If an IBAN is that easily lifted then it will speak for itself. I would also welcome if admins do have a clue on the matters they get involved in and decide on.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC) If an editor finds it to be necessary to underline his/her edits with swear words and insults (strike or not) on a regular basis I do not find it to be a need to seek any consensus but to rather ignore such an individual. And for the record I am not spending my time here to be called names – not having that, not in real life nor in here. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, you had a golden ticket to keep Hijiri out of your life in the form of the IBAN (which we should obviously have never considered granting you, given your obvious lack of intention to avoid the other party). You chose to violate the sanction and the reason we are now prepared to do away with it is because it is never going to work (and never could have) if you two were not prepared to abide by it. And let's be clear, you are the party which violated it, not Hijiri. You knew (or certainly should have known) that this would cause him to fly here immediately to impose this onerous issue on the community at large once again, just weeks after we last discussed it. And frankly, the only reason you haven't been blocked already for this violation is that the editors here recognized Hijiri's own long-standing contributions to this feud. But for you complain about the weakness of our dedication to an IBAN which is causing problems rather than solving them is incredibly obtuse, since the only alternative was that follow protocol and block you for the violation immediately. Regardless, you cannot continue to contribute on the contested articles unless you are willing to collaborate with all parties there, including Hijiri.

Frankly, I've seen enough of the approaches of both you and Hijiri to this problem, and of your mutual lack of will to reach for a collaborative approach that might keep us from having to recycle this discussion endlessly. I was prepared to propose the only solution that now seems plausible to me, given the intractability and behavioural issues of both of you on the articles you contest between you, namely that you both be page banned from both Kokuchūkai and Kenji Miyazawa. But now I find that proposal awkward and ill-suited, since Hijiri has said he would be willing to consider mediation and a third (apparently neutral) editor who has worked with you both has agreed to try to facilitate that attempt. I have a hard time proposing that Hijiri be page banned before that effort, since there was a specific call for him to do so. But if you refuse to mediate, and insist continuing to edit war in violation of an IBAN you asked for, then maybe the solution is to page ban just you. Or page ban one of each of you from each of the two articles in question. In any event, if you won't come to table, I'm afraid one of these options will have to be implemented, since you cannot just refuse to work with other editors on an article you wish to remain active on. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the last sentence especially. Shii (tock) 02:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Could you explain what you mean whwn you say I have been unwilling to edit collaboratively on those two articles? On the Kokuchukai article, I have been struggling for months to try to figure out what Catflap's problem with my edits is, so I could work to accommodate him and edit collaboratively, and have been met with nothing but misquoting of sources and accusations of personal attacks and tendentious editing.

As for the Kenji article -- clearly you have not even looked at that talk page or thr edit history of the article. Just look at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/redraft to see me, User:Nishidani and User:Icuc2 (two users with whom I rarely agree all that much when it comes to article content) to fix the problems that have plagued the article for years.

I would ask that you kindly refrain from any further assertions that I have trouble editing collaboratively, especially since further down this pahe you are currently still supporting a page ban against me proposed by a user who does refuse to edit collaboratively.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah. Just realized my above comment sounds unusually petty/grouchy given that two users have finally offered to help put this problem to rest and I finally got recognition that the IBAN was violated and not by me. I had not read SR's comment as closely as perhaps I might have, and I was perhaps also frustrated by the still bubbling-up shitstorm downstairs (hopefully the Wikipedia equivalent of Mack from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be around to talk some sense into that debate soon...). Anyway, I apologize for the above gruffness. I am deeply appreciative of finally getting recognition that I was not the one violating the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Snow Rise, correct me if I am wrong and DO NOT take this personal, but I find it hard to see that any sort of consensus has been made here. I am unwilling to deal with an individual who seems to find no other way to underline his case without an abusive language and to go hysteric. I have found valuable references to have been deleted and decided to reinsert them into the article in question. Other editors seem to have meanwhile taken up the job to bring the article up to agreed standards - thanks for that. A job that I would have liked to have seen being done by admins. I have been called names in this process just because I hinted and referenced the somewhat dubious religious/political background of some editor’s favourite poet. The editor in question then decided to edit the article which I created (and delete references) on the poets religious affiliation. In due process I have been called names by the editor in question, I have been insulted, smearing comments about me while editing an article on my home town and this is a reoccurring pattern by the editor in question on other issues even without me being involved. As soon as the ice gets thin he calls for his cronies including Sturmgewehr88 (being banned from a number Wikipedias for obvious reasons – in many European countries just like Germany the number 88 is a code for a fascist background – based on edits). So go ahead IBAN, TBAN or block me from en.Wikipedia if you like. I did my utmost best to supply Information on Nichiren Buddhism in a non-partisan way, in doing so it might hurt some faithful individuals and this involves a conflict. For some admins there is a piece of advice – get involved on issues you are familiar with otherwise stay out. There is no need to show me the exit sign anymore as the project seems to be preoccupied with many issues but referenced facts – I cannot and am unwilling to deal with some editors mental issues. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone find it concerning that despite posting the above "neutral opposition" (for want of a better term) and despite the IBAN not being officially dissolved yet, Catflap08 requested further down this page that I be "topic-banned" from ... Japan-related articles, I guess, which for me is the same as a siteban. Is this appropriate behaviour? Does anyone seriously think Catflap08 is genuinely willing to engage in constructive discussion, even with a mediator? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: first of all, I'm not banned from anything, I'm blocked due to an assumption of bad faith which you also assume. "Based on edits" is completely contradicting, as my edits are why I'm not blocked on enWP and why I shouldn't be blocked anywhere else. 88 might be a "secret code" in Central Europe, but in East Asia (my main editing area) the people are either clueless or care nothing about it. Starting a problem where none exists is disruptive. I had already admited that challenging some of your edits to Kokuchūkai was wrong, but you turning around and basically calling me a Facist for my mistake is distasteful. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• (signing to delay archiving since this thread has an active close request via WP:ANRFC.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Rather than giving up on the IBAN I'd like to see it enforced. The entire point of this sort of restriction is that when its violated, violaters have further rights removed so they learn not to violate. Giving up at the first hurdle is pointless. SPACKlick (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose SPACKlick has summed it up very nicely. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: @Blackmane: Yes, but who's going to enforce the IBAN? I only accepted the IBAN in the first place because I assumed that if Catflap08 violated the IBAN someone would either warn or block him. He violated the IBAN on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa, I posted on AN requesting some form of enforcement, I suffered a huge fustercluck and several personal attacks from a friend of Catflap08's. Then he more blatantly violated the IBAN on Kokuchūkai, and I was ultimately (after another fustercluck) able to convince an admin to tell Catflap08 to play nice. Catflap08 responded to that by showing up here and calling me and User:Sturmgewehr88 neo-fascists based on the fact that we were born in 1988 and randomly requesting that I be TBANned from every article I've ever edited. I don't see why I should endure personal attacks and unending ANI fusterclucks just because at one point some months ago I didn't know how hard it was to enforce an IBAN. Clearly this IBAN is not having the effect it is meant to: if you want to petition the admin corps to indefinitely block Catflap08 for the battleground and CIR behaviour he demonstrated both before and after the IBAN I will support it, but otherwise how do you expect me to defend my contributions from a user who is revenge-reverting them despite the IBAN? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a clear violation drop a note on my talk page. The same offer goes out to anyone in the same position. Chillum 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You misunderstand me, I'm saying admins should penalise anyone who breaks an iBan otherwise the iban is pointless. I'm not suggesting it should be up to you. Messaging a single admin and saying The iBan is documented here, the opposite party directly violated it here should be simple enough to get a tban or other appropriate sanction for the violating party even if it's a short solution immediately and the admin brings it to AN to discuss if further sanctions are required.SPACKlick (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for a very late reply. I don't think I have any more to say that SPACKlick hasn't already said. See a blatant IBAN violation? report it on ANI. Simple really. Blackmane (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Numerous problems with EllenCT

Notice has been posted on EllenCT's Talk page about disruptive edits. This editor is a constant source of problems on several articles including Economic growth, Economic inequality and United States. EllenCT refuses to yield to editors' consensus. This editor is trying to monopolize Economic growth with income inequality, which by that editors own sources say that it is a minority view. This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material from Economic inequality and when questioned, promised to restore it but never did. In her Talk discussions EllenCT has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to be qualified to edit and for diversion requests sources for comments made by other editors on subject matter that someone familiar with the literature should know, then criticizes the sources, even when they are classic works on the subject. EllenCT has created such a mess that it will take many hours to sort out. This needs to stop.Phmoreno (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this needs some actual evidence, not content-free weasel-wording like "This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material..."

So, evidence, please. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As Calton says, Phmoreno, if EllenCT is "a constant source of problems" you should have no difficulty assembling a range of diffs supporting your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was my reply deleted along with so many other comments here? EllenCT (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies EllenCT, this was some sort of finger trouble I was not aware of, while I was posting at the bottom. I'm sorry. You've obviously reinserted your section; I'll go check the others. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that I have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge is contradicted by the fact that I base my article improvements on the peer reviewed secondary literature such as literature reviews published in the Journal of Economic Literature. Phmoreno has been trying to use primary source literature to avoid the importance of income inequality, and tried to delete this graph from the International Monetary Fund's large recent WP:SECONDARY study of the largest data set amassed on the question yet, which indicates that the income distribution is of top importance. Most of what Phmoreno calls "classic works" are monographs which have not been submitted to peer review. Also someone else notified me of this complaint. EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a boomerang may be due here. I'm hardly EllenCT's greatest fan, but EllenCT is standing up for relatively high-quality content - and Phmoreno has left a long trail of flaky sources and WP:SYNTH. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow EllenCT's editing, but I haven't seen much "relatively high quality content". Anybody can look at my user page and judge the quality of my content. Using my 500 pages of notes I turned some important technology and economic history articles from total junk to accurate representations of the subject, including a highly viewed article that was rated as a Wikipedia good article. It's unfortunate that we can't have a face to face debate over the subject matter in the board room and have the looser fired.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, be sure that any edits that purport to have been made by User:EllenCT were really made by User:EllenCT. There is a report below at this noticeboard that, among other things, mentions that an editor has a barnstar with a copy-and-paste of Ellen's signature that is therefore a forgery of Ellen's signature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang on Phmoreno for making unsubstantiated claims and spreading rumors about EllenCT without a single supporting diff. I recommend that the closing admin strongly warn Phmoreno about making baseless claims on ANI in the future. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree he should show up with diffs next time, Phmoreno isn't wrong. EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. At the time Arbcom took no action specifically against her (most likely because she was peripheral to that case's purpose and just showed up as an unrelated person to level false charges against others, including me, which is how we were roped into it; of course Arbcom took no action against us either), but it certainly established a pattern of past behavior that should be kept in mind going forward. I didn't interact with her much after that until recently and haven't followed most of the specific activity Phmoreno referenced above, but I can affirm that she's hit the United States page with a POV blitz across multiple sections that sparked an edit war which led to the article being temporarily shut down, and has caused another editor to seek to have the page's recently restored "good" status reassessed.

For a specific, recent example showing she hasn't changed, she agreed to a compromise proposal on content that she blatantly violated a few days later. I led off my proposal saying "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." in exchange for me adding a separate segment to another section addressing her alleged concerns. She replied by saying, "I'm completely okay with that." Yet a few days after I implemented my part of the compromise, she tried to completely rewrite the segment she had just agreed to leave as is, deleting the most important parts. That's not good faith, and without good faith productive, collaborative editing is impossible. I don't expect this complaint to result in sanctions, but don't assume Phmoreno is just making this up and don't be harsh with him with a "boomerang" when he may not have understood how these things work. EllenCT has frustrated a lot of good editors over the years, even some who agree with her politics. VictorD7 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• While EllenCT has engaged in such behavior listed above in other topics (documented at this ANI that I brought forward awhile back), diffs are needed to show what the actual problem is (if any) in this particular case. Without that, there's nothing to discuss here. I suggest Phmoreno should look at how other ANI postings are set up and provide diffs to support these accusations. Without that, those of us who are not involved in this particular case will only assume there isn't a behavior problem that needs to be discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, SPECIFICO'S accusation against me in that discussion is completely false, and he posted no evidence or specific commentary to support it. If I was "mercilessly" hounding EllenCT I probably wouldn't have completely missed that ANI discussion that apparently lasted a long time and involved many of the other editors who have had to deal with her. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• To further underscore what I said above, I will add this recent illustrative quote that shows where she's coming from ([7]) in response to another editor's fairly innocuous post: "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats. That is not an opinion, it is a fact about the opinions of Americans on a per-capita instead of a per-dollar basis....If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia." - EllenCT VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the mainstream run between the people and the corporate parties, or between the parties? EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think readers need to look through the diffs Victor has brought up. There is no need for boomerang as it clearly appears Ellen is conducting all she is accused of. For all the damage she is causing, she cannot simply get away with it just because the user was ignorant to how AN/I works.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not reassuring to see this edit by Phmoreno saying I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree Phmoreno is not conducting himself in a respectable manner, it does not excuse EllenCT for her editing. Perhaps the both of them should get blocked, but Ellen definitely deserves a longer duration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you would find anything wrong with wanting to remove material that misrepresents the truth and the sources. That message was to VictorD7 who understands what I am talking about.Phmoreno (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think people should look at the ongoing POV pushing by Victor and others at United States. Ellen is not the problem. For victor, this is an ongoing problem. Examples from another article, America: Imagine the World Without Her include edit warring 1.[8], [9], [10], [11] [12] [13][14] [15] [16][17] [18] 2. [19], [20] [21], [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Of POV Pushing: [27], [28], [29] [30] [31],[32] [33] [34] [35] [36], [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44], [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50][51] [52] [53] [54] Attacking other editors on talk pages: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. Ellen is defending well sourced material. Other editors are seeking to remove it or weaken the statements to support their POV. I would encourage any administrator to read the talk page of United States and examine the edit history. There are clearly editors who have problems with POV pushing, with the major problem being Victor. It isn't like he isn't pretty clear about his purpose here.[61]Casprings (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Except that Casprings' case falls apart under scrutiny. He pads his diffs with routine edits, alleged "personal attacks" that are mostly me defending myself, and alleged "POV" pushing that really just shows me expressing concern for neutrality. There was some edit warring on the other article, but it involved several editors on both sides, including him, and was ultimately resolved by me and what Casprings called my "supporters" using clear, honestly constructed RFCs to gain input from the broader community. He and his cohorts were the POV pushers, and he already filed a complaint against me with all that "evidence" that Arbcom declined to even hear, as the issue had already been resolved by then and it was just him waging a content dispute by other means. EllenCT wasn't even involved in that dispute, so this is just a lame attempt by him to distract from this section's topic. Casprings has a history of trying to get posters he politically opposes sanctioned by any means necessary, as this embarrassing example shows when he went after Arzel (citing some of the same evidence against him that he cites against me here above, including his link to my alleged "purpose" here). The admin's rebuke for the frivolous report was harsh enough that Casprings felt compelled to retract it, saying that he had posted it because he was "mad", not that it stopped him from trying again later. Gradually he morphed from targeting Arzel to targeting me. Calling me "the problem" is absurd. Ellen's entire Wikipedia existence is about ramming as much low quality political propaganda as she can into articles. Ellen and Griffin's soapboxing triggered a period of instability in the United States article in 2013, and their departure from the article after responsible left leaning editors joined with me and other conservative ones in stopping her resulted in a long period of article stability that recently saw the page's "good status" restored for the first time since early 2012. Her recent return has triggered a new period of instability. I'm not the one trying to radically alter long standing segments throughout the article or shove in one sided talking points on random topics of interest to me without talk page discussion or concern for encyclopedic quality. As for your old link allegedly about my "purpose" from a year ago, that was on my personal talk page and was in the context of simply trying to create a neutral article in the face of relentless POV pushing opposition by you and others. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Casprings 100%. I find it incredibly ironic that some editors are calling out EllenCT as a "problem editor" while ignoring VictorD7, who has been edit warring and POV pushing on the United States article since he first joined Wikipedia, and has been called out numerous times on his own talkpage. And looking over the edits that culminated in the United States page being locked down, it seems to me that VictorD7's reverts were to blame more so than anything else. It also looks like he violated WP:3rr with these four consecutive edits: [62], [63], [64], [65].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My reply to Casprings is above. As to Griffin, who often acts as Ellen's POV pushing tag team partner, just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true (it's telling that I'm transparent enough to leave even false accusations on my Talk Page). I wasn't even one of the last three people to revert before the article was locked down: [66], [67], [68], [69]. I did not violate 3RR, as some of my edits you cite were consecutive. If you had bothered to read your own link, you'd see that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It would show good faith if you were to retract at least that false accusation. I did arguably engage in a little edit warring, as did you in recent weeks in that article, Griffin ([70], [71], [72], [73], [74]),and Ellen ([75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85],[86], [87], [88], [89], [90]; Ellen often falsely claims in edit summaries that an item has been approved "per talk", even when it has received nothing but opposition if it was mentioned at all on the talk page, and lumps things under an "RFC" that had nothing to do with an RFC), but I've never engaged in the lying, misrepresentation of sources, or libelous personal attacks that she has. Blaming me for the page lockdown or POV pushing is absurd when I wasn't the one trying to make changes to long standing article segments. Ellen showed up after a long period of article stability that coincided with her previous departure and instantly renewed old efforts to shove political talking points into sections across the article, in most cases without even bothering to try gain a talk page consensus first. Without that I wouldn't even be editing the article right now. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I will have to sort through a lot of material to present the pertinent facts in the case in addition to my personal experiences. In the meantime this discussion should remain open. It should be focused on the person who the complaint is against and not go directly into character assassinations of those in support of my complaint.Phmoreno (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not character assassination if it is fact. I still think EllenCT needs to be blocked, but maybe it would be better if all three (Phmoreno, VictorD7, and EllenCT) be handed some sort of block. They are all in some way tied up in this POV pushing and deserve a block to be determined by admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be suckered by false claims, TheGracefulSlick, or knee jerk statements of equivalence. I've done no "POV pushing". Also, while I (among many others here) have engaged in some edit warring at times (in the sense that I occasionally reverted bad edits without breaking 3RR), my evidence against EllenCT in my first two posts above isn't even about edit warring. I lay out clear, salient examples of her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor of a specific outfit, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and showing disruptive bad faith in other ways. No one can find a single example of me doing anything like that, so don't lump us together just because we're involved in an argument with each other. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You might be the OP, Phmoreno, but other editors can add any facts here that they think are pertinent. And I think "character assassination" is overly dramatic when your words against EllenCT are just as harsh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one way forward (but not the only way) is for an admin to levy full page protection and for a new RfC to take place. I visited the talk page to see what all the fuss is about and made a few comments only to find myself quickly under attack by VictorD7, a wikilawyer par excellence. His contribution history portrays him as an SPA pushing an extreme, minority POV. I do not know if that characterization is accurate, but that's the impression I get from viewing his contribs. It needs to be noted that VictorD7 and Phmoreno have been actively feuding with EllenCT for at least the last year. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

False. You showed up and in your first post accused me of "engaging in outright denial" ([91]). You hadn't even commented on the right topic (the one actually being discussed), so in my reply I simply corrected your mistake and advised you to read more closely ([92], scroll down). In your next reply you attacked my motives ([93]), falsely accusing me of "intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S." and "engaging in denial". The rest of your post, again, contained a straw man argument, and my next reply just corrected you again while defending myself. If anything you showed up and started attacking me, not the other way around.

I'd also ask that you retract the false "SPA" claim. As the SPA page states, that tag is not based on timeline. You are not to use it on established editors who have edited multiple articles in the past but focus on one for an extended period of time. I've posted extensively on numerous articles since creating this account in 2012. In fact I've been accused of being a "SPA" on two different articles in recent months, lol, which proves it's not true. If I tend to mostly focus on a small group of articles it's because I don't have a schedule that permits dozens of edits a day. That has nothing to do with being a Single Purpose Account, which is mostly about ferreting out paid advocacy (COI) and is a very serious accusation you shouldn't recklessly throw around. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang: Clear attempt to bully and intimidate a content contributor who does careful research. WP:BAITing of EllenCT is also inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for VictorD7

From the conversation above, I propose the following:

VictorD7 (talk · contribs) has aggressively pushed his POV, edit warred, and dismissed other viewpoints in the topic area of American Politics. This behavior has occurred over a long period of time. For example, in the article America: Imagine the World Without Her, he has edit warred 1.[94], [95], [96], [97] [98] [99][100] [101] [102][103] [104] 2. [105], [106] [107], [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] POV Pushed: [113], [114], [115] [116] [117],[118] [119] [120] [121] [122], [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130], [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136][137] [138] [139] [140] and attacked other editors: [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146]

He has POV pushed in the article United States since he first joined Wikipedia. In edits that culminated in the United States page being protected, VictorD7's reverts played an essential role. He also violated WP:3rr with four consecutive edits: [147], [148], [149], [150] He often attacks others editors on the talk page of the article. [151] [152] [153]

Victor edits primary on topics that relate to the Politics of the United States and has made his purpose for editing those articles clear. [154] As such, VictorD7 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction includes the article United States. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator. VictorD7 may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

Casprings (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I did not violate 3RR and I ask you to show good faith by retracting that false accusation. Consecutive edits counts as one revert. The rest of your post I rebutted in the above section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Really, Cwobeel? It doesn't bother you that he started this outrageous character assassination section with a blatantly false claim about me violating 3RR (actually multiple false claims but that one's salient, objective, and easy for anyone to quickly discern), a claim you had made about those same edits earlier that I've already corrected you on? On what grounds should this ridiculously over the top punishment be imposed? Have you even read these links? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe it would be best of you declare a break, take some time off per WP:WPDNNY, come back after that refreshed, and maybe with a better attitude. That may save you from a block... - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm fine with taking a Wiki break, but I'd prefer you answer my questions. Defending myself from false personal attacks isn't reflective of a bad attitude. VictorD7 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support(uninvolved non admin) The numerous diff's provided leave little doubt a ban is needed for VictorD7. POV pushing and attacks on other editors should never happen. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  You mean attacks like false accusations of violating 3RR and paid editing? Did you actually read those "numerous" diffs? What were the most egregious examples of "POV pushing" you found? Mostly I just read sources and clarify issues for people on talk pages. The vast majority of my interactions are civil and productive. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read each and every diff, it took some time. You repeatedly pushed your own edits back in. You went off of the discussion of the article and aimed your replies at another editor. The one I find most troubling is the use of "any sane person". You did all this and looking at what has been presented it is more than enough. I will also caution you, as others have, that you do not help your cause questioning ever poster here, it in fact proves to me that you need a break from the area. AlbinoFerret 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect not defending myself would work even worse. Just to clarify, the "personal attack" you found most "troubling" was this one...[155]...where I simply used the same "any sane" wording the editor did in the post I replied to, visible above mine, where I was setting the record straight and defending myself from, among other things, his accusations of being "churlish" and engaging in "gamesmanship"? BTW, like most of the above "evidence", that was from last year (or the beginning of this year) in an article that did get heated on all sides at times, but I haven't been to that article in months nor have I interacted with that editor since. Is that really worth something as draconian and sudden as a broad topic ban? VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Overwhelming evidence against the user, and I propose a block with time to be decided by admin. VictorD7, don't bother commenting to this support as your counter-statements help little to whatever defense you have left.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I stopped being able to believe that VictorD7 has been editing in good faith years ago. I keep trying to work with him, but he refuses to accept only adverse RFC results, with an extremely asymmetric idea of compromise, always in his favor even when he has accepted facts which imply his judgment has been in error. I would be most grateful if the community recognizes that he is motivated by ideology instead of a desire to improve the encyclopedia, to the extent that corrupting the quality of articles and intentionally trying to mislead people about vital economic and policy topics means nothing to him when he has some glimmer of hope that he is scoring some long-antiquated political point for far-right corporate interests opposed to those of individuals. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reasonable case has been made for a block on VictorD7. It is just a list of the man's edits, not evidence of edit-warring, POV-pushing, etc. I followed up diff 173, which was an August 2014 edit to the article on the film : America: Imagine the World Without Her. Looking at the edit in the context of other the edits to the article, VictorD7 appeared to be acting reasonably. Though two editors disagreed with him, another editor agreed with him on that point (though disagreed with him on other points - so was not part of a tag-team).-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. (uninvolved) As with the discussion about EllenCT above at this time, I don't see a case laid out justifying a topic ban. A large number of diffs were provided, but they alone without context don't provide a narrative for a major NPOV issue. I'm only seeing involved editors looking to topic ban the other at this time in the conversation. If someone wants to rise above that, they'd need to actually demonstrate the actual ongoing problem at least somewhat concisely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is seeming typical of both sides of the political articles squabbles here at ANI – to try and knock editors from other side out by having them "blocked" for this or that. I should have boldly closed this entire topic down early on when I had the inclination (and before it morphed into a tit for tat exchange...). At this point, it would be a mercy for Admin to close this down, and send both camps back to their various articles to argue and fume some more. [sigh...] --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Kingofaces43 I'm also not seeing the context within the diffs to justify a topic ban. I'm not familiar with this particular dispute, but I should note that I've worked with both Victor and Ellen in the past. I can't recall working with Phmoreno. Morphh ^(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Casprings, TheGracefulSlick, EllenCT and what I stated above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per the evidence, and the arguments, presented above. IjonTichy (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a unilateral ban in a case like this. There's enough bad behavior in both directions to go around between these two across a wide range of articles. Would support an interaction band or a bilateral topic ban to make the articles they fight over usable again by other editors. But a one-way action against the one initiated by the other is of no use. --Jayron32 01:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a mistake to equate me and EllenCT (or me and Griffin or Casprings for that matter). I've typed up an EllenCT section that would show just how out of whack that is, though I haven't decided whether I'm going to post it or not. For now I'm holding off, mostly because I just showed up here to defend the op from a harsh "boomerang" when he clearly wasn't familiar with how ANIs work. I didn't call for sanctions against EllenCT in my posts above, and the only time I initiated a report against her was when she refused to stop accusing me of being a paid editor, though I could certainly make a much stronger case against her than Casprings did against me. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VictorD7. Each user should be handled individually instead of saying, "well, look at all the bad behavior going on".Casprings (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. On the contrary, I think context is vital. Besides, you've got a funny way of showing you believe that either since this section was created to discuss EllenCT. VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and it is very disappointing to see such insinuations from such an administrator without any evidence. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayron, this dispute is hardly a one-way affair. There are uncivil POV pushers working in both directions here (which has created an interesting pseudo-balance in the articles about the politics of the United States). Banning one editor would not solve this dispute, but I would be in favor of a bilateral topic ban. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. I have been editing strictly according to the peer reviewed literature reviews, not my personal politics. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This isn't a one-sided issue and any sanctions shouldn't be one-sided either. It takes two to tango. Calidum T|C 21:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I note that no actual evidence of any bad behavior on my part has been presented. The idea that "it takes two to tango" is as bad as he-said/she-said journalism when one side is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong. EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Strong support (uninvolved non-admin) Knowledgeable editors like EllenCT who cite neutral scholarly sources about contentious matters are so exceptional here that pushing for informed neutrality is seen as POV pushing by those (from both sides of the left/right divide) who are here to overwhelm and conquer by using their own pet junk citations. This is not a matter of one side trying to knock the other out in a left/right divide. It is a matter of who is here to contribute and who is here to just win. [156] makes it clear why VictorD7 is here. There are many knowledgeable editors who have EllenCT's ability to cite neutral, scholarly sources and just can't stand contributing here any longer because of "the numbers and persistence" of those who can't or won't find the best citations instead of the ones that allow them to achieve their goal for their team. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Leaving aside the fact that EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs (example: [157]), is generally terrible at selecting and comprehending sources, and is the least neutral editor I've encountered on Wikipedia, that quote by me you mention was context specific in regards to trying to pull a particular article toward neutrality from a tendentious group bent on propagandizing, and was simply an undeniable description of how Wikipedia works. It said nothing about "why" I'm here. By contrast, statements like this from EllenCT say a lot about her purpose here: [158] "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense." [159] "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats." VictorD7 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  The same editors who can't or won't evaluate textual context in sources also often fail to evaluate context in other editors' words. Using a blog (fringe or not) on a talk page to summarize opinions for other editors about what's wrong with an article is a great idea and is very different from using a blog in the article itself. Using blogs in the article will almost always harm the reader. Pointing to blogs in the talk page can often help the reader by allowing one editor to summarize things (fringe or not) for other editors. By simply writing "EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs" without adding the context in which she uses them, you conflate discussion about an article with harming an article. My thinking is that this is a strong indication of your motives, and my opinion has changed from "support" to "strong support" as a result of this most recent failure to evaluate words in context. Of course, whether a blog is fringe or not is irrelevant to a discussion about editor behavior. EllenCT's comments at [160] that VictorD7 mentioned continue: It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior emperical data, and the other does not. Removing demonstrable nonsense helps the reader. My view is that VictorD7, by citing particular sentences that EllenCT wrote out of their context, simply wishes to win. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Who said she didn't want to use the blog in the article itself? She defended the source (what Cadiomals aptly called "some twenty-something woman's rant blog"; it is a rabid anti-American screed on some random personal blog) when its RS status was attacked, and said she wanted to include points from it in the article and reshape the entire page according to its themes. Leaving aside the fact that using such a horrible source to dictate the entire layout of the United States article is even worse than simply using it to support one segment (perhaps one covering broader opinionated disagreement) per WP:NPOV (among other things), the blog itself uses fringe blogs (and sometimes Wikipedia or busted links) as sources for the points she wanted included. It does help to fully read what you comment on. EllenCT also has a history of using fringe advocacy/lobbying groups as sole authoritative sources (e.g. [161]; INSIGHT: Center for Community and Economic Development, Oakland CA), even when their claims are uncorroborated and strongly disputed by far more reliable sources (the most salient example is Citizens for Tax Justice, the lobbying arm of a liberal think tank called ITEP, whose tax chart she tried to force into articles across Wikipedia for over a year, causing enormous disruption; e.g. - [162], [163])

As for the quotes, it's interesting that you accuse me of taking things out of context when you above quoted a full four words from me in totally distorting what I was talking about. By contrast, the most pertinent element in my quote of EllenCT above is "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion." That's not true. We all have our views, but we are supposed to edit in a nonpartisan fashion. Of course we're to avoid false balance, but simply asserting there is such a false balance in a particular case doesn't make it true. It's also telling that EllenCT believes Wikipedia is "mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense", and that most Americans are to the left of the Democrats. That means she believes Wikipedia is politically waaaay to the right of the American people, which is something to keep in mind when championing her as a supremely competent, knowledgeable editor with a firm grip on reality while attacking and dismissing the countless editors who have been frustrated trying to collaborate with her. For real context, read the rest of the link you quoted from (you actually posted the wrong link). She's replying to an editor who shares her politics and started off on her side, but started distancing himself when shown proof she was wrong. After she complains about him saying something positive about me, he answers, "I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the Tax Policy Center, which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults."

As for evaluating sources, maybe you can succeed where she failed. That same discussion was one of the multiple times she claimed [164] that this article [165] states that roughly 50% of corporate tax incidence is borne by consumers, even calling it "the best source". Except, like the rest of modern scholarship, it focuses only on different ideas about the labor/capital split. Searches show it doesn't even mention the word "consumer" in any variation. She made similar false claims [166] about "page 17" of this source [167] (everything she said about me there is false too), saying it shows "50%-75%" of taxes fall on consumers. Except page 17 doesn't mention the word "consumer" in any variation either, and is also about the labor/capital split. In fact it, like most of her own sources, totally undermined her own claims about tax regressivity. Discussion elsewhere indicated she didn't understand the difference between labor and consumption, or even that investment, labor, and consumption are activities rather than distinct groups of people. When I repeatedly asked her to support her assertions with a single source quote she refused to do so and has never retracted her claims. [168], [169], [170], [171], [172] Maybe you can find the source quotes she couldn't. Or, if you're unwilling to read and rationally engage in discussions like this then you shouldn't stridently make assertions you can't back up. I'm only posting this now because I couldn't let your above comments go unchallenged. Pretty much everything you said above is the opposite of the truth.VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a pretty unfair application of bad faith to those that have had disputes with Ellen. Intelligent people can disagree on what sources say if we're not directly quoting them and what the weight should be for the given scope of an article. Ellen and Victor are both very passionate and opinionated editors, which tends to balance out. I hope that any admin considering action would take the time to read through some of these disputes and see the varying viewpoints in full context. Morphh ^(talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Jayron and Flying Jazz, overwhelming a post with bullying and incessant tl;dr exhibits bad faith from a longtime tendentious editor. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we keep putting TBs on editors because of their interests in certain topics we will run out of editors, which happens to be a pretty serious issue WP is facing now. What happened to the brief cooling-off periods, like 48 hr blocks for both sides with unclean hands? Or how about a mandatory discussion at DRN or with a 3O? This new trend of TBs is rather disconcerting, especially when PP, and possibly imposing 1RR or 0RR for a set period of time are still options. --Atsme^📞📧 00:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You want to place an indefinite ban, "broadly construed", on an editor one side, proposed by an editor active on the opposite side of the issue, and based on the "discussion above" that didn't start out to involve the person to be banned, and appealable only after 12 months, without at first assessing more balanced and temporary measures, and you can get support for that? Wow. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT- specific issues

Difficulties I’ve experienced with EllenCT are issues on Economic growth, although it appears that she is causing similar problems on Economic inequality and United States : EllenCT’s edits on Economic growth are primarily, if not exclusively, in the Income equality section.

1. EllenCT is the person most responsible for the Income equality section being disproportionately large relative to the topic’s main causes and to its coverage in growth literature. (See 5)
2. Despite the Income equality section being tagged WP:UNDUE several times, EllenCT continued to add to it.
3. It has been suggested several times that most of the material in the section be removed to I separate article. I added the main article Economic inequality, where EllenCT actively edits.
4. EllenCT then added income inequality related material into the productivity section, trying to use the supposed gap between productivity and median family income. In this discussion Soapbox 1 she exposes her POV by trying to change the focus from the importance of productivity to growth to how income is distributed by using a graph of median family income. EllenCT had to be aware that this graph was misleading because she was involved in discussions about it where papers said: Total compensation tracks productivity better than median family income and there was a change in “family” composition over time, with a rise in single parent households associated with poverty and income inequality.
5. Here is how some of the material the Income equality section is described by others on Talk:Economic growth#Other problems in the inequality section “I'm sorry but that whole section is crap.” And “The whole thing is still one big disorganized mess”.
6. On EllenCT’s talk page I asked her to leave a summary and take the rest of the material to Economic inequality. She ignored this request.
7. What do you make of this exchange?: Phmoreno: Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say.Phmoreno (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) EllenCT: That is so dishonest! The only reason Temple (1999) says there has been little interest in income distribution because he spends the remainder of the literature review showing why it's so important. You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them, thank you very much. EllenCT (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Phmoreno: So that there is no confusion about what my statement referred to, here are Temple's words: Yet macroeconomists have traditionally shown little interest in the gulf between rich and poor. The study of growth at the aggregate level has often been something of a backwater, relegated to a brief last chapter in mainstream textbooks, and rarely taken on by anyone outside development economics.Phmoreno (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
8. Based on her edits and more importantly our Talk discussions, I have doubts about EllenCT’s knowledge of economic theory. She keeps asking for sources on basic concepts like the importance of productivity, then when I refer her several references used in this article and to the NBER, she criticizes the sources. She's questioning concepts that are fundamental to understanding her favoriet reference Temple (1999), which requires an understanding of macroeconomic modeling and analysis techniques. (Perhaps she can give us a section-by-section summary.) Also, thre was a comment to her on Talk:Economic inequality about the fact that developing countries should be handled separately from developed countries and I have pointed out here (as have her sources, suuch as Temple) that many countries do not report the necesary statistics (or they are of too poor quality) to put into production fucntions for analysis. Despite this she keeps mentioning that the IMF paper claims income inequality is the most important determinant of growth, failing to mention non-traditional, difficult to quantify variables have to be used in the analysis. Also, I had to go correct the statement about the IMF paper in one of the articles to say that income inequality is related to the duration of growth, not the magnitude.
9. However, she admitted that productivity was important in this exchange: Talk:Economic growth #"Needs to be replaced with real per-capita income versus productivity” EllenCT: @Phmoreno: re [173], how would per-capita (mean) income ever diverge from productivity? They are completely correlated…. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
10. I will not pursue claims of removing material which she admitted to here: Talk:Economic inequality#Recent edits EllenCT: “I intend to restore most if not all of that material absent persuasive arguments to the contrary.“EllenCT (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) EllenCT’s removal of content was relatively minor compared to another editor’s.
11. In conclusion, the various talk pages show a long history of problems with EllenCT involving several editors. She has left some serious messes that will require a lot of work to sort through and clean up. She has made some attempts to do this, but still engages in posting slanted edits.Phmoreno (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the editor who has engaged with EllenCT the most with regard to the inequality section of the Economic Growth article. I'm the one who put in the undue/too long tags - because they need to be there. I'm the one editor who's argued with her the most about the issues pertinent to that section. I've disagreed strongly with many of her edits - in this particular section, in most other respects her edits were fine - and did at one point get pretty exasperated with the inability to find common ground.

Still, I see no reason for why EllenCT should be sanctioned in anyway or warned or whatever for these edits. This is mostly a straight up content issue. In fact, problems with Phmoreno, conduct wise, have been much worse than with Ellen. At least one can have a constructive conversation with Ellen, with Phmoreno it sort of degenerates quickly. I'm also willing to take some responsibility for the continuation of the existence of the dispute about economic inequality and economic growth. Basically, I know that if I had the time I could sit down and write that section so that both Ellen and I would agree on it. Problem is that it's starting with a pretty crappy draft to work with and properly revising it would take a lot of work. And I've been lazy about it. All this is a way of saying that's it's not all Ellen's fault that those tags are still there.

Anyway. Boomerang it or let it go. I got no opinion on all the opportunistic assholery that's showed up in this request above calling for Ellen's head but the nature of the comments makes me suspect that that's exactly what it is: "I have a chance to get somebody who disagreed with me once banned so I'm gonna act like an opportunistic asshole!"Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"It's not personal... it's strictly business."Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you have her agree to let you remove everything and rewrite it yourself, including some of her content. It would be easier than for you and the others than constantly agruing with her. Otherwise, this will go on for a long time.Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody who sympathises with Phmoreno's line of argument here - that EllenCT has put excessive weight on a topic, and lacks economic expertise - is invited to read Phmoreno's most-edited article, Productivity improving technologies (historical). You'll need a couple of days and you'll need to forget about the existence of WP:SYNTH, of course. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Phmoreno that productivity is important. I have asked Phmoreno for sources comparing the importance of productivity and income distribution. There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. So far I have seen zero sources, from Phmoreno or anyone else, comparing the relative importance of the two. Phmoreno's productivity section is longer than the income distribution section in the Economic growth article, and he has insisted that it come first. Why does he want to downplay the importance of the income distribution? Several of his points enumerated above (especially 2 through 6) apply to the article in an intermediate state before recent improvements and the long series of improvements in January in which Phmoreno did not participate at all, and none of them are serious behavior issues. So far, Phmoreno has been unable or unwilling to identify a single peer reviewed literature review in support of any of his points.

Phmoreno's point number 7 is indeed an extremely dishonest further attempt to misrepresent a secondary peer reviewed literature review, Temple (1999), published in the Journal of Economic Literature. The review author was complaining that economists in general did not give sufficient attention to the income distribution among the determinants of economic growth, and his primary conclusion is directly contrary to Phmoreno's contention that it should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not know and never claimed to know of any sources that specifically compares the importance of labor productivity to income distribution. But let's look at your statement here: There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. This is a perfect example of how you operate because your sources do not make that comparison either, because of insufficient statistics on productivity and capital in developing countries. They are comparing a different set of variables. The burden of providing proof that income distribution is more important than labor productivity, capital or new products falls on you because it is completely outside of any mainstream view. If that were an accepted view you should have no problem finding multiple sources to support it. The literature only claims productivity, capital and new products as being responsible for economic growth. The importance of productivity is well noted in the history of economic thought where it was mentioned by classical economists, neoclassical economists and modern economists. Marx clearly stated that productivity and technical advancement were the causes of growth. Kendrick stated that labor productivity accounted for three quarters of US economic growth in the century leading up to 1956. There is a vast amount of literature on productivity and its relationship with growth. The opening sentence of this St. Louis Fed paper is typical: [174]Over long periods of time, increases in “real” wages-that is, adjusted for changes in consumer prices, reflect increases in labor productivity. If you compare real wages a century ago with those today you will see that they are between 10 and 20 times higher today. So what do you think would have happened to real wages if we had redistributed income 100 years ago and held productivity constant?Phmoreno (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit ignorant of many of these issues, so I went to the Income distribution article (which EllenCT has not contributed to in any way to the best of my knowledge) and found the link to INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND Research Department. Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Prepared by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry1. Figure 3 on page 12 compares the impact of multiple macroeconomic factors on growth spell duration, and Income Distribution comes out on top. Labor productivity isn't mentioned. Why not? Here's a hint: it has something to do with the word "independent." Yes, EllenCT is up to the usual sneaky tricks that knowledgeable people have of using language in a precise way. You may not know what the word independent means in this context or in the context of any complicated function with multiple inputs and one output. If you do know, you may be intentionally hiding or misapplying that knowledge. Ellen and the IMF are, in effect, saying, "This car is faster because it is built a certain way." You are saying, "This car is faster because its wheels have a higher rotation rate." Why doesn't someone in the automotive industry compare the importance of wheel rotation rate to car design in determining speed? Because that would be a stupid thing to do. Why doesn't an economist compare the importance of labor productivity to income inequality in determining growth? Same reason. One editor has the background and knowledge to correctly utilize the word independent and the other without that knowledge seems to be ignoring it. All of that would be viewed as an amusing miscommunication and comedy of errors among editors talking past each other on a talk page. It's being discussed here because the less knowledgeable editor wishes to win an argument by preventing the more knowledgeable editor from contributing at Wikipedia. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding point #7, here is what I make of the exchange. It's difficult for a person who is knowledgeable in a particular field to know how to best react at Wikipedia when another editor misrepresents the literature of that field by taking a single isolated sentence or two out of its particular context in one paper. It can be immensely frustrating for someone with a strong background who knows and understands a discipline to see another editor advocating for overemphasizing one sentence in a misleading way. EllenCT recognizes the context of a particular sentence or two due to familiarity with the intent of the paper in the field as a whole. I believe (but I can't state this strongly because of my own lack of familiarity with the field) that Phmoreno not only doesn't recognize this context but accused EllenCT of not reading or ignoring that one sentence. Being called dishonest in that situation is well deserved, and the statement "You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them" is also well deserved. I want knowledgeable people here who are familiar with a field and care about it to contribute to articles. Unfortunately that sometimes means displaying appropriate impatience with unfounded accusations of ignorance from the truly ignorant. That's what I make of the exchange. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a simple argument over weight. Ellen is arguing that it's due weight as an important viewpoint (referencing the publication author) and Phmoreno is arguing that it's a small minority viewpoint (referencing the publication author). Both points worth further discussion - no reason for personal attacks or calling anyone ignorant. Morphh ^(talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

When I read "Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say," I see an unjustified accusation from Phmoreno that EllenCT is ignoring something that she did not ignore. Ignoring something is ignorance personified, so I see an unjustified accusation of ignorance from Phmoreno to EllenCT in that statement, thus personalizing a dispute, where you only see an argument over weight. We have different eyes. I don't think the request "What do you make of this exchange?" was meant for editors like me with my eyes. I will not comment here again. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches

Last year I filed a RfC against User:Middayexpress for repeated violations of NPOV in regarding to Somalia related articles, and associated continual removals of WP:THIRDPARTY sources, often replacing them with official or less scholarly sources. ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress) He drove me away from editing Wikipedia for a time with his relentless POV reverting, and it appears that User:Chuckupd complained of the same problem. Recently I've come into contact with User:Cordless Larry who has reported similar problems at Somalis in the United Kingdom, most recently removal of complete information in violation of WP:YESPOV and replacing high-quality sources such as the Economist with letters to the editor of a community newspaper. Having been advised that AN/I was an appropriate route, and possibly more user-friendly than Arbcom, I began collation of a draft AN/I response in my userspace. This I set up at a very old draft page, User:Buckshot06/Sandbox Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces, not being too worried about what the page title was. Within about 24 hours Middayexpress was commenting on it at [175], calling it a 'copy of his previous rant'. I've been trying over and over again to correct this editor's misrepresentation, and myself, and users User:Cordless Larry and User:BrumEduResearch [176] [177] are only the latest that are very concerned with this user's edits. I would like User:Middayexpress warned that even if there are disputes over content, or even NPOV, that dismissing editors' descriptions as a 'rant' is a personal attack, and in violation of the spirit of building an encyclopedia. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple content disputes about Somalis in the United Kingdom that are not entirely civil but are basically content disputes. I have recommended in the recent past, and will recommend again, that they request formal mediation. There are too many disputes for any light-weight dispute resolution process. A mediator should be able to get the parties to be civil and to engage in useful discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple content disputes at a wide range of articles - my initial involvement was at Somali Civil War and Somali Armed Forces. Many display the same characteristics. I was directed to a RfC, but at the very end of that RfC I was told it was the wrong forum. Then I was advised about AN/I. I'd like to avoid having to go through every last forum before having to resort to Arbcom - are you sure that RfM is the correct place? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Consider WP:RFM as it will give the opportunity to settle this in a civil environment.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has indeed suggested mediation for the Somalis in the United Kingdom, and I have been preparing to request that, for the education section in particular. I remain willing to do so, but what has been slowing me down with the request is that I've been taking in Middayexpress's behaviour across a wider range of articles. I am increasingly convinced that this is no longer a simple content dispute but rather an issue of user conduct across a range of articles and their talk pages, including Somalia, Somali Civil War and Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Here are some of my concerns:

• Repeated replacement or removal of material in the name of "contextualisation", such as this;
• Removal of third-party and secondary sources, either replacing them with primary sources, or sources that don't support the material, or without replacing them, as is being discussed currently on the RS noticeboard; see also this for another example, discussed here; previous discussions on the RS noticeboard have attracted comments such as "Oh! That editor has had similar problems with source-misuse in the past. I hope that can be stopped soon";
• Removal of material based on reliable academic sources, using WP:REDFLAG as justification (in this example, the text removed was "Vertovec gives the example of Somalis in the United Kingdom, arguing that the Somali community includes British citizens, refugees and asylum-seekers, people granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants, and secondary migrants from other European states", sourced to an article by Vertovec in the scholarly journal Ethnic and Racial Studies);
• Continued insistence that official government sources must be preferred to scholarly ones (I suggest searching Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom for the word "official"), contrary to WP:RS;
• Misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, for example claiming that the fact that WP:CRITERIA states that article title consistency is a goal rather than a hard and fast rule is superseded by the statement that "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow";
• Posting talk page comments that seem to insinuate that other editors who disagree with him/her might be members of hate groups, e.g. this and this;
• Not assuming good faith with new editors, such as BrumEduResearch and with User:HOA Monitor (this comment added by Buckshot06) [178];
• Stating that my requesting mediation would constitute forum shopping, while not being ashamed to tag-team edit, as was previously discussed here (note that concerns about Middayexpress accusing others of canvassing but engaging in it him/herself have been expressed before;
• Claiming the support of editors without them having even commented on the issue under discussion, as previously reported by BrumEduResearch;
• Accusing me of WP:HOUNDING for agreeing with him/her.

Additionally, I have looked at the comments Middayexpress has made upon being informed of Buckshot's AN/I draft, and I am concerned that Middayexpress is intending to engage in canvasing off-Wikipedia. I quote: "I'm not sure why he believes that getting rid of me will solve his problems. In actuality, that will only be the start of them because loads of Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and others will subsequently join the website and see the sytemic bias that goes on here. For the moment, just you, me, 26oo, Inayity, and a few other regulars on the Africa WikiProject are aware of it. But with me elsewhere, doing other things and no longer bound by Wikipedia's rules, that will surely be the catalyst that open's Pandora's Box". Middayexpress has previously made reference to posting on external forums in order to solicit opinion, here and here.

I don't want to flood this page with comments, so I will leave it there for now, but I can provide more examples of the above should they be required. As I say, I'm happy to request mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom, but this is a bigger and longstanding issue, as these archives show. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Should note that I have also noted (and inserted above) another example of not WP:AGFing in regard to a new editor, in addition to BrumEduResearch, User:HOA Monitor (.. ("huge" doubt..). HOA Monitor is no longer editing. I am very dismayed that there are strong indications that Middayexpress is driving away and discouraging multiple editors in this fashion - the project needs all the committed people that it can get, not just the ones that accord with his point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I registered a Wimipedia account to contribute to article about migrant communities in the UK, which I research, and was immediately targeted with accusations by Middayexpress. He continues to overrule reliable academic sources in favour of official statistics, and rules out compromises using both types. A good example is in the coverage of Somali pupils' GCSE results, where he insists on reporting only figures from a few London boroughs even though data on other parts of England exists. Unsurprisingly, the London boroughs just happen to be where Somali pupils do best. This fits the POV pattern described here. To be honest, I have wasted my time arguing with Middayexpress, which could have been spent better on other articles, but he is so persistent that it is hard to avoid. What worries me is that he edits many, many articles and that some have few other editors, so of he's getting away with POV where Cordless Larry and Buckshot have noticed, what is he getting away with on other less watched articles?BrumEduResearch (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I share the concerns about Middayexpress' pov-pushing; I've encountered blanking, source-misuse &c on other pages (I tend not to overlap much with Buckshot06 or Cordless Larry). The previous RfC/U was overrun by people canvassed by MiddayExpress. Now Buckshot06 tries to put together another case and the attacks and canvassing start again. How can this be stopped? bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As of now I am only going to make a few comments. For starts, that page isn't a "very old draft page" nor it is even "old" at all since you made it just yesterday. It contains pretty much the same thing from your previous filing at Request For Comment which other changes as well (some removals as well as the additions of Somalis in the United Kingdom). Anyways, Midday isn't "canvasing off-Wikipedia" at all (or has at least not engaged in any yet) CordlessLarry. Just look at the IPs and accounts that have shown up these past few years, are these all the good individuals that Midday has called up to support him? No. In fact, practically none were here to do some actual work. Hence why he calls it "Pandora's box" because I, 26oo, and few others will be the only ones left to deal with it following his departure. More importantly, do you mind explaining as to why you didn't notify Midday about this AN/I Buckshot06? You did remember to notify Chuckupd, BrumEduResearch, CordlessLary, and many more. That's quite peculiar since the instructions explicitly state: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". Oddly enough, this isn't the first time it has happened (see the previous filing at Request For Comment). Maybe you simply forgot again? It's possible, but you don't explain last time as to why. AcidSnow (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Middayexpress was informed, User:AcidSnow. I'm not saying that Midday is canvasing off Wikipedia at the moment (that would probably be hard to establish anyway); it's more the implied threat to do so in future that concerns me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies apply to actual Wikipedia editors ("This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline[...] It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). Worry all you want, but I'll be free to discuss whatever I want with whomever I want once I leave the website for good. That's one of the many amusing ironies of this witchhunt :) Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see it now, my apologize BuckShot06. AcidSnow (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

How many other allies has Middayexpress canvassed? bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I could easily post the ample evidence against Buckshot et al., similarly caricature and exaggerate standard contest disputes, ping/canvass select editors like he has, and pick apart his latest rant. But I won't even bother. A vandal ip already tipped me off weeks ago that something was brewing, so this witchhunt is actually no surprise. The ironic part of all this is that I'd been meaning to retire from the website at the end of the summer. However, since Wikipedia is unfortunately no longer what it used to be, now is as good of a time to do that as any. When I joined the website seven years ago, good faith editors abounded. Many of those moved on ages ago to other things; it's time I followed suit and let a new generation of Horn editors assume the mantle. So long, website, and good luck to the last remaining good faith editors among you! Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Attacking other editors is not the kind of answer we had been hoping for. How many other allies has Middayexpress canvassed? bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The reply is worrying too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inayity&diff=663644500&oldid=663440105 BrumEduResearch (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, Caution, Notes

Maybe I was too optimistic in suggesting formal mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom. I had been hoping that maybe the editors were willing to dial down their hostility and work to collaborate on the article. Instead, it seems that some of them want one more round before going to mediation, and there are claims of off-wiki canvassing. The only alternative to formal mediation, now, not later, is community action, which could be general sanctions or topic-bans. Continuing to spar and try to gain position prior to mediation isn't the right way to go into mediation. I suggest that this thread be closed with one of the following: (1) agreement by all parties to immediate formal mediation (not waiting for X or Y or Z and then mediation); (2) community general sanctions; (3) topic-bans on one or more editors; (4) failing those, a formal caution that any further reports at this noticeboard will result in general sanctions or topic-bans. This dispute has taken too much community time already. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am prepared to request formal mediation for Somalis in the United Kingdom now. However, other editors (Buckshot06 and bobrayner) have expressed concerns about Middayexpress's editing of multiple other articles. Would separate mediations have to take place for each article if that option were to be taken? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, formal mediation is limited to one article (or possibly to one article and closely related articles), although you might ask that at the Requests for Mediation talk page. If other editors have concerns about Middayexpress's editing of other articles, those other articles would need to be addressed with separate content dispute resolution procedures, such as discussion at article talk pages (always the first choice), or the dispute resolution noticeboard, or Requests for Comments, or the other editors can present diffs to show that Middayexpress is a disruptive editor or POV-pusher, if that is what they think, and request community action. Proceeding with content dispute resolution and conduct issues at the same time is deprecated. Do not request mediation if you are also planning to request ANI action, and a mediator will probably decline the case if ANI action is also pending. Are there one or more content disputes, where the involved editors are willing to dial down their hostility and work with a mediator or let the community decide via RFC, or do the editors think that there are conduct issues that interfere with content resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One possible concern is that off-Wikipedia canvassing or coaching of other editors might interfere, particularly since Middayexpress is now saying things like "Wikipedia's policies apply to actual Wikipedia editors...Worry all you want, but I'll be free to discuss whatever I want with whomever I want once I leave the website for good" and saying that he/she will publicise this dispute in the media. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline against canvassing is about on-wiki canvassing. Do threats of off-wiki canvassing violate that policy also? Is there a policy or guideline authorizing a block for threats of off-wiki canvassing? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, WP:BLOCK allows a block for '..attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.' Personally I believe a block is warranted for disruptive editing and POVpushing in addition to trying to game the system (such as substantive edits concealed by edit summaries of 'formatting'). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have struck my proposal for formal mediation, because it is clear that an editor who is talking about publicizing Wikipedia controversies to the press is not here to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on policy in this area, but could it be covered by WP:MTPPT, which states "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate"? The people reading the press concerned aren't all going to agree with Middayexpress, of course, but the publicity might be written in such a way to attract editors of a similar mindset, particularly if the dispute is described in terms claimed bias against Somalia on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever takes place off the website or not (I think likely well handled by MTPPT), I would like the behaviour exhibited by Middayexpress formally marked. Robert, you've just seen the kind of tactics Cordless Larry, Bobrayner, BrumEduResearch, Chuckupd, StoneProphet (from the earlier RfC) and I have all been concerned of, and these have occurred across multiple articles. Personally I would still like to request a topic ban. This is because one can 'unretire' at any time, and there has been some discussion of canvassing off-wiki. Personally I would request a topic ban from all Somalia-related articles, for whatever the usual duration is (is that six months?). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I right to be worried about this exchange of contact details with AcidSnow? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AcidSnow&diff=prev&oldid=664003413 BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. AcidSnow (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This might not be relevant, but Middayexpress's comment suggesting the possibility of future off-Wikipedia canvassing centres around alleged systemic bias, and this reminded me of this discussion that he/she started. Drmies suggested that the discussion was a bit close to WP:FORUM for comfort, and that it should be taken up on a project page. Does anyone know if this happened? I ask because I would expect that if Midday was/is so concerned about systemic bias, they might have tried to raise it at a policy level (I know they posted at Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia, as that's on my watchlist, but that's not a policy page). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus below, but after the promises of meatpuppetry, I would still caution the need to be wary of problematic edits by other editors after Middayexpress' departure. bobrayner (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at this thread and try to move it towards closure? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban of User:Middayexpress from all Somalia-related topics

• Support a topic-ban from all Somalia-related topics, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If Middayexpress is telling the truth here, we have a combination of canvassing, meatpuppetry, and offsite coördination whilst maintaining a convenient veil of "retirement". That's on top of the source-abuse and POV-pushing. Canvassing has been a long-term problem - and, once coached on what to say, AcidSnow was quite effective in derailing the RfC/U of Middayexpress which could have resolved our problems so much earlier. If AcidSnow is happily proxying for Middayexpress then Acidsnow earns a topic ban too. bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow calm down. I am neither a proxy or anything similar to that for Midday or any other user. Anyways, as I previously explains, Midday wasn't coaching me as to what to say. All I asked for is what was going on and what exactly does one do here since, as I stated "I would reply to this but I am not really sure how this work". Hence why he replied with: "Thanks. You'd post in the area under Dougweller, where the code instructs to endorse your own post (the top half is meant to remain unsigned). Note that the nature of the process is non-binding anyway; it's informal and cannot impose/enforce involuntary sanctions. It's meant to help reach voluntary agreements". As I asked you twice already last time, can you please explain how these diffs support you? If not, then please drop it. Although I am not sure how you have come to call me out for something baseless, I would like for both of us to move on after this. Ok? AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban for Middayexpress from all-Somalia-related articles, broadly defined. Canvassing may also need to be addressed at a later point, possibly including topic bans of other users. I strongly agree meat/sockpuppets may soon emerge. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• As an involved editor, for what it's worth, I support a topic ban from Somalia-related articles for Middayexpress. I think we would then need to carefully monitor those articles for signs of puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Robert's proposal for blocking Middayexpress from Somalia-related articles. Will leave it to others to decide if action is required about the possibility of him exerting influence via AcidSnow and others.BrumEduResearch (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• I am not involved, but supporting a topic ban for User:Middayexpress, it is getting worse, not better. Opposing a topic ban for AcidSnow now, but if Acidsnow is a proxy for a banned editor in future, can we come back to this? Spumuq (talq) 12:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with that approach. While AcidSnow seems to share Middayexpress's POV on most issues, he/she has proven more amenable to discussion and compromise than Middayexpress ever has. If there is any sign of puppetry in future, the issue can always be revisited. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Inserting a comment to prevent archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Would still like this addressed and resolved - this is definitely *not* an inactive issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - There have been many complaints and ANI threads about MiddayExpress in this topic area and a topic ban is years overdue.[179]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bear in mind that topic ban proposal in 2013 was closed as "no consensus". The only two people who opposed a ban were Inayity, who was canvassed here, and Obiwankenobi, who was canvassed here. The same canvassing brought down the 2014 RfC/U of Middayexpress: [180] [181] [182] [183] &c. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Commenting to prevent this from being archived. It would be good to get more input from more uninvolved editors and administrators. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Middayexpress' conduct on articles relating to Somalia's military and military history has been consistently unhelpful, with their edits showing a clear pattern of bias. As such, I think that a topic ban is well overdue. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban proposal by User:Robert McClenon. My limited interactions with User:Middayexpress were consistent with the POV and conduct concerns raised by User:Buckshot06 (and others) above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban proposal by McClenon. I am very glad to read that user:Middayexpress is now "RETIRED", following some investigations (be informed that there it is also a successful investigation on Middayexpress links, that is being done on the website "Memories" of "Mappista59"; read: [184] ) and complaints like this on ANI. A sympathizer of user:Chuckupd. --4Sedge (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would ask that the RETIRED banner not be a basis for taking no action. It is unfortunately not uncommon for a disruptive editor to be RETIRED from Wikipedia for the duration of an ANI thread or other conduct dispute so as to avoid sanctions and then come back. If there is basis for a topic-ban, it should be put into effect in case the editor returns. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. I have long thought that we are too patient with disruptions. BTW I think I may have caught a chill, is it snowing in here?--Adam in MO Talk 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley

User user:Cjhanley is a former AP reporter whose work earned him a Pulitzer. Unfortunately, it was found to have some holes in it, and he has taken this real world fight to Wikipedia. The author who initially embarrassed the AP team wrote a competing book on the subject and Hanley went so far as to contact the publisher and pressured them not to release it.

Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized.

He has been arguing for nearly 2 years that all of this material should be removed and has begun a large canvassing effort to accomplish this [185]. Interestingly enough, he has pinged nearly every editor I have had even an interaction with on this project. His COI is obvious, but no actions were taken when it was brought to the community’s attention [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=56826848 4#No_Gun_Ri_and_the_AP.27s_Charles_Hanley].

Now he’s attempting to dig for information about me off wiki as well [186].

His non stop insults about me, and a recent allegation that I am some kind of White Supremacist have put me over the edge though.

Hanley needs to be banned from this article immediately. WeldNeck (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban would seem appropriate in this case. Maybe we could have a vote on it to see if there is consensus to topic ban him. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban, but we should ensure that Cjhanley is given the standard advice to biography subjects on how to correct errors of fact (rather than interpretations of fact with which you disagree) without violating policy or damaging your reputation. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as well, given this user's problematic behavior. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at this diff, it seems like it's another editor, Oilyguy, who is calling you a white Nationalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Liz, @User:JoeSperrazza, Did you see the part of Cjhanley's post [187] which reads "He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism". (This was cited in Weldneck's original complaint.)--Wikimedes (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are kind of obsessed with the subject of cultural Marxism. I don't see him saying the editor was a "White Supremacist". And you are completely ignoring that Oilyguy did say white Nationalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, "some imagined threat to the white race" is not the same as "White Supremacist", but it does seem to be an accusation of racism. (I had not meant to say anything about Oilyguy's comments. Cultural Marxism is completely new to me.)--Wikimedes (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. @JzG, this is not a "biography subject," this is a Pulitzer winning career journalist and book author, a subject expert. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: "subject experts" aren't exempted from the fourth pillar. And the article will be just fine without him, just like any other article subject. ― Padenton|✉   19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? And that means User:Brian Josephson, who has a Nobel prize, is free to promote woo to his heart's content, does it? The problem is clearly and credibly identified. Respecting someone's achievements does not give them a free pass on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse (edit conflict)Multiple attempts at inappropriate WP:CANVASSING, a guideline which is generally expected to be common sense, especially for a professional journalist. Specifically, the inappropriate canvassing violations here are Campaigning (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history diff, also directly copying and pasting another editors comments including their signatures without any statement that it was copied and not posted by that user), and spamming (and possibly votestacking, here:diff). I see numerous assume good faith and civility failures in these 2 diffs as well, and numerous personal attacks. I find it interesting, given the fact that he has almost no editing history for the past year, that he chooses memorial day to wage this new assault on the article. ― Padenton|✉   19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have nominated User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre, a page linked from User:Cjhanley for WP:MFD as it violates WP:POLEMIC. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. ― Padenton|✉   19:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can only assume anyone supporting this idea of banning me from the No Gun Ri Massacre article is not familiar with what has been going on at that article for the past two years, and is unaware that my colleagues and I, along with academic acquaintances, have by far the greatest wealth of knowledge and documentation relating to the subject in the English language. I urge any interested parties simply to review the section "Reader Beware" that was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre to get some sense of the damage that has been done by WeldNeck, at [[188]]. I use the past tense because WeldNeck unilaterally deleted my Talk posting within minutes. Isn't that the kind of offense that warrants a topic ban? In fact, his behavior should have been dealt with by late 2013 by responsible admins. Finally, to suggest that "the article will be just fine without him (Cjhanley), just like any other article subject" is to underline the problem that a huge number of serious people in the world have with Wikipedia, the attitude that "we don't need subject-matter experts; any Tom, Dick or Harry can write about anything." Driving experts away from WP will only deepen its problems. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

• This edit, seems inappropriate, per WP:TPO. The materiel meets none of the listed criteria that would make it eligible for User:WeldNeck to remove them. The comments very specifically discuss the article and ways that User:Cjhanley feels it should be improved. The revert should be reversed, ideally by User:WeldNeck. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban.

1. From the diffs presented, the complaints are either unfounded (e.g., per Liz) or don't show edits that are either disruptive or unsourced. He may need some guidance on Wiki policies and procedures, and at most perhaps a mentor for traversing Wikipedia's sometimes arcane rules.
2. In addition, I also agree with User:Carrite and offer the following rationale. Like it or not, there is a long precedence in WP in allowing competence to trump certain policies, as documented in numerous noticeboard and arbitration cases. Surely, per WP:IAR, if nothing else, it is for the good of WP for the community to engage subject matter experts and help them. We don't want to end up in a situation such as this. I don't mean to say we're there, but let's turn the ship and avoid it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: - you dont see a COI with Hanley and his attempt to exclude a source that embarrassed him professionally? WeldNeck (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban and I find his choice of days to begin this fight absolutely disgusting. WeldNeck (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

!vote by nom above (stricken). Normally nominator doesn't !vote too. As one of the two parties, seems inappropriate to !vote too. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support a ban on editing the article, but not the talk page. Someone with an obvious and significant conflict of interest should not be editing the article. However, talk page suggestions for changes to the article should be allowed and should be evaluated by uninvolved editors. Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Both users User:Cjhanley and User:WeldNeck have behaved inappropriately, in my opinion. COI is a real issue, plus the level of personal attacks by both sides. I present:

WeldNeck attacks Cjhanley's credibility: [189]

WeldNeck deletes an entire section by Cjhanley: [190]

Cjhanley attacks WeldNeck multiple times: [191]

While I initially sympathized with each user for different reasons, I think the conduct is unacceptable. We need uninvolved editors working to ensure quality on this sensitive article. Examining the talk archives, it is clear that this is yet another resurgence of the same dispute from years back, and nothing has changed.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that removing his talk page entry may not have been in the best spirit of things, but I am sick to death of the constant attacks from Hanley on me which has now moved onto Hanley trolling outside Wikipedia to dig up information on me. The entire section I deleted has been replicated several times on Hanley's personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. Its the textbook definition of tendentious. I have never edit warred on that article and every significant edit I have made included a explanation on the talk page. WeldNeck (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence (from the previous debate in 2014):

Personal attacks:[192][193][194]

Another implicit attack on Cjhanley: [195]

My (2015) comment that reignited the whole thing in the first place: [196]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Although neither editor is blameless in this content dispute, I think that Cjhanley's apparent belief that he is the only expert on the subject runs counter to the collaborative nature of this project. Miniapolis 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Hold Our Horses (is that an option?) See submission on the same article below. I think we're going to try to work this out in talk. Both users at least pay lip service to thinking that it's a good idea. So we're going to take this an edit at a time and see if things will remain civil long enough to get something done. If anyone wishes to volunteer, I would love to have a fourth or fifth commenter that I can ping if needed to the talk to back me up (or tell me I'm stupid...either one works) if this gets (every bit as) nasty (as it has been for two years). So, I apologize for abusing the parenthetical. I suppose you can come over to my talk if you would like to volunteer. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanley's COI, and canvassing still needs to be deal with. WeldNeck (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck, do you have a WP:COI as well? WP:BOOMERANG (disclaimer: I was canvassed here). nom's vote stricken above. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A large part of this issue is that Weld seems to have rarely sought and (AFAIK) never gotten consensus on his edits. Hanley doesn't seem to understand policy well enough to know that a lack of consensus defaults to no change to the article. So intentionally or unintentionally, Weld has exploited Hanley's lack of understanding to do basically whatever he wants. I have addressed a lack of consensus in no uncertain terms on the talk. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of .... just a love of history and a strong sense of justice. WeldNeck (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck Let me put it another way...you've been or are employed by the US military. Correct? The topic is a historical US military event. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There are 21.8 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces as of 2014, are you saying every one has a COI and cannot edit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Are you serious? You think everyone who has ever been employed by the US military has a COI on any military-related article? Do you realize they're generally the only ones who build these articles? Well, I guess it's convenient to declare that anyone who disagrees with you must have a COI, but I don't think you'll have much luck with that one. ― Padenton|✉   17:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to have other experienced editors as "backup" if things deteriorate. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: 1. logical problem with that argument: big employer ≠ COI, 2. strawman argument: nobody said all military history (and nobody said COI can't edit, or no human can't edit a biography either). Back to the point, see WeldNeck's edit history for pro US military POV-pushing (including a BLP violation) for reporters exposing US military errors. This is the second one I've seen. COI may be a cause, but we don't know as there's (so far) no simple COI statement. Are you saying nobody in the US military has a COI? Valid to ask, right? If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different? Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether Weld has been employed by the military is not really relevant to the ANI. Saying someone who was in the military has a COI isn't the same as saying someone who worked for say Apple has a COI. "If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different?" Not at all. I might be suspicious of someone if they were North Korea military, but that would depend on the discussion at hand. ― Padenton|✉   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I am also military. If that's a COI then so be it. But perhaps it's important to note that most of the things I've learned about the military, I did not learn because I was in the military; I learned them because I was interested in military history. Not everyone drinks the Kool-Aid. Some people understand that war is bad and bad things happen in war. To anyone who thinks the US military is blameless: Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like a word with you please. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and climb down from the soapbox. None of these events are relevant to the article at hand. Whether US military is to blame for Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, has no impact on whether they are to blame for this No Gun Ri incident, and whether the US military is to blame for the No Gun Ri incident has no impact on whether either or both of these editors should be sanctioned for their behavior. ― Padenton|✉   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic ban or moderation by Timothyjoshephwood and GeneralizationsAreBad. Cjhanley’s repeated ad hominims against Weldneck on the No Gun Ri article’s talk page need to stop. (Weldneck also occasionally takes a swipe at Cjhanley, but much less often.) In this post, [197], 2 days into this ANI thread, Cjhanley goes so far as to title a section on the article talk page “A brief WeldNeck primer (please do read):”. Additionally, both the article and Cjhanley would benefit from some time away from Cjhanley’s WP:ownership of the article. On the other hand, I’ve found that it is possible to work with Cjhanley, it would be a shame to lose a subject matter expert, and I think Cjhanley is still capable of making positive contributions to the article. So while IMHO Cjhanley has well earned a topic ban, if this is the result I hope that it will be of limited duration. On the other hand, Timothyjoshephwood appears to be taking the talk page firmly in hand, and his and GeneralizationsAreBad’s efforts may accomplish the same things.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, I do not think a block is an appropriate solution. Part of the reason there is a situation is that Weld has consistently made substantial edits when no consensus exits, and has maintained those edits after much argument making it abundantly clear that no consensus exists. He has, in good or bad faith, abused Hanley's lack of understanding of WP:CON. Weld continued to make edits with no consensus after I began trying to moderate, and after being explicitly asked to postpone editing until we can talk things through. It took "you're wrong and at this point I'm going to revert any and all of your edits until to pass them through the talk page" to get him to stop. Hanely has clearly violated WP:CIVIL, but has done so out of frustration with Weld's violation of WP:CON. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No consensus can exist with Mr Hanley as long as you dont hold his POV. I haven't had issues with anyone else on the article and have worked fairly well with them. One user with both a personal and professional interest in the article refuses to consider any material that does not conform with the reporting he has done on it. WeldNeck (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that per WP:NOCON, when no consensus can be reached in proposals to add to or change the article, the default is to not add or change. You have ignored this. If no consensus can be reached with Hanley, the correct action is to draw uninvolved editors to the page to evaluate the arguments, which is what we are doing now. Rather than doing this you have simply added your edits and repeatedly reverted any attempt to remove or change them. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose two opposing COI POV-pushers. Standard COI editing applies. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrate I have a COI ... we know Hanley does and he has been very public about trying to suppress the work of competing academics. I have also striken your vote because you were (admittedly so) canvassed here. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck, don't strike my !vote, I'm not involved or been asked to come to this page by anyone. WP:VOTESTACK doesn't say to strike. I'm not involved in the content dispute, and have not been canvassed to this page (but possibly to the talk of the article). My full disclosure doesn't mean you (as an involved party) get to disregard an opposing position, just like you can't nominate an action and vote. Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. There's a bit too much drama going on here, but it can be resolved through standard channels, such as NPOVN and consensus on the talk page. Removing just one of the editors would be a bad idea, as it will give the other one free rein. Not to mention that we're discussing topic banning a subject matter expert, as Carrite pointed out. The ideal solution would be for neutral editors to get involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, that there is so much drama here that it has muddied the waters. The only thing that is clearly apparent to me is that Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre has been a battleground between two editors with a handful of other editors trying to moderate the dispute or move past it. This dispute was brought to COIN in August 2013 without any resolution or much of a discussion so I encourage a return to WP:COIN if that is the central issue or a visit to dispute resolution if the dispute is solely over content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I went to DRN, but my report was closed very quickly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The two editors are trying to score points against one another; they've got to get beyond this, if any substantive changes to the article and talk page environment are to be made. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Close. We have at least four third party editors on the talk and we are evaluating sources and proposed edits one-by-one. If we reach a consensus and one or another editor starts a war because they don't like the consensus, then we can return here. By policy we could ban both of them, or we could moderate the issue and reach a strong consensus that will protect the article in the future. I recommend we do the latter. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timothyjosephwood and support Close. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out some of these editors or link to a talk page? I see many that were canvassed to the incident by Cjhanley. Wikimedes and GeneralizationsAreBad were both canvassed here: User_talk:Cjhanley#WeldNeck_seeks_to_ban_me. ― Padenton|✉   23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not actually canvassed here, by the way... GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, I was not aware Wikimedes was canvassed. I honestly have no idea where Irondome came from. GAB and I are doing most of the moderation at any rate. Topic bans seem silly at this point. We've already instituted an informal freeze on the article, that no edits should be made without establishing consensus, and that the person proposing the edit should not be the person doing the editing. See Edit 5 on the talk page where GAB proposed and I actually made the edit. There is no reason to continue this discussion so long as editors are on the page, enforcing and elucidating community standards. If other's would like to join in that's fine, but I think GAB and myself are sufficient at this point to keep things civil and productive. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi I work on COI issues a lot here in WP. In my view. Hanley has a COI here - he has relationships external to WP that affect his editing here - namely his Pulitzer, the attacks on it, and his desire to defend his work. He should not be directly editing the article about that subject nor about himself. So - topic ban is too strong. Instead"
  • CJ Hanley should be instructed to not directly edit the article - only if he violates that, he should be topic banned. Also,
  • CJ Hanley should be strongly warned not to violate WP:OUTING (l this dif is unacceptable behavior)
  • CJ Hanley should bewarned against WP:CANVASSING and
  • CJ Hanley should be urged to read WP:DR and to use those processes, calmly, when he cannot persuade other editors.

I do have questions for Weldneck - it sometimes happens that the people on both sides of a content dispute have conflicts of interest. Your military service was brought up. I agree that this is far too broad a brush. More specifically, would you please answer:

1. do you have any relationship with the 7th Calvary?
2. were you at all involved in the events around the Gun Ri Massacre itself, or do you have a relationship with anyone who was?
3. are you in any way involved in the RW with the controversy over CJ Hanley's reporting?

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No to all three. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Weldneck. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there's a thin line here between a COI and a WP:EXPERT. I don't think Hanley understood that these things were prohibited by community standards. Just as I don't think WeldNeck saw anything wrong with editing for WP:TRUTH where he thought it was lacking. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasnt editing for truth, I was editing to inlcude all significant POV's which were lacking from the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Cjhanley. BMK (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Cjhanley. An interaction ban would be a good idea, too, because of this kind of digging for personal information to gain leverage. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

:Strongly support interaction ban. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. I'm confident that ANI won't be necessary anymore to resolve this. To be sure, if things take a downturn, we might have to return to this venue. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes ? Pldx1 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support- cjhanley's attempts to dig dirt on users and canvass for his POV-pushing is uncollaborative and just outright low-down. Author or not, he needs to be topic banned and perhaps briefly blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Again move to close. We are going through a process. A ban on either user will at best delay that process or at worst delegitimize it, as one user will not be able to weigh in on proposed edits. I would remind those here that WP sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. There is no damage control to be done here. At this point neither editor is going to be allowed to unilaterally change the article. Military History has brought three users to this page and we will take care of our own dirty laundry.

Both users lack an understanding of WP standards and we will elucidate them.

Both users are biased. One needs to be taught the difference between hard hitting journalism and an encyclopedia. The other needs to be taught the difference between what is mainstream and what is controversy.

Both users seem to completely lack historical context. This event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to erase Japanese cities until they surrender. It is not unimaginable that a few hundred civilians would be killed. At the same time, this event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to flatten Japanese cities until they surrender. It is hardly a Holocaust level event.

Please let Military History take care of its own and leave sanctions for the point at which they can be expected to be preventative. That point is not now.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither the MilHist Project nor any other WikiProject owns their subject area. A problem has been brought here, and is being dealt with here. MilHist will just have to deal with whatever the outcome of that is, since this is not a content dispute, it's a behavioral matter. BMK (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MilHist doesn't own anything, but this article falls within the scope of our subject matter, and we have responded with appropriate action to protect the article. There is no consensus here. There is no preventative action to be taken. We have handled it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since this is a behavior dispute, I think the following should be added. Since being warned, CJHanley's personal attacks continue unabated: [198], [199], [200], [201]. If he cant watch his behavior now, with all these eyes on him, what are the prospects once things have moved on? WeldNeck (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the community has concentrated focus on edits, rather than users, Hanley has been quite productive and has been receptive to criticism of his proposed edits. Meanwhile WeldNeck has proposed a single edit, which he claimed he would provide supporting sources for that evening, three evenings ago. WeldNeck is using this ANI as a weapon to punish a user he disagrees with. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley response

CJHanley here: I am deeply dismayed by this discussion. Anyone who actually studies what has gone on at No Gun Ri Massacre since August 2013 cannot possibly conclude anything other than that the article was seized by an uninformed user who was angered by its straightforward account of the massacre and who took a wrecking ball to it in order to push a pro-U.S. military POV, to whitewash a massacre. He deleted reams of material without discussion, reverted efforts to restore key elements, without discussion (let alone consensus), rebuffed attempts at reasoning and compromise, and, indeed, even fabricated material at times (when explicitly shown on Talk, with the source text, that these things were false, he refused to delete them). His POV is fed by material coming directly from 7th Cavalry activists, the regiment responsible for the massacre.

Help was sought at ANI and elsewhere, and the WP community failed utterly. “I’m in over my head,” one admin said. Now users here are actually listening to WeldNeck as he tries to eliminate me from the article? Can this be true? Three years after those of us, journalists and academics, deeply knowledgeable on No Gun Ri took a truly chaotic, mindless article and turned it into a solid account of an important historical event?

Ultimately sickened by WeldNeck’s behavior, and WP’s failure, I swore off the article and WP a year ago, as so many have done. I’ve come back because finally a real, competent effort is being made to restore some sense and more truthfulness to the article. My colleagues, academic acquaintances and I have the source material and the ready background knowledge. We want to help those who’ve taken an interest, shown real capability and made progress. WeldNeck, now facing more scrutiny, is lying low – for the moment. That effort should be given a chance. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 12:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems relevant here. Cjhanley is personally much too close to this story to edit our article on it in a neutral and unbiased manner. (Perhaps WeldNeck is too, but I've yet to see anything except accusations, no evidence.} I continue to support a topic ban for Cjhanley. 12:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)BMK (talk)

This statement also seems to contradict the assertion that the problem is being adequately "handled" internally by the MilHist Project. War is too important to be left to the aficionados.BMK (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK, we are currently in the process of thrashing out consensus through proposals and counterproposals for edits. I agree with your concerns, and I think we should keep ANI on standby in case the situation worsens further. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley: You should read your comment again: "I am deeply dismayed...", "Anyone who actually studies ... cannot possibly conclude anything other...", "...whitewash a massacre", "sickened", etc. You are well past the point of being an objective reporter of facts, and have become deeply entrenched in being a true believer. You admit of no possibility whatsoever of anything you have reported being wrong. You are, in fact, an advocate for one set of "facts", period.

For all these reasons, you have a serious conflict of interest with our article and it is not appropriate that you edit it at all. You can point other editors to sources of information on the talk page, even things you've written that have been published elsewhere (in reliable sources, of course), but you should not edit the article directly, because you are clearly incapable of being neutral about it. Yes, you have expertise, of a sort, due to your reportage, but your attitude towards that story is such that you are not suited to edit our article.

As for WeldNeck, I've seen a lot of accusations here, but there's been nothing about him as damning as your own statement is about yourself. What I've mostly seen is that your "side" thinks his "side" is wrong. That may be true, but he has not demonstrated the kind of serious conflict of interest that you have. Please stop editing the article. BMK (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cjhanley: per the above. BMK (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a dispute between two points of views. Should the Armed Forces use their resources to study and learn from their past or use their resources to whitewhash the former top ranking Officials (and provide larger opportunities for the actual ones to create yet another mess) ? In this controversy, it appears that Hanley stands strongly on the "Army should learn" side, while WeldNeck stands strongly on the "I attended graduate school with this guy" side. Perhaps, both of them are standing too strongly on their opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not the real world ! Despite the cruel context of the No Gun Ri Massacre, this is only yet another Wikipedia article, among so many other ones, about handball, movies awards, diacritics and even "The Dakota" himself. Nevertheless, trying to use the letter-soup drama board to silent the other point of view seems to be over the top. WeldNeck shouldn't be the Gracchos of the Juvenal quotation. Pldx1 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [restoring chronology: a remark made at 12:51 should appear after another one done at 12.39] Pldx1 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, BMK. If Pulitzer-winning journalists with 40 years’ experience in digging up, verifying and publishing facts, from wars to baseball games, are people who write with a Point of View and are not to be trusted, then Wikipedia’s in big trouble, because a hell of a lot of those citations at the bottom of articles show the information comes from journalists with even less experience and less recognition for their professionalism. Then there are the academics who work on subjects … too closely?

In fact, it was AP journalists who first amassed the facts of No Gun Ri, on which others built. If those facts cannot be trusted, you’ve got a pretty weak house of cards and, if you take them away, a pretty paltry WP article. Might as well just copy and paste the Pentagon’s report. That’s what they would do in North Korea.

You “haven’t seen any evidence” against WeldNeck? Haven’t you looked at the Talk pages and the article history, from August 2013 to March 2014? The article history is a veritable waterfall of reverts, re-reverts and re-re-reverts by this one guy, with nary a word of discussion, as he furiously rid the article of anything that might put the U.S. military in a bad light. If anyone wants a clear explainer, try this from late 2013 User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre, and this from early 2014 [202]. That second one (see the Reader Beware section) was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre only recently, and immediately deleted by WeldNeck. That single act should be enough "evidence" to get anyone banned. There’s enough in those two “explainers” to get anyone multiple life sentences, especially for a guy who has clashed with, by my count, 28 other contributors in the same nasty way at various articles. One slammed him for “POV pushing at every article you edit.” Have a look.

Meantime, a process is under way at No Gun Ri Massacre. Sensible, energetic people are on board. Let’s let them work, with help from me and other knowledgeable folks as needed. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges, and you're clearly not understanding what the role of an encyclopedia is versus a reporter or publisher of investigative journalism. We don't go by the criteria the Pulitzer Prize committee follows, and they don't go by our rules and policies. We don't break news, we don't take sides, we don't advocate, we summarize what other people have written in a neutral manner (as much as is humanly possible). As I said to an editor the other day, if Einstein came back to life and had finally figured out the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, we wouldn't let him break the news here, and we wouldn't even report it until it had appeared in the appropriate peer-reviewed journal, because that's our role.

By our criteria, and without consideration of anyone else's, you're clearly an advocate for the story you tell (and I'm using "story" in a neutral manner, without knowing, or caring in the context of this discussion, whether it's "true" or not), and that gives you a strong conflict of interest, which means that it is highly inappropriate for you to edit our article. Other editors are free to cite your reportage, and it can be offset, if necessary, by what other reliable sources have written. Please make an effort to understand how our role differs from the one you're used to playing, and why that disqualifies you from editing the article. Publish any additional information you have in a reliable source, and editors can use it, but you should not be editing that artice. BMK (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having read User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre and your "READER BEWARE" comment (which you neglected to label as such in the diff above) makes me even more convinced that you do not understand that editing here is almost completely the opposite from being an investigative journalist. Perhaps you could fulfill the role of Wikipedia editor on other subjects that you're not so clearly invested in, but you shouldn't get near this subject with a ten-foot pole. Inow strongly think that a topic ban is essential. BMK (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, if you actually read those "explainers" and still do not understand what the behavior problem has been at that article, of endless reverts without discussion, by a well-known bullyboy around WP, I don't know how better to open your eyes, BMK. Be aware of one thing: The great bulk of citations at that article came from me and knowledgeable colleagues, from peer-reviewed journals, books by reputable publishers, responsible journalism by others, television documentaries and other solid sources. You may be under the misapprehension that the article is based on Associated Press reporting, period. Far, far from it. Instead, as the people who've followed the story for 17 years, we know all the sources, reliable and unreliable. Now, if I'm not supposed to come within 10 feet of the article, shall I remove everything we contributed to make it, as of 2013, a truthful, comprehensive and readable article? Charles J. Hanley 22:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WP:STOPDIGGINGTimothyjosephwood (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it any better. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note the strong element of WP:OWNership. BMK (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppose, hypothetically, that Einstein comes back to life and tries to help writing the Special_relativity article. The odds are that he becomes quickly topic-banned due to an obvious conflict of interest: who is that guy that pretends having some expertise in the field that he opened? Aren't there so many other topics to edit: butterflies? handball? The process is well known and should have been recognized by any letter-soup specialist. Bob wants to push a fringe theory. He detects the person that resists the most, say Alice. Then Bob keeps harrassing Alice and waits for an overreaction. At that precise moment, Bob starts crying and weeping out of loud, complaining about Alice. And then comes the letter-soup expert. The guy is overbooked and has no time for a further inquiry. He even has a feeling of ownership over "our article" (great lapsus). Guess what could be the end of the story? But let us go back to the current topic. As it was stated by User:Beyond_My_Ken, any specialist is replaceable, even a specialist in letter soup. In this "story", only the people that were shot to death at No Gun Ri are not replaceable. Pldx1 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite poetic, really. I think your analogy may be valid. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87

Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) is getting on my wick. Worse, he seems to be getting on the wicks of people usually far more tolerant than myself. They were blocked by Ddstretch on 27 February this year and then unblocked the next day (Ddstretch again) - " Ok. I will unblock you on the understanding that you'll avoid drama and stop hovering around these drama-fests".

They haven't stopped. In fact, they were right back at it the following day and then retracted with this comment. They were in other AN/ANI discussions on 5 and 9 March but had reasonable cause to be in those, although no real cause for this comment in an unrelated discussion. Nor was there any need for inserting themselves in this one. Some stuff could be avoided but is mostly !voting (eg: this) but I can see no need for their efforts in this (some of which they then retracted). Some of these retractions amount almost to "light the blue paper and retire" situations, although the root cause is probably more akin to Housman's "Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time."

And so it goes on - the above is only the first three weeks after their unblock. Jumping to more recent events, Slim Virgin felt it necessary to comment about KK87's contributions to something at SPI, which seems rather to mirror what they did at last year's GGTF ArbCom case, where they were the second-most prolific contributor despite having no obvious involvement in matters that caused the case to arise. Bishonen had this to say and my note of 27 May was removed without comment. There have been some odd goings-on here over the last few hours, after they had again interjected themselves (AE this time), went over to EvergreenFir to offer support and (as is not uncommon) didn't really understand what they were writing about (you'll see the strikings, which came later). They have also got themselves involved in the current Lightbreather ArbCom case, again without having any real connection and again involving retractions.

Since they will not even acknowledge that they have broken their promise (eg: mentioned by me here, blanked here with nothing said in between), I think it might be best to apply some sort of formal restriction but I'm just not quite sure how to frame it. In vague terms, I'm envisioning some sort of temporary restriction on contributing to non-article/non-user talk pages and from the drama boards themselves (would we need to define them?). Somehow, we would probably need to find a way to limit their drama-based comments on user talk pages also. Maybe start with a month or two and increase it if they breach; reset the clock if they do not transgress in, say, a six month period?

Ddstretch is currently dealing with real-life issues, so I've not bothered them but will drop a standard notification on their page. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, about time he started focusing on content...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, KnowledgeKid wouldn't know about creating content if it came up and smacked him on the face. What I do know is that he will be revelling in the fact that he has a new all singing, all dancing drama at ANI; this time in his name! Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now I cant really respond in full but I will say that yes I went over to EF's page to offer support, when an editor gets bashed for standing up I do not feel it is right for editors to jump on top of them. The same thing happened to Coffee during EC's last block. If you look at my edit history I have pretty much avoided "drama" (As Sitush defines it, I see drama all over Wikipedia in some form or another) and have stuck to editing articles. The past edits would have to be broken down one at a time for a more detailed history behind them. I am going to be gone for at least an hour right now, I will have more to say when I can get back online. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This might help you - recent edits to the WP space. Obviously, it includes stuff that is entirely acceptable but it also excludes talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good luck with trying to find an appropriate remedy - Knowledgekid87 has very little knowledge in the content subjects they work in. I find that a bit shocking given the length of time in which KK87 has been here, but given the Village Pump discussion about a fan service image.... the drama is not surprising. Though @Sitush: - your comment over at Tenchi Muyo (another ailing page) is the sort of thing which KK87 does in rebuttals at places like Talk:Futanari. No offense, but KK87 tries to be authoritative when he doesn't know anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." comes to mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I know they're weak on basic MOS stuff because I got myself in a scrap at Ani - Imo earlier today while initially looking into what they did do when not on the drama boards. But since I know nothing of manga/anime myself, I can't judge subject knowledge. I hope you are not suggesting that they might be better engaging in drama than in articles ?! - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• KK87 doesn't seem to have read Ani-Imo, or even a full review of the work. MOS issues aside, why would you capitalize Incest and Homosexuality like that? The article is misleading in its description and it seems to have been written by a girl with a complex. I have a hard time believing KK87 wrote this... much less read such a thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Excuse me? "a girl with a complex"? What is this whole thing about anyways? I need to do a copyedit of the article I know, I have helped others though get to GA class. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well when someone else does the copyedit for you, fixing MOS, spelling and grammar errors, why did you revert back to the version with the errors in it?? That's a quite terrible edit. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was feeling followed is why, Sitush who admitted he has no knowledge of the subject posted here on the talkpage of an article I had been working on: [203], as you can see members of the A&M project objected to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• You felt followed so you undid good changes? That shows a distinct lack of maturity and your own pettiness. I'm okay with whatever decision the community decides - since KK87 has not matured at all since the last time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I admit I was wrong with that revert but I had enough, the second time I undid the edits I asked for it to be taken to the talkpage which in retrospect I should have done first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You perhaps have a heightened degree of concern, then. I have looked at two articles where you had recently been involved because I've been mulling this report for some time now. In both cases I did a bit of work and, yes, I left a note on one talk - not mentioning you - as a sort of general "kick up the backside". I had also mentioned to you that I was considering this report before I went to the Ani - Imo article. Can we get back to the drama issue, please, rather than create still more where it has no basis. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Chris who I have no idea why he is here brought this up, not me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• In those edit summaries I stood up for Rationalobserver as she was being unfairly targeted by other editors, she had done a lot of good work improving articles to GA status. EChastain was a great cause targeting editors and was blocked as a sock. As for the last few hours, EC was blocked again for posting in a place he shouldn't have which was on my watchlist, this resulted in at least two editors initially taking issue with it. I made my comment at the ARB case just like others did (who may follow the page) and thought that was that. When I saw editors targeting Evergreen on Eric's page I bit my lip and just posted a note on Ever's talkpage to ignore it [204]. Evergreen ignored the edits made but that wasn't enough, the edits were taken to green's talkpage [205]. Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND editors shouldn't be targeting other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This feeling, the "I have no idea why he is here", is one other editors often have when they see your comments, Knowledgekid. (By others I mean at the very least me and several already mentioned as having left notes at your talk page.) Although your intentions may very well be good - to defend wikifriends - your methods leave a great deal to be desired. You leave too many messages. Someone who is not the focus of an SPI/ANI thread/Arbcom proceeding should generally not be the most prolific contributor to that page. You go to too many pages. It's not necessary to post at, for example, an SPI, the talk page of the person who created the SPI, the talk page of the person who is the subject of the SPI, and the talk pages of those closing or commenting on the SPI. That's spreading drama. It's inciting drama. If you truly feel a friend is being railroaded/accused improperly, you can say so. You don't need to lodge (in most cases unfounded) accusations against others. You don't need to scream conspiracy. You don't need to bring up past events that are only tangentially related. You may not have done all of those things this time, but you have done them all enough. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S., as for your reversions of good article edits because you don't like the person who made them - that is disruptive editing and edit warring and if I ever catch you doing that again I'm blocking you immediately. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• This would be hard to define, and hard to enforce, but if it could be crafted better, I'd suggest "KK is prohibited from getting involved in issues that do not directly concern him. To be reviewed in 6 months." Or something along those lines. I have never seen a comment of his in a touchy situation that made the situation better. I don't doubt his good faith, really, but I do not believe he has sufficient good judgement to get involved in other people's problems. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  If you think good will come out of it then I will take the ban, I don't know what issues though in particular I would be banned from. I just want you to know my edits have been in good faith and I don't like seeing others get beaten up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  It's comments like this [206] that are a part of the problem. You are assuming that RationalObserver was targeted and people were acting inappropriately. What actually happened is that RO was acting disruptively, RO was blocked and unblocked, and RO has not acted disruptively since then. People aren't upset with RO anymore, because RO changed her behavior and is focusing on oroducing content. Either 1) you don't understand what targeting actually is, 2) you don't understand what behavior is disruptive, or 3) you don't care about the behavior as long as it comes from a pal...any of those three make me question whether you should be participating in any project-level conversations at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  She was targeted by User:EChastain and a handful of editors who thought she was a sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  Opening that thread at RO's talk page was indeed another example of very poor judgement and I hope that she takes Floq's advice. I'm not sure why you chose to leave a note just there, given all the other people mentioned in the diffs in my opening statement, but it really was a bad one to pick, whether you were canvassing or not. IIRC, Rationalobserver has recently declared a prior user account to ArbCom - I'm not fussed provided that she keeps up the sort work she has been doing recently and in which I had a small hand.

  I'm thinking on Floq's suggestion above. It is a tricky issue, although I do think we have managed to deploy it in the past specifically for AN/ANI - just cannot remember any names. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  Many years ago, just after I passed RfA if I remember correctly, we did place an editing restriction on an editor - for the life of me I can't remember who they were - which stated that any non-articlespace edit must be directly related to article improvement. I think there was an exception for commenting at discussions (i.e. XfD, RfA). Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• My problem here is that "heightening drama" is completely ill-defined. I mean, everyone weighing in on this complaint who hasn't been involved in altercations with Knowledgekid could be seen as involving themselves in drama (including myself). Look at Eric Corbett's talk page since his recent block...there are over a dozen editors criticizing his block, making accusations, all of which is definitely heightening the drama but they are seen as expressing support for Corbett, not drama mongering, even though they all have absolutely nothing to do with his block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not entirely true, Liz, but then you have misread things concerning me recently in other matters, which is worrying. My involvement at that talk page is related to his block, as I tried to explain at AE when admins started jumping to conclusions about watchlists. And the drama there is due to a bad block made due to a report by someone who issued personal attacks and was not censured for them. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about any editor specifically, Sitush. Just wondering why messages of support on one editor's talk page (by KnowledgeKid) is seen as heightening drama while in other situations, comments by uninvolved editors are not seen as amping up the drama. And I don't think you can change the point of focus from the individual posting to the subject of the drama (the block) unless KnowledgeKid's user talk page posts are also put into context (being about a subject, not being about him). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Knowledgekid is not the only one who frequently stirs drama. If those posting, for example, on Eric's page, are also posting the same comments in 3 or 4 other places on-Wiki right now and are leveling unfounded accusations repeatedly, then maybe they need a similar topic ban. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) all have absolutely nothing to do with his block - I'm one of them, so it isn't all. But this is off-topic, although I'm not surprised to see you raise it given the recent events and your somewhat naive first-ever post at that page today. If you bring Eric Corbett into this thread it will deteriorate rapidly, as you should know. Feel free to collapse this bit or retract. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference is Liz is that KnowledgeKid is a talk page tart who pitches up anywhere where there is drama, whilst those who post on Eric's talk keep it to Eric's talk. Cassianto^Talk 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Knowledgekid's article work; I've never run into it, I believe. Their other work is--how do I put this diplomatically--of no use, and serves only to heighten drama in situations they choose to stick their nose. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Per Floquenbeam's comment,"I have never seen a comment of his in a touchy situation that made the situation better," and Drmies' comment above that KK tends to "heighten drama," I must concur. KK can pretty much be counted on to stir the pot and increase contentiousness on a regular basis. A look at contribs shows Knowledgekid87 is sitting about about 50% on mainspace contributions versus talk and drama, so a restriction that comments be confined to something combining Black Kite's suggestion and Floquenbeam's would be appropriate. Or perhaps a restriction of one comment per day per topic at talk, also, unless it's an article KK has contributed to prior to whatever drama triggers a discussion. This editor isn't as problematic as a lot of others, but I think an admonition that pot-stirring isn't helping the project might be in order. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• (e/c) As the admin who blocked and then unblocked Knowledgekid for stirring up drama (involving Rationalobserver) and then, after extracting a promise from him to just add content and not involve himself in any drama in future, I think I may be allowed to comment here.

  I am deeply sad that Knowledgekid seemed to ignore his promise made, right from the start, and as others have documented above. I did try to reason with him to adhere to the promise made, as did others over time (again as documented above), but to no avail, and so we find ourselves here. Perhaps I should have acted before now and re-imposed the block on him to try to put a stop to his seemingly obsessive behaviour of putting his nose into drama that doesn't involve him? But I was unsure if this could be justified at the time.

  The promise he made allowed for no special cases involving friends of his or any perceived targetting of them, but if one examines the cases where he has involved himself since then, many of them involve disputes involving Eric Corbett or some of his perceived supporters, where Knowledgekid's friends have been at fault. He was, for example, making comments in the latest case that didn't involve him at all, and which led to the most recent block against Eric Corbett.

  The basic issue is that, for whatever reasons, Knowledgekid made a promise that enabled him to have a block removed, and then almost immediately broke this promise and went back to getting involved in drama. He has become untrustworthy, and therefore unreliable even about himself. Whether he lied is a matter only he can know, but if he didn't lie, his behaviour shows such a lack of insight or reflection on what he is doing, that there may be an issue of competence here. To echo what others have said: when he injects himself into disputes, his contributions seem invariably to make bad situations worse. (In some cases, he has acted similarly to those people who shout "jump!" to people wanting to commit suicide by throwing themselves off buildings. In these cases, one wonders just how he thought his contributions were helping his friends.)

  If I had re-imposed the block, I would definitely comment on breaking the promise and its circumstances, and that would mean that, effectively, no real chance of any successful appeal against that re-imposed block could really succeed, assuming that the admin who looked at any appeal considered the circumstances properly. This troubled me and stayed my hand.

  Although we are required to assume good faith, it seems difficult for me to justifiably do so in his case, given his broken promise, and the speed and frequency in which he involves himself in topics that he has no connection with. And this is the more so given the number of people who have referred to his promise in an attempt to stop his disruptive behaviour. He seems so unable to have any insight into this that he doesn't refer to the original promise at all, but protests that he was helping out people he perceives were put upon. This is so inaccurate, especially in the latest case, where, even as this discussion was taking place, he attempted to drag Rationalobserver into this dispute. Rationalobserver has made an excellent reform in their own behaviour since their own problems. Problems in which Knowledgekid also had a big hand in attempting to stir up more drama, and which led to my block of him and the subsequent promise he made to get himself unblocked.

  My own feeling, which may well be biased now, is that Knowledgekid should immediately have the block he appealed against and which I lifted re-imposed. This should show him how seriously we take broken promises to evade a block. It would also be preventative, because he seems completely unable to stop himself, and no amount of assurances he now might make could convince me that he would change in such a short period of time. It would also send out a strong message to others who might be tempted to bait or drive drama. Subsequent to that block being lifted, I suggest that we now decide on strict editing restrictions for him: he should only contribute content; any talk page comments should be specifically about content, and should normally be made on those articles' talk pages. He should be able to contribute to his own talk page, however. If he wants to talk to others, he can ping them and direct them to his own talk page. His talk page should be monitored. Any involvement in drama seen on them should be subject to some kind of action. I suggest that these restrictions last for a sufficient period of time to hope that he matures and gains insight. As I said, I may be biased here because of the sadness I have about his inability to keep to a serious promise he made to me.

  I apologize for the length of this comment.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ddstretch, we might have to make an exception for the anime/manga project talk page and, for example, for contributions to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Sitush that KK87 has made substantial contributions to the anime/manga articles that are clearly where his heart is at; it would be "bouncing the rubble" to say he couldn't edit there - as far as I can tell, his contributions in that area have been mostly constructive. Let him do what he does best, then. Didn't WP ban Eric Corbett specifically from RfA and GGTF? If they can do that, I'd say asking KK to stay away from the drama boards, liberally construed, is a doable idea. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ok. I overlooked his positive contributions to that project page, and to WP:RSN. I don't want to restrict him from any of the pages where he writes content. However, I think we need to be a bit more broad than "drama boards, liberally construed" because a reasonable amount of the stirring goes on on individual editors' talk pages. We could then say "stay away from the drama boards, liberally construed, and additionally stay out of any discussions on any editor's talk page that involves drama (liberally construed) in which he is not directly involved himself." What about re-imposing the block that he evaded by breaking the promise?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about posting here but a few points need rebutting in my view. Let's start by looking at some numbers, and these are only a sampling from pages I'm aware of: KK87 has the highest or second highest number of edits to these non-article space pages, GGTF proposed decision talk, (it's really unusual to see so many comments on the PD talk page), this SPI, (which I launched against RO, more about that to come), and this MFD. None of these had anything to do with KK87 and there probably would have been considerably less heat without their comments. Regarding RO, I launched an SPI, they got exonerated, I apologized. Should have been end of story, but KK87 kept posting to their page that I was out to get them and thus an interaction ban is needed. Samples here, here, here, here, here. That myth needs to be dispelled here, now, on AN/I. Today RO had an article promoted to FA and let me further take the opportunity to extend an olive branch and congratulate everyone involved in that endeavor (I can't do it on their talk pages). I think it was Floquenbeam who somewhere here mentioned that not being able to chat with friends here is a miserable existence, and yep, I agree and understand having been shoved into that type of box. My sense is that Kk87 unwittingly adds heat and won't let go. Even in this thread they've made a mention of protecting RO against the people who are out to get them (that would be me), which does nothing to end any of this. I agree with Ddstretch, Johnuniq, Bish, Floquenbeam - probably have left out a few. Liz accused me of harassment the last time I posted to AN/I, which was enough for this almost-purely-content-driven editor to put up a retirement tag. If 50,000 edits, 20+ FAs, a good showing in a couple of Core Contests, and so on, in the end will only be reduced to being a person who harasses, then that's an example, imo, of the type of disruption KK87 can cause. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Howdy Knowledgekid87. Going into 2011, a mere 39% of my edits were to mainspace, the rest to talkpages. Today, more then 67% of my edits are to mainspace. This huge change in my pie chart, resulted from me clamping down & concentrating on 'gnoming'. Perhaps, this would be a route for you to take. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed (Knowledgekid87)

I would suggest not reblocking—72 hours would pass quickly and achieve nothing. I haven't seen the current issues, but my observations from several weeks ago confirm the views above that KK87's comments are usually most unhelpful. Translating the proposal to more formal language, how about:

Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all noticeboards and talk pages other than to comment on actionable proposals for improvements to an article that Knowledgekid87 is working on. In addition, any comments or edit summaries by Knowledgekid87 must concern article content and not other editors.

• Support as above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Could I particularly ask why you jump to an 'indefinite topic ban' of this caliber? As far as I know, KK has never been the result of any sanction of this type and the 'promise' that he apparently broke is not actionable and absolutely shouldn't be held against them. (Reminded of admins who promised to be open to recall but weren't.) I would support a 3 month topic ban of this caliber--though I'm concerned about the prospects of it. They wouldn't be able to report people hounding them or people adequately baiting him because he's topic banned from all noticeboards. I wouldn't want to leave an editor without an avenue for abuse against them. Tutelary (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am open to a topic ban, but per Tutelary I want to be sure I can report things without other editors taking advantage of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If KK kept his nose out of other people's business then he wouldn't receive abuse in the first place. Those who stick their nose into a beehive are going to get more than a nostril full of honey. Cassianto^Talk 17:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone here reads you loud and clear and at this point I don't know if you are trying to get a rise or not. Is there a reason why you have been only editing here over the last 24 hours? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldnt want to miss the boat, that's all. Cassianto^Talk 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Johnuniq's proposal as worded, especially per Karanacs' cogent posts above.[207][208] Adding a new section header for it. (And, oh yeah, how appropriate to see Tutelary here. Yet another stirrer, only not quite as busy as KK.) Bishonen | talk 14:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

• Comment The problem with as worded is that it limits my collaborations with other editors in building articles. I am talking about for example issues that may come up on the A&M talkpage. Does it only have to be articles that I am working on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I think any topic ban of this nature should contain a time limit (6-12 months) and an exception that allows him to respond on any topic in which he is directly involved. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• They must be allowed to respond if directly involved. Not sure about the other bit: how often is it the case that "indefinite" does actually mean "infinite"? If it happens a lot then, yes, there should be a time limit. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite means I would have to go ask an admin directly, I know that it is usually like 6 months right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support for reasons explained by others, above. I assume that this would also include Arbcom pages for which Knowledgekid87 is not a party. While I believe there is good faith behind their participation in various disputes, they tend to add little to actually resolving the disputes. A focus on content, rather than contributors would be a welcomed change for all concerned.- MrX 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not quite so strict for now. First, addressing one of User:Liz's comments somewhere above, I don't care about his main space to project space ratio; I'm sure it's better than mine. If someone is being useful in project space, more power to them. The problem is not that he's commenting on things he's not involved with per se; it's in being almost uniformly unhelpful in those comments. Far too often he is misinformed or adds fuel to the fire, and he ends up striking his comments in whole or in part, after the damage is done. he is not alone in this, but he is the clearest example of it I can think of.

  Crafting the wording of something like this by committee is always tricky. I think it obviously needs to include a mechanism for him to report issues that directly affect him. I also feel he shouldn't be prevented from occasional non-content chats with friends, like all of us do; that's a recipe for a miserable existence, and an impossible topic ban. What needs to be prevented is the self-insertion into drama, and the problem is I don't know that he will be able to recognize the difference, and I can't think of a clearcut way to word it. I'd be inclined to say "Don't insert yourself into other people's drama, at AN/ANI, ArbCom, user talk pages, or anywhere else. Try harder to recognize when that is happening. If someone points out you're doing it unintentionally, stop immediately. If you keep doing it unintentionally, something worse will be imposed". And see if that works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that if an editor or admin points out some behavior is a problem, the editor should seriously consider this warning and adapt their behavior, especially if several users indicate it is a problem.

I guess what I was trying to say above, bottom line, is that if the act that is necessitating a ban is the act of going to editor's talk page and posting unhelpful messages about disputes that the visiting editor is not a party to...well, there are a lot of editors who do this or have done this in the past. I know I've received unhelpful comments from an editor chiming in about a talk page argument that they weren't a party to and I'm sure my case is not an exception. And WP:ANI is one big exercise of editors weighing in on disputes they might know little or nothing about. But editors still offer their opinions, both those that are considered helpful and those that are not...which kind this is, I leave up to the reader. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

'*Oppose as written I have a problem with indefinite topic bans as a lot can change in 3 months, and I don't exactly trust administrators to give a satisfactory criteria for the removal of an indefinite topic ban--especially if they've had it for a while. I'm sure that within 3 months of a topic ban, he'll be fine--I'd be fine with a 3 month one, just not indefinite. And yeah, someone will counter me with 'indefinite doesn't mean infinite' but I've seen far too any indefinite topic bans without any possibility of any definite one. What happened to month ones? We just skip straight to indefinite without trying any of the more lenient options beforehand? It also offers no ability or exception for KK to report to the noticeboards if someone is doing something to -him- because obviously, that would cause drama that he can't cause himself, leaving him open. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support for only 3 months - Indefinite is not required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• I always prefer "per Floquenbeam", as a rule. If that doesn't make the cut I'll go per Johnuniq, provided that "talk pages" is taken as inclusively as possible, including all talk pages except their own. I think blocking Eric for something on his own talk page is BS, and I wouldn't want to exact the same kind of pitiless and meaningless vengeance on anyone else. But Knowledgekid would do well to basically stay the hell away from anyone else's talk page if it's not about content. Also, per Bishonen, generally. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support See way too much of him and his sanctimonious comments at various places. I think he means well, but it gets really annoying at times, and I think he should spent the time on content instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3-month topic ban per ChrisGualtieri's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban on principal. This is over kill. That said if a topic ban is approved it should definitely have an expiration date of no more than six months. Such a broadly worded ban is very extreme and strikes me as only a step or two removed from an outright ban which I do not think is justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support The original proposal. (I mean by Johnuniq.) It seems to me that KK87 just doesn't get it at all. I have seen no admissions of his poor behaviour, or any apology, or any reflection in any meaningful way of his own behaviour at all. Even today, we see questionable behaviour of him in removing comments from this thread: he is not in the position to do this, he should let others do it if they judge it right to do so. If KK87 thinks he can mount a successful appeal against the topic ban, then let us say he can do so only after a three month period has passed, and we can see what, if anything, has changed in that period.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as written. Mainly as per Ad Orientem. It is tantamount to an indefinite site ban which surely is not warranted. Obviously discussions are bound to stray from directly content related items, and it would make his participation here almost impossible. Also support mentorship program as suggested by GoodDay. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should try the mentorship route, first. I've been through alot of hurdles in the last 3+ yrs & can appreciate the situation KK87 finds himself in. If one has stepped on a lot of toes, sooner or later the feet those toes are connected to, will come back kicking. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support A limited duration ban (6-12 months has been mentioned) combined with mentorship (if mentorship is included, I'd be OK with the topic ban being reduced to 3 months). If there's no measurable progress, extend the ban. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Johnuniq . Mentoring is too little, too late. Cassianto^Talk 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support provided that it is time-limited rather than indefinite. Mentorship is not likely to work, given the number of people who have already tried to advise and the fact that the poor behaviour has continued even while this thread has been open. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I notice that KK said below on 1 June that they had unwatched ANI. Nonetheless, they commented here many hours later on 2 June. No idea of the merits of the comment, nor how they got here, but it does rather suggest a continuing inability to disengage. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well it's possible to unwatch a page and yet visit it, perhaps through a navbox. Also, if action is being taken against you, isn't it wise to keep tabs on things? Also you don't believe in mentorship without trying it first? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• My exact quote below was "Once this is over, I am taking this board off my watchlist", can you point out where I said something different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, KK, my apologies for misreading that. However, around the same time you said that you had already taken Pump off your list, so why this and some others? Re: Mrjulesd, I'm not sure why you think mentorship is any different from numerous editors in good standing offering advice over a prolonged period with no obvious effect. The time for mentorship has passed. - Sitush (talk)

• I got there from Caitlyn Jenner, no drama was stirred by offering an oppose opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is already consensus that you cannot determine what is or is not drama. Indeed, that is at the root of the problem. Therefore, best to say nothing as would have happened if you hadn't sidestepped your self-imposed restriction. As I said about your ANI post, I am not commenting on the content of your contribution to the Pump (I'm not wandering around to find out what the story is) but rather on its existence. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, seeing a KK87 has announced his acceptance of mentorship, we should hold off from imposing a topic-ban. Let's not bury a fellow editor, a preventative measure can easily morph into a punitive measure. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I second this suggestion. To not try mentorship first would be a mistake, as this would be most appropriate for a good faithed but errant editor. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of some sort: This one, the one in the next section. If indef worries folks, then say 6 months. If KK can get his content contributions up to par, that will be a net positive to the wiki. I'm not concerned about his inability to use the drama boards for legitimate problems, he can always ping an admin and then that person can assess and respond accordingly. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Mentorship. I guess I'm going to be called naive, but I think we should give mentorship a try. People can bring out the torches and pitchforks again if it doesn't work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - which is unworkably vague and impinges upon free speech and the right to dissent. This does not seem to rise to the level of a community ban. Mentorship is worth trying, although it seems late in the day for that solution for an individual that has been here since 2008 and has 32K edits on the odometer. Advice to KK: ramp down the controversy by ramping down the drama. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible rewording of topic ban proposal

Knowledgekid87 is forbidden from contributing to WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:Arbitration/Requests (and sub-boards) unless (a) he is a party to an action, and/or (b) has prior permission from an administrator. He is also forbidden from commenting on talk pages (other than his own) about actions on these boards, unless (a) and/or (b) above. Restriction is for six months duration, unless there is community consensus otherwise. That is a possible rewording, taking in comments from above. Again it could be modified. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

How would this remedy as it is worded prevent that kind of ankle-biting? Knowledgekid needs to be shown the door, the project is better off without an individual whose focus is first on drama and second on pervert anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.224.220.1 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are as you appear to be editing from a school's address, but anime and manga has a wide scope. As for the comment on Liz's talkpage being an Arb clerk isn't an easy job in general. Seeing she is new at the job I thought a kitten comment would show some encouragement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I will support any ban for 6 to 12 months that strictly forbids KK from posting comments anywhere where they are not directly involved. The slightest excursion should receive an immediate block. Let's face it, KK is everywhere and is a pesky nuisance. If they were born in '87 and have been editing for 6 years there is either still a massive maturity issue or they just don't get it, and handing out kittens isn't going to appeal to anyone's leniency. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• But would you really want to ban him him from the Village Pump? WP:AN3? WP:AIV? WP:ANRFC? WP:RFC? Deletion discussions? There is no evidence he has caused problems in these places. To not specify which particular boards it applies to would be a mistake IMO. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• I never indicated when I was born anywhere in my user-page so using that against me I consider as a form of personal attack and possible WP:OUTING. If you are going to make a case against my edits then please focus on what the content was and not this maturity BS. Oh and the whole "If" factor doesn't matter, how does my birth-year matter here anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• You don't have to be a mathematician to work it out KK.[209]. Cassianto^Talk 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I had forgot about those old versions but changed them for a reason, in any case what does that have to do with content here on Wikipedia? It bothers me as my personal information is being used in a negative way here that is not constructive to anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung was pointing out that at 28, you should really be acting maturely and not like a mischievous young wippersnapper. Unfortunately, by introducing yourself into arguments that have nothing to do with you, you fall into the latter category. You strike me as being the sort of person who shouts "fight, fight, fight" at school when two students were arguing over who won the girl! Cassianto^Talk 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about my age or maturity its about my edits if you cant separate the two then please kindly leave. I may have made mistakes in my editing but I wouldn't stoop as low as using someone's personal information against them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You asked a question: "what does that have to do with content here on Wikipedia?" I answered it. Please, don't be so argumentative and assume I'm incapable of "separating the two". Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This complaint is about KnowledgeKid87's conduct, not his biography. His age or any other personal information should not be a consideration here and unnecessarily distract from focusing on problematic behaviors that some editors apparently see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, no shit! Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid's age is relevant because experience shows that absent severe Road-to-Damascus type life events, adults tend not to change their behaviour. He is 28, and his interactions with other users betray a distinct lack of maturity. If he were 15 or 18, he might still change, but at 28 he won't. The mentoring proposal one section down the page is a noble but futile endeavour. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Though I have taken no other role in this discussion, Knowledgekid87 should be warned that he is not permitted to remove other editors' comments on this noticeboard, as he has now twice done to the paragraph immediately above (once reverted by the IP, once by me). Dwpaul ^Talk 00:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I already said I do not want my age brought into this, and the post amounts to nothing, I have already been harassed by another school addressed IP on my talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I and a number of other editors agree with you that your age should not be brought into the discussion, but if another editor attempts to do so, it is on them; you cannot simply remove their comments here on the basis that you have asked that they not bring it up. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think that linking to Road-to-Damascus type In a discussion regarding edits amounts to vandalism? Normally when posts are off topic or are vandalism in nature they get removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. And that you may think it does tends to support the comment that someone made above re: general competence, which was also implicitly supported in ChrisGualtieri's remarks about your article editing. FWIW, I still can't make my mind up regarding the various proposals, and I think your age is irrelevant to dealing with this issue. Had you been a decade or so younger then it might perhaps have been viewed as a mitigating circumstance, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My article editing is more than just those cherry picked differences though, a few months back I was able to work with other editors to bring an article up to GA. I can accept constructive criticism here but I have seen some posts so far that are anything but. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to specify here, then, what your thoughts are about which criticisms are constructive, and what you intend to do about them? Try to see how your comments, just now, can be applied directly to your own behaviour that prompted this ANI report. Remember that promises made may not be believed so much as you would like, given what has happened and what you have done with numerous helpful suggestions before we reached this point.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sitush was gathering material and was going to post this ANI report regardless of the fact so he didn't need to tell me that he was going to in advance. The main complaint here is drama, some discussions editors have been taking things way too personally and that bothers me. Rather than focus on the behaviors of the editor involved I have seen editors go for the throat of the editor involved in anyway they can. So yes I admit that I haven't always been right poking into other people's discussions but as I said above each case should be taken separately rather than having a small snippet of it show through an edit summary. Going through each case instance though I feel is just going to reopen old discussions though. If you want an example of what I find wrong... look at Coffee's block of EC, rather than focus on ways to move forward or for EC to move on, editors slammed Coffee for being an unfit admin, and tore into him in everyway possible, from his edits to his personality. This is what I wish would stop. We have a WP:BLP policy here on Wikipedia, we don't need to bring into discussions about other editors and make Wikipedia about their bios. Discussion about behavior and edit content should take priority and sadly in some cases I haven't seen it this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) Just because you mentioned Coffee here in passing, do you really think it was necessary to place a notice on his talk page here to try to drag him into all this, just as you did to RationalObserver? I will reply to your comments later, but really! does this really help, or just tries to whip up more drama by deflecting the discussion away from yourself. Think harder in future! (addendum: I notice you haven't placed a similar notice on Eric Corbett's page, yet you also mentioned him. However, thereagain, Eric Corbett or his supporters are often the people you post messages about on pages where you have stirred up drama in the past.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Per ANI policy above I have to, Eric also isn't going to be able to reply so in that case I don't know what it would do but could leave a note there too. Anyways, if Sitush can link edit summaries up there to me, can I at least defend my actions with an example of how editors are taking discussions to a personal level? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned him. I doubt you wanted to open up a discussion about his actions (which is what the AN/I instructions are about), unless you wanted to divert attention away from your behaviour. Furthermore, as of this time, long after my previous message you replied to, I see no notice on Eric Corbett's page informing him that you mentioned him here, even though using your own interpretation of the rules you should have, and you almost acknowledged this. above. It is exactly this kind of drama-inducing and lack of clue that people are getting tired of here. I will write more about the supposed distinction you are making between behaviour and "personal comments" later, after some real-life issue has been dealt with.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Drama exists all over Wikipedia in one form or another so it would be hard to define what "drama" is by whose standards. I don't think the community can agree what exactly drama is because everyone sees it different. If I am to be topic banned then in what areas? I haven't been disruptive at AfDs nor have I caused problems on project pages. As for the other bit, behavior of editors focuses on their actions that led up to whatever it is that they need to improve on. I don't want to drag more editors into the discussion here nobody wants to be the focus of attention here (I sure don't), but as I said above I want to explain my actions. The things I find problematic are other editors that defend editors for their bad behavior, and turn on the editor that has to make the tough judgement call. I am tired of seeing editors targeted for things that aren't content or behavior related. A perfect example is bringing in my birth-year above, does it have anything to do with Wikipedia? No. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal was well intended but I felt like the promise was being used as a loaded gun to my head, because "drama" wasn't defined, whoever followed my edits with possible bad intentions could say "yeah he is creating drama". Just look at EChastain, a now blocked sock of User:Mattisse who is known for targeting editors and was targeting both me and RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So, if you felt like that then why didn't you say that at the time? In fact, it is very convenient for you to come up with this supposed explanation now, but you were certainly not showing signs that you thought this at the time. You should have raised the issue about modifying the promise at the time, but you didn't. So, if what you say is true, then are you in the habit of making promises or stating what you will do, and then breaking the promise without coming back to people to discuss modifying the promise, or stating that you will do something (like that you will unwatch this board) and then obviously not doing that (as Sitush has pointed out)? It just adds to the idea that you are untrustworthy. As for drama exists all over wikipedia, and it is difficult to define it so you shouldn't be held to it, this applies to the details of incivility, which you seem quite happy to apply to others. I suggest one thing to you now, KK87: when you are in a hole, stop digging or even wriggling, because every time you attempt, post hoc, to justify your behaviour, it leads to more signs that you are being evasive and failing to confront your own bad behaviour here.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I withdraw the idea that you said you had already taken this board off your watchlist. However, there is another outstanding issue. Even though I pointed out your omission of notifying Eric Corbett of the discussion here, in which you mentioned him just as you mentioned Coffee, I see that you have posted a number of messages in this thread, yet still you have not notified Eric Corbett, and yet by your own interpretation of the rules, you should have. Now, why is that? Is it that you don't want to notify a perceived "opponent" of yours, or is it that you acknowledge that you didn't need to inform Coffee, or something else?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He is blocked is why so he wouldn't be able to comment, I will go ahead and post a notice though. When he returns hopefully this discussion will be over and I can avoid contact with those kind of things. I also didn't want to bother you before, I saw you were going through personal issues and respected that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for now placing a notice on Eric Corbett's page. Also thank you for your concern about the real-life issues I have recently experienced. However, the block and promise happened a few months ago when such issues were not present, yet you didn't raise the "loaded gun" feeling with me then. Is it, perhaps, that you only recently thought about a "loaded gun" explanation of why you decided to ignore, almost from the start, the promise you made in order to get unblocked?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Im tired of being dragged through the mud here for trying to do something good for other editors. I have been trying to get back into editing by doing cleanup here and there but it is hard. Once this is over, I am taking this board off my watchlist I can only hope that discussions can focus on the editor and not tear down who they are as a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Stay away from the drama-boards & concentrate fully on content & you won't go wrong. PS- I wouldn't mind welcoming a 'new' gnome :) GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I already took arbcom and pump off my watchlist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentorship

Perhaps any form of 'topic-bans' is tad harsh & premature, at this time. Seeing as many here, feel that his participation on drama-boards should be curtailed, I'd recommend assigning KK87 a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

People who require a mentor are not supposed to know how the rules work. KK is well aware of the rules and chooses to conduct himself this way, so I'd say we have missed the boat on that one. Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say your definition of mentorship may be a bit narrow. There's room for mentoring an editor who knows the rules but has trouble controlling their impulses. I'm not necessarily recommending that in this case -- I think KK87's behavior is part and parcel of their personality, and have thought that for a while now [210]. There may not be a better way to force a behavioral change other then the "short, sharp, shock" a ban or topic ban would apply. BMK (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, I hadn't thought of it like that. Cassianto^Talk 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Numerous experienced contributors have attempted to set KK87 on the straight-and-narrow even before their block. There are some examples since the block in my opening statement. It has made no difference - that is why we are here. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Sitush, you should always believe in second chances. People are capable of enormous personal transformations. There are a lot of eyes on this editor and I'm sure further slips will be noted and dealt with it. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They've had second, third and fourth chances and still do not get it. I wish you were as understanding when you come calling on my talk page, instead of getting the wrong end of the stick as you did. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Your comment does great justice to you in showing your willingness to extend AGF as far as possible, but major changes in one's attitude and behavior don't happen easily and cannot be turned on (or off) like a switch. It generally takes some kind of serious crisis to provoke it, and I think, in fact, that we're doing KK87 a disservice by saying "Change your behavior, now" instead of forcing him into a situation where he has to re-evaluate his behavior, and decide on his own, that it's worthwhile to him to change.

Given this, and given KK87's history, at this time I would support the most strenuous ban than the community is willing to impose. Personally, I think that a site ban of moderate duration might be most persuasive, but if the community is set on a tailored topic ban, I can go along with that as well. BMK (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mentorship is something we generally offer to promising youngsters who just don't seem to get it right but probably will after two or three more years of growing up. KK is beyond that stage and not only is he clearly demonstrating a most argumentative character, but he is digging himself deeper in. Maturity is behavioural and not necessarily age related. If I were a more radical admin I would be soreley tempted to enact a block at this stage without waiting for the outcome of this discussion in which KK now needs to shut up, stop creating even more drama, and let his peers - both defense and prosecution - decide his fate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may butt in with a meta comment, I think it's both inappropriate and unnecessary to even mention things like "controlling impulses" and "maturity" on this page. A user either conforms to community behavior standards, or they don't, and they (should) face consequences if they don't. The rest is a self-growth thing that should remain between the individual and him/herself, or between him/herself and any assistance they choose to seek out, off-wiki. See KISS principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I agree with you that it is wrong thing to do to write about "controlling impulses" and "maturity" here.

That said:

@Knowledgekid87:

This ongoing discussion is basically dissuading you inserting yourself into drama that doesn't involve you. Can you explain why you - and on this very page - inserted yourself into drama that doesn't involve you?

Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I would accept mentorship, and to Peter I was only trying to be helpful with an editor who I saw was new. No bad intentions, no stirring up anything, just a simple what I would do comment regarding minor edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush is quite right, he;s been told on numerous occasions to focus on content rather than editors. I don't know if any of you have seen Bad Teacher but Knowledgekid reminds me of Squirrel in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar

I would like to alert the Senior Wikipedia Administrators to evidence that user User:Taeyebaar is manipulating a series of Wikipedia articles towards a specific viewpoint - and in the process has improperly targeted users, businesses, Wikipedia editors old and new over several years - but much more acutely in recent weeks.

Although there are several examples, I would like to use the example of the Arrowsmith_School article. (Previous examples exist on this noticeboard for other pages).

The total edits on the Arrowsmith page are clearly biased towards adding and maximizing the information about "skepticism" on this page. Out of these 137 edits to date by user Taeyebaar (30% of the edits to the page), clear and undue weight has been presented surrounding skepticism of the program in relation to the other information on the page. This user is also clearly connected to the edit histories of IPs 192.0.173.58 and 192.0.173.58 (which made most of the skepticism edits until both disappearing suddenly when user Taeyebaar was created, as well as having similar editing history and shared relationships, so obviously connected), which is a further 135 + 11 edits (32%) - for a total of 62% of the edits to the Arrowsmith article - almost all in the additional/tightening of "Skepticism" by this user. (The user has been accused previously of multiple logins under the IPs in question).

Instead of focusing on information relevant to the program for Wikipedia's readers - the page has been modified so as to focus on Taeyebaar's skepticism of Brain Training programs in general. In fact, the edits appear to be designed to to do harm to the Arrowsmith business.

Some stats, for your ease of monitoring (note the edit headings);

• http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Arrowsmith_School&project=en.wikipedia.org (List of editors - top editor Taeyebaar and IPs)
• http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Taeyebaar&page=Arrowsmith+School&server=enwiki&max=100 (Taeyebaar edits)

Many of the edits are highly suggestive and editorialized, implying a specific viewpoint. Some examples;

• To help herself, Arrowsmith Young developed cognitive exercises that she claims help (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
• A lot of doubt and criticism has emerged (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
• lack of evidence of change in learning skills as well as the high costs. (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized without sources)

This isn't appropriate editing behaviour on Wikipedia. It is clearly an attempt to damage the Arrowsmith reputation as opposed to providing a well written, balanced article for Wiki readers.

• This user has taken a similar approach to many other Brain Training Programs, including Cogmed, LearningRX, etc.
• A number of users have reported Taeyebaar, whose voices have been drowned out by Taeyebaar'sbetter knowledge of the system (primarily through accusations of sockpuppetry). Attempts to communicate with Taeyebaar on their talk page have been deleted by Taeyebaar. The user refuses to collaborate or have open discussion.
• The user has repeatedly posted notices directly on administrator pages and Administrator Noticeboards to undermine other editors.

Taeyebaar's Connection to the Loudest Critics, Dr. Siegel

It also appears that user Taeyebaar has a connection to and specific knowledge of an individual whose commentary forms much of the content of the Arrowsmith page - Dr. Siegel. Evidence exists to suggest that they are connected to Dr. Seigel, a vocal critic of the school listed on the article.

• Dr. Siegel is a known and active critic of the Arrowsmith program. On the Wikipedia article, said user has greatly weighted the article with criticisms from Dr. Siegel. In fact - the article now has more information about Dr. Siegel than about Barbara Young - the founder of the program. Dr. Siegel has been accused of crossing the line of libel before (see the references added by Taeyebaar in the article). There is no reason to have this weighted diatribe on this page - except to undermine Arrowsmith intentionally.
• The user has intimate knowledge of all external sources critical of the Arrowsmith program, far beyond "normal" research. This implies intimate understanding of the subject matter and personal relationships with individuals listed on the page.
• Of the three Loudest Critics of the program (Dr. Siegel, Max Coltheart and his student Anne Castles) - user Taeyebaar created Wikipedia pages for the first two, but not of the third (Dr. Siegel). When a page was created for Dr. Siegel - said user made minor edits to the page within a few hours (and had recommended others edit it immediately instead of doing it themselves, as noted in their talk pages). As this user is adept at managing Wikipedia through it's policy's (banning and reporting users regularly), and has edited dozens of other pages - it implies that this user is "connected", and didn't create the page originally out of an attempt to maintain neutrality.
• It is clear (for example in the documentary cited, where Dr. Siegel "is the only vehement critic of the program") - this individual is one of the few people who is compelled to add such an overwhelming amount of criticism to the Wikipedia article and other articles of its nature.

This is all circumstantial evidence given the nature of Wikipedia, but is compelling nonetheless.

Whether or not the individual is directly connected with Dr. Siegel or not, they are certainly aggressively advocating one viewpoint. Either way, their actions are still consistent with lack of neutrality by this user.

Wikipedia Users Targeted by Taeyebaar

This user has also improperly targeted many other users on Wikipedia, in some cases to the point of getting them banned or leading them to quit. They have leveraged their knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations to manipulate articles about Brain Training towards their own opinions. The Wikipedia editors have focused (rightfully so) on the actions and reports of Taeyebaar, not the edits to the article. However, this has enabled Taeyebaar to continue to edit and control various articles and continue to add skepticism to various articles to promote their own opinions.

Taeyebaar has had bans attached to all of the following editors who have attempted to provide balance this on the Arrowsmith article alone;

• User:StarbucksLatte (the person who brought this matter to my attention, got them banned)
• User:Wiki-shield (an unknown psychologist from Toronto, got them banned -wikipedianyt@gmail.com)
• User:Mishash (unknown individual, got them banned - possibly from the same office as Wiki-shield)
• User:Eaqq (since given up editing on Wikipedia)
• User:Brunasofia (since given up editing on Wikipedia)

These users were all accused of being "sock-puppets" by Taeyebaar as soon as they made improvements to the articles Taeyebaar has been "controlling". The individual also reverted all edits of several experienced editors who made edits to the article;

• User:Nyttend
• User:Wbm1058

Their edits were reverted without discussion or collaboration - one attempt to edit met with the feedback from Taeyebaar "Oh no, you don't". These experienced editors have now "stepped back" from editing the article as per Wikipedia's spirit - and the article is no longer being collaboratively managed by Wikipedia editors but exclusively is being used to espouse Taeyebaar's critical opinions of the subjects in question.

IMPORTANT - The user has currently advocated for a block on editing the article now that it has been significantly weighted (User talk:Zad68). Obviously, the user is happy with their unbalanced negative weighting of the article, and would like future edits/improvements to stop.

The user Taeyebaar has also made similar edits to various articles in the brain training space. When questioned about it on their talk page, they simply deleted the discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaeyebaar&type=revision&diff=664362450&oldid=664361198).

These articles include:

• Arrowsmith School
• LearningRx ‎
• Cogmed
• Dore Programme
• Fast ForWord
• Brain training
• Brain Gym ‎
• Fast Forward
• Lumosity
• Neuroplasticity
• Brain training
• Brain fitness

All with what appears to be a a strong goal of promoting a singular viewpoint (that Brain Training is definitively pseudoscience).

Taeyebaar has made a number of repeated posts to get users banned, posted to numerous Administrator pages asking for bans/blocks/etc., posted numerous complaints to Admin boards, etc. - all without engaging or openly discussing on their Talk page (or the user Talk page). This is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia - a place for all neutral editors.

Violation of Wikipedia's Policies

This user has violated the spirit of Wikipedia in many ways - but even more so, violated core policies;

• Taeyebaar, as noted above, has a clear viewpoint (against Brain Training). WP:NOTOPINION
• Taeyebaar, as noted above, has intimate knowledge of these programs and therefore is likely to be deeply connected to the sources. This is clearly an individual with a conflict of interest. WP:CONFLICT
• Taeyebaar clearly has the opinion that Brain Training programs are "without merit" WP:OPINION, and leverages the rules to accomplish the telling of their viewpoints.
• Taeyebaar exclusively adds undue weight towards their critical viewpoints towards almost Brain Training Programs WP:NPOV
• Taeyebaar has added many additional opinionated statements (for example, statements relating to "high cost", and "many people's opinion's), in order to promote their viewpoint WP:EDITORIALIZING
• Taeyebaar is not acting collaboratively, where "articles should not belong to any one person". WP:OWN
• Taeyebaar is concentrating on the negative aspects of the programs exclusively, to the detriment of all of the information about these programs on Wikipedia. The information presented is from a connected individual and is not neutral. WP:WEIGHT
• Taeyebaar isn't engaging on the talk page, but rather just making direct edits to the page, and undoing anything else added in conflict with their opinion. WP:EDITCONSENSUS
• Taeyebaar repeatedly edit-warred with senior admins and newbies, and managed to get this overturned through sock-puppet accusations WP:EDITWAR
• Taeyebaar repeatedly uses accusations of sockpuppetry when someone edits articles they don't like WP:LAWYERING
• Taeyebaar has had numerous individuals banned as sock puppets who were new editors, trying to help balance opinions and clean up editorializing. WP:NEWBIES

Taeyebaar is clearly using the system WP:GAME to accomplish their goal of undermining public perception of neuroplasticity-based products, programs and software. This is not the act of a group of editors working collaboratively. It is a single person's viewpoint being promoted - on all of the articles Taeyebaar has edited.

As there is notable and valuable information on various articles that this person has had deleted, they are clearly not an unbiased, good faith editor.

Past Behaviour

This user has a history of similar improper behaviour surrounding the subjects of dyslexia and (completely unrelated) subjects around various subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.165.246.181 (Same user*)

• Warned for edit warring on the subject of "dyslexia"
• suspected "multiple editors objecting to your misuse of tabloid sources to push your POV about dyslexia"
• "repeatedly reverted to their own opinions of dyslexia"
• Blocked from vandalizing "animal testing"
• Warned for edit warring on "Indo-Pak Confederation"
• Warned for edit warring on "Backstreet Boys"
• Involved in edit war on "Hain_Celestial_Group"
• Found switching back and forth between user accounts

• Recent connection: Several communications between user Mad_Hatter (recently and in the past) between this IP and Taeyebaar.

This user has also been previously accused of lack of collaboration - "A half dozen editors have disputed Taeyebaar's edits. None have supported them." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive809)

What's next?

I leave it to your better understanding to suggest a recourse of action. At the very least - the Wikipedians who have been banned for their contributions to articles "under Taeyebaar's control" should be re-considered as editors (and perhaps more research into additional user actions on other articles should be undertaken). At the very least, someone impartial and senior should edit these articles to return them to impartiality and a neutral point of view. Or alternatively, control should be returned to the collaborative space for multiple editors to achieve consensus on the various Talk pages and make future edits accordingly from there (read: don't allow Taeyebaar to edit articles in this space - ban them from all associated articles). Thanks in advance for looking into this matter, and sorry about the lengthy post.

Sean Stephens (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things

• An admins an admin there arent levels of administrators
• It might be worth reading TLDR and then restructruing your report as its quite lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 May 2015

@Amortias: A couple of things:

• In the sentence "An admins an admin there aren't levels of administrators," the first "admins" is short for "admin is", and therefore takes an apostrophe: "An admin's an admin...". Further, "arent" is a contraction for "are not", and therefore also takes an apostrophe: "aren't". Finally, as it is a sentence, it needs a period at the end.
• In the next sentence, "restructruing" is misspelled; the correct spelling is "restructuring". The word "its" is short for "it is" and needs an apostrophe: "it's".
• After a fellow editor has just presented a complicated situation in a coherent fashion, telling them to go read TLDR is rather insulting.
• If you're planning on "correcting" someone's post on Wikipedia, you had better be damn sure that you don't make a bunch of stupid mistakes when you do so.
• You neglected to sign your post, but an important person like you, who doesn't have the time to read about someone's problem (but does, apparently, have the time to "correct" them), probably just didn't have the time to do so.
• It might be worth reading WP:DICK, and then restructuring your approach to commenting. Alternately, you could just keep your mouth shut and not say anything if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

BMK (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A little harsh, don't you think? There were other ways to comment about what Amortias (not sure if I typed it correctly) wrote instead of "shut your mouth". Personally, I do agree that Amortias did not pay attention to the report at all and seemed to only focus on "senior admins". However, there were other ways to explain what you said in other and better words. Frankly, I would consider what you've written, especially in that tone, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, not harsh at all. Too many people seem to think that posting "TLDR" is a sufficient response to what may be, after all, a complex situation, and that impulse needs to be sharply discouraged (as does the impulse to say "XXXXX is thataway" instead of dealing with the problem: the correct response is to deal with the problem to the extent that one can, and then say "BTW, next time you can go to XXXXX"). There certainly are "wall of text" complaints, and if they are poorly structured, formatted, and written, they may justify a response of "TLDR", but this was not one of them, and Amortias' reply was, in my opinion, a total knee-jerk, compounded by poorly written advice. BMK (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, something is either "a little harsh" or it's a personal attack. Those trains don't meet. BMK (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I Spinoff? I know it's long, but it shows a pattern which goes back years by a specific user. Always genuinely eager for suggestions from more experienced admins. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems odd to me that this editor, who stopped editing in 2013, would suddenly come back and file this report, while having no recent interactions with Taeyebaar, or any at all as far as I can see. As well, Sean Stephens has made arguments that involve knowledge of Wiki policy that seems completely misplaced when referring to WP:SPI. The arguments by this user would have us believe that Taeyebaar has been the prime reasoning behind the banning of some sockpuppets, however anyone familiar with SPI knows that Checkusers determine who is to be blocked, rather than the filer. And, anyone who has cited wiki policy would also be sure to read about SPI processes before making claims such as these. It could be that he did not feel that the reason to the socks being blocked was worth a deeper look. (Which would then make his argument shallow). But, this whole thing is producing some noise that I can't quite place. Anyway, FYI Sean Stephens, all the users you have listed that were 'banned because of Taeyebaar' were banned for legitimate reasons, not the control of one editor. These should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again for any reason. Socks of these accounts should be put back in the drawer. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment - At this point I don't have an opinion about Taeyebaar because I haven't examined the issues closely. But Sean Stephens, you have made one very glaring false assumption. Taeyebaar didn't get anyone "banned". The editors you name above got themselves permanently blocked because of very inappropriate behavior; in fact, three of them have been confirmed as the same person (sockpuppets). As for those who "gave up" editing, do you have any clear evidence other than speculation as to why they "gave up"? Lots of people stop editing for a lot of reason. If your other evidence against Taeyebaar is as weak as your arguments about getting editors "banned", you need to rethink this entire report. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

After reading other responses to Sean Stephens, I agree it is odd that he returns after a two year absence to point the finger at someone who recently came into conflict with one of the socks mentioned. Could we be dealing with a WP:BOOMERANG situation? A sock investigation might be in order. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have recently awoken from a long editing slumber by someone who saw me speak on the value of Wikipedia's neutrality and collaborative practices. Her user account User_talk:StarbucksLatte was banned as a sock when she created a private account after reading the book "The Woman Who Changed Her Brain" and noticed the abundance of negative comments on the related Wikipedia article. After looking into it, she noticed the user Taeyebaar had edited highly politically charged articles (e.g. "Jihad Watch" and "Iran-Pakistan Relations"), and didn't want to use her normal editing account given the inflammatory editing history of the individual. When she started editing the article under this account, she was "confirmed" as a sock, though she wasn't the individual with the inappropriate behaviour - and now she has quit. For the record - I'm happy to start a sock investigation on myself, if you'd like. I've used my real name here, I'm not hiding (but admittedly, I'm not a particularly experienced editor either). I am behind this report to maintain my assertion that the Wikipedia collaborative process works - even for the lay-editor. Who wants my phone number? Sean Stephens (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this report should be reformulated but the issue remains. I would have made this report myself if it wasn't done already but real life keeps me busy. The issue of socks is independent of the issue. In no way does completely ignoring the rules of Wikipedia and then trying to pass it off as a problem with socks make it justifiable. User:Taeyebaar has clearly taken ownership of Arrowsmith School and refuses to discuss any changes on the talk page. I have left it alone for now as there appears to be no end in sight for his edits and reverts so there is no point in 2 of us being banned for violating WP:3RR. I'm at a loss to understand the point of your comments about the person who made the report while completely ignoring the subject of the report. Can we address the issue and not the players?--Daffydavid (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited in this area and am not familiar with Taeyebaar but I don't think suspicions about the OP should preclude consideration of this incredibly lengthy complaint. At the least, it should be seen whether a COI exists regarding the use of Dr. Siegel as a source. I think it is WP:UNDUE for an article to be primarily composed of criticism rather than facts about a company or organization like at Arrowsmith School. But clearly looking into this in any detail will take some time. I look forward to hearing from Taeyebaar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of the unhelpful originator of this thread, I see ownership and POV pushing on the part of Taeyebaar. As I found the article, most of it was dedicated to attacking the subject, with the "Skepticism and criticism" being larger than the rest of the article (5018 characters of skepticism and critism, vs. 4629 in the rest of the body), so I chopped a bunch of completely unsourced content and removed content published in news media articles, which being news media, aren't vetted by experts in the field. I then cleaned up a poorly written chunk discussing reliably-published criticism from some Australian neuroscientists, adding commentary from the neuroscientists in place of a couple of paragraphs that basically said "these scholars have opposed it" and spent only half a sentence discussing what they'd actually said. The result? Wholesale reversion: restoring the paragraphs of unsourced and off-topic criticism, removing the information about what our Australian friends said, restoring the non-scholarly publications, restoring the article to being heavily weighted against the subject. Not at all neutral, especially when you keep it up by going way past 3RR edit-warring with other editors a few days later. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no idea whether the rest of the OP's complaint is valid, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mishash/Archive where User:StarbucksLatte, User:Beardocratic, and User:Wiki-shield have all been blocked as socks of User:Mishash by the closing administrators. Voceditenore (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore - I can't help but notice that you also edited the article for Dr. Siegel with Taeyebaar, within a few hours of the page being created. You were also invested in accusations of sockpuppetry for the users above. Are you connected to Taeyebaar or Dr. Siegel? Or is this just circumstantial? (Not trying to be a jerk or wear a tin hat, I apologize in advance if I am off the mark here - you seem like an experienced, neutral admin). Sean Stephens (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am not aware that I was ever accused of being a "sock-puppet" by Taeyebaar, or any other editor for that matter. Would appreciate see diffs where anyone made that accusation. Looking at the article history, my edits were limited to reverting WP:CUTPASTE moves, and ensuring that proper procedures were followed to determine whether the article should be titled Arrowsmith School or Arrowsmith Program. I would be interested in seeing diffs where positive information about the school or program from third-party sources was being removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked Sean Stephens as a  Confirmed sock of Beardocratic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Mike V • Talk 22:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this complicates things even more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Regardless of whether or not the complainant is a sock the issues raised are the same as I would have raised. Why is no one addressing the completely blatant violation of WP:3RR? Is the consensus here that Taeyebaar can do whatever they want with no consequences?--Daffydavid (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No Daffydavid, you haven't missed anything, except perhaps a little patience. The issue will be addressed in time; sometimes it takes a while. The OP's report justifiably raised a lot of red flags, and it turns out those of us who were concerned about sockpuppetry were correct. And I agree with Liz's comment that a report by a sock with a vendetta complicates the situation. If you have concerns about 3RR, feel free to take it up at WP:3RRN. In the meantime, let's wait and see how the issues with Taeyebaar turn out. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And not just a sock, a block-evading sock of an editor indef blocked as being WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. That throws an entirely different light on the allegations. BMK (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If I've parsed the data correctly, Seanstephens stopped using his account in October 2013, then created Beardcoratic a week ago to post complaints about Taeyebaar on AN and got indef blocked for it within a couple of days, so the editor went back to using Seanstephens. Clearly, this person has a thing about Taeybaar, but if his complaints are legitimate, he has reduced the chances of something being done about it substantially by his own misbehavior. BMK (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree BMK. The editor might have been a sock account but that doesn't mean this incredibly detailed case should be thrown on the bonfire (that is, archived into oblivion). We can "shoot the messenger" but that doesn't mean that the message is meaningless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since I am preoccupied with real-life matters, I am going to make this short. Admins should see this and this edit. As for the links on anything positive about these 'brain training' programs being removed by me is a lie. Multiple users removed positive links to the program because they were poorly or primarily sourced, including administrators. I only cared about reliably sourced material being left alone. I also have NO connection to Max Coltheart, Linda Siegel or Anne Castles. I NEVER created any of these articles. A user created an entry on Anne Castles, so I felt Max Colheart, who Castles is or was a students of, deserves an entry as well, but it was not me who created them, just suggested them. The accuser thinks that other users don't have the capability of checking an articles creation history. The accuser also has a habbit of claiming that anyone who is opposed to him or edit wars against him has a 'special connection' to the subject that they are editing (see the links I shared for details). That is my response.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Linda Siegel article is an interesting case. It was originally created by the sock StarbucksLatte. It was an appalling coatrack which consisted solely of criticising her research on Arrowsmith School, referenced solely to material written by the head of the school and published solely on the school's website. So here we have an eminent academic whose 40 year research career on learning disability is presented on Wikipedia as consisting primarily of her criticism of this school. I and another editor were in the process of cleaning it up and turning it into a proper biography, when it was deleted as the creation of a blocked sock. The other editor who was cleaning it up quite rightly re-created it, and it is now a decent article about a notable academic. (Admins can view the original version of the article.)

I've now had a close look at Arrowsmith School and it is equally appalling from the opposite perspective. I'm going to leave some recommendations on the talk page later today. Taeyebaar, I strongly suggest you step back from editing that article. In my view your additions were not helpful to furthering a concise, balanced, and above all encyclopedic coverage of the subject. To Seanstephens and assorted socks, who I'm sure are reading this... Don't sock (in all its definitions, including "meat puppetry" via off-wiki canvassing). The reason it is so heavily sanctioned on Wikipedia (and the reason why I personally detest it) is that it destroys trust amongst editors and makes coherent, constructive dialogue impossible. To both Taeyebaar and the assorted socks, I strongly suggest you all avoid speculating about other editors' motives. It does nothing but muddy the waters and it rarely ends well for any of the parties. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I found a notice about this discussion by Seanstephens on my former talk page. He did an amazing job collecting evidence against rogue editor Taeyebaar. Well, not surprisingly, he got himself blamed for sock-puppetry and blocked. Taeyebaar is a skilled manipulator and he is clearly supported by many influential editors and admins. I seriously question WP CheckUser policy, to me it has clearly become a tool to silence opposition. I was under impression that the goal of this tool is to fight vandalism and it can ONLY be used when somebody suspected in vandalism, it clearly states that "It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." It is clearly not the case here. I personally can no longer edit WP thanks to misuse of CheckUser. My former WP account was declared as a sock-puppet of my business partner John. Ok, I can at least explain this by IP overlap when we both did editing in the office. Next, few people come to my defense and raised questions about dubious edits by Taeyebaar... within days their accounts were declared as sockpuppets of John (ironically, John doesn't even know who Taeyebaar is). There is absolutely no way that CheckTool could show any IP overlap for these accounts, so the results of CheckUser tool were clearly manipulated. To demonstrate this just consider that some "very trusted editor" based on "results" of CheckUser tool first declared Beardocratic as a "confirmed" sock of Mishash, now Beardocratic is declared as a "confirmed" sock of Seanstephens... People who care abuse of WP should (1) investigate this sockpuppetry farce and (2) take accusations of Seanstephens a bit more seriously. I don't know who pays Taeyebaar, but they clearly got their money worth. [My home and office IP addresses are blocked thanks to Taeyebaar, but I am visiting my son in Montreal, so I can write this post-mortem...] 24.114.107.238 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)block-evading sock

I would like to bring your attention to the actions of admin Guy. He just tried to hide this entire section of noticeboard. He was also the admin who edited all brain training articles back to Taeyebaar's biased version after all the opponents were blocked. Something fishy is going on here... 24.114.94.82 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) block-evading sock

The above IP has now been, of course, as pretty much anyone reading this thread knew it would be, blocked for block evasion. @Seanstephens: Every time you do this, you're making it less and less likely that anything is going to be done about your complaints. BMK (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You should really act upon the content of this thread rather than dismiss it based on presumed "sockpuppetry". Sockpuppetry or meetpuppetry become a convenient tool to eliminate opponents here, as you can see from my comments above, IP match doesn't even matter for CheckUser anymore, one user could be in the UK and another in Canada and they still be labeled as "sockpuppets" just because they oppose the same type of biased editing. As for blocking dynamic IPs, that's just plain stupid - to block me while I am in Montreal you'll need to block IP range of the entire downtown Montreal :). Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.103.65 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

I thought you had been blocked as a sock? BMK (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, yet another block-evading sock of Seasnstephens. BMK (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The 24... IP claims to be Wiki-shield, who according to the CU, is technically indistinguishable from Mishash. Meanwhile, according to the CU, Seannstephens is technically indistinguishable from Beardocratic. 'Quite coincidentally' three of these four all ended up making a fuss over the same issue and the same article at the same time despite each sock pair claiming not to know the other pair at all. Then there's User:StarbucksLatte, who took up the fallen Wiki-shield's baton at Arrowsmith School and who Seanstephens claimed 'just happened' to contact him about this problem. Meanwhile, both StarbucksLatte and Beardocratic were pronounced by the CU as possible/likely matches for Wiki-shield and Mishash as well. So you pays your money and you takes your chance. At the very least there's is meaty collection of sock pairs here. None of which surprises me given the shenanigans at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LassoLab back in 2013. Some of the current issues they've raised are valid, though. It's a pity that they chose the "tangled web" route. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion

As noted above by several of us, Taeyebaar's editing has been going against the WP:OWN and WP:NPOV standards, and several of us good-standing editors have already participated in a discussion attempting to get these standards enforced. Don't close the discussion just because it was started by a sockpuppet. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not, at least not always. His edits include balancing material. And I am not happy that this thread is started by a block-evading sock, who removed hatting, again evading the block. We should ignore this trolling per WP:RBI unless and until an independent and neutral request is brought. Meanwhile, the entire series of articles is a walled garden and needs ruthless pruning. Brain gym is bollocks, and most of the programmes sold by these firms are bollocks as well. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So Taeybaar has finally made a comment here which is surprising since he has steadfastly refused to comment at the Arrowsmith talk page. I find it interesting that he ignores the discussion and instead tries to provide more evidence against the OP. The key takeaway I believe is this - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive809) where we see Taeybaar engaging in (and admitting to)sockpuppetry and engaging in the same behaviour that leds us here in the current instance. So if socks are fighting with socks do we have a drawer of socks? --Daffydavid (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I propose the washing machine. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Washing machines aside, Zad68 has already given Taeyebaar an unequivocal warning about his/her unacceptable behaviour [211]. People now know that the various "brain training" articles, including Arrowsmith School still need a lot of clean up and have probably put them on watch, since all of them are subject to COI editing. I suggest that Taeyebaar step back from them all and let other editors monitor and improve them for a while. If Taeyebaar doesn't step back, and there's more trouble, that would be the time to lower the boom. And Taeyebaar, if you're reading this, stop assuming that when two or more editors disagree with you, they are sockpuppets. Sometimes it happens to be true as in the Arrowsmith case. But most of the time it's not. Filing SPIs on that kind of evidence rarely ends well and poisons the atmosphere. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to the warning. Isn't anyone reading? Daffydavid's accusations are nothing but absurd. He has made edits to the Arrowsmith article (and possibly others) by de-listing the names of school's that use their program. I honestly think it was unecessary, but I did not revert him. However when he reverted the article to the version of Mishash's sock (which included adding a lacking references tag in the middle of the article content), I reverted him, only for him to engage in an edit war and then start pointing fingers. I even explained to him what the revert was for. And from the look of his talkpage, DaffyDavid does seem to have a history of interjecting himself into edit wars and then pointing fingers. This kind of behavior doesn't help wikipedia in the least. Also I never accused anyone of disagreeing with me for being a sock. What a lie! Amazing how much confusion and chaos a troll can cause. The criticisms of these programs were not added by me for various programs, such as Dore and Brain Gymn. They were added by other editors from before. Mishash even tried to remove them, only to be reverted by someone else. I think I'm done here.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar: in 2013, you filed a sock puppet investigation against Gothicfilm after he reverted you. Shortly after that, you admitted to editing while logged out to avoid detection by Gothicfilm. This is ancient history, though. The real problem seems to be that you're edit warring to maintain a version of the page that other editors have found problematic. Some of them are sock puppets (or meat puppets), yes, but others are obviously not. From your reply to Zad68, it sounds like you see nothing wrong with your behavior, and you will continue unabated. I don't know about anyone else, but this has made me reluctant to edit the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, filing one RFCU two years ago based on what I felt was reasonable suspicion at the time, does not mean I accuse everyone who I come into loggerheads with being a sock. In fact that ANI report was posted not long after the mistaken RFCU. Exploiting, or rather attempting to exploit, another editor's previous mistakes seems to be the first-hand response at disputes nowadays; especially when many of these editors have been in disputes on other issues before.--Taeyebaar (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Exploiting, or rather attempting to exploit, another editor's previous mistakes seems to be the first-hand response at disputes nowadays" It is so bizarre to hear this statement from you... isn't it exactly what you were doing with other editors to maintain your version of brain training pages? 24.114.96.132 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hardblocking IPs

Zero0000 commonly hardblocks IP addresses with the rationale "Vandalism-only account". This includes (see log) disabling talk page access. However, the blocking policy says, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." When I asked Zero000 about this, he replied (diff), "The rules are unclear on this point, but the rationale is to allow for appeals and discussion of the block. If there is someone there who wants to change their ways and edit responsibly, it won't hurt them to wait a week first." I feel that the rules are quite clear on this point: talk page access shouldn't be disabled without abuse of that right after being blocked. An exception would be if it's a sockpuppet/spambot and there is no hope of a successful appeal, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Conifer (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As a general principle, I don't think talk page access or email access should be revoked unless they are abused. But I'm also not an admin dealing with difficult cases so I can't say that I'd also go by those principles when faced with disruptive editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at just a few random blocks and it seems that at least a few of them are the same person with a history of bigoted remarks, in those cases I think it makes sense. Are there any specific blocks you think were incorrect? Chillum 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Random, drive-by IP vandalism shouldn't normally disable talk page access, but also to consider that admins are often familiar with particular vandals, and in cases where a vandal can be identified by behavior rather than IP address, I can understand where an block of this type would be justified. No statements on the specific situation here, just in general it could happen that an admin doing this would be justified, in limited ways in doing this. We'd need a more complete picture than what is presented above to decide one way or the other if this specific situation is being handled correctly or not. --Jayron32 02:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no specific incident I'm concerned about, just wondering how best to interpret policy. Personally, I think that while it can be tiring to entertain unblock requests from malicious editors in such controversial areas, it's still better to give them a shot at appeal and revoke talk page access if they abuse it. Conifer (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but if the admin is correct that it's just the same trolling user IP-hopping, then the odds are the person has abused talkpage access, just on a different IP's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I take a no-tolerance approach to pure vandals, as per the policy "accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning". Of course one should only block an IP for a limited time (except open proxies). I don't lose any sleep if a pure vandal can't "appeal" until a short block expires. If there was a technical way to block an IP vandal indefinitely without inconveniencing a genuine editor using the same IP, I would do it. We have enough good editors without worrying too much about those whose only actions are to attack the project. In addition, it is not clear to me that an IP-talk-page counts as a "user talk page" for the purposes of the rules, since the IP doesn't belong to a particular user; I'd welcome other opinions on that. Zero^talk 14:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is called User talk:whatever IP it may be, and the box at the bottom of IP talk pages does say "This is the discussion page for an IP user".
WP:OWNTALK says "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users" (emphasis mine), which when combined with the first sentence of this quote pretty much suggests that yeah, IP talk pages count as user talk pages.
And there is "You will be notified when someone else edits your user talk page. Since 30 April 2013, registered users receive a notification through the new Wikipedia:Notifications system (see image right); unregistered users still receive notifications with the old-style Orange Bar." (emphasis mine), from WP:ORANGE. I otherwise mostly agree with you, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Zero^talk 23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My IP stalker is back

• Looks like they need the satisfaction of wasting everyone's time.

• 2001:590:4802:1CD:AEA1:FAEA:4CA1:B228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:590:4802:1CD:297F:878F:E44:44D1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 95.141.31.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (already caught by @Barek:, who blocked them, and @Walter Görlitz:, who has very helpfully reverted all of their rubbish)

• The IPv4 IP is Kaia Global Networks Ltd. again, this time Italian. Does anyone know if they're a proxy provider? Because it really seems like they might be. IPV6s ping back to nLayer Communications, so I'm guessing they're proxies as well. @Diannaa: to notify you of the latest annoyances. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am still in Vancouver and won't have access to admin tools for another 10 hours or so. -- Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 14:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Review / mass rollback request

Please could someone with Rollback review recent edits by 67.8.176.249 (~100 on 01/06). Most, if not all, appear to conflict with WP:SUBCAT. Thanks. 171.100.247.198 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am in the process of reverting their edits right now. I'll look to see if they have any constructive edits during this period, because I am doing a mass revert. Epic Genius (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

67.8.176.249 is continuing to add inappropriate categories following mass revert and despite User talk:67.8.176.249 message. 171.100.247.198 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left one final message; if it resumes before this is resolved, I'll block the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lauyulam

I recently blocked Lauyulam (talk · contribs) for edit warring; I then removed talk page access for repeatedly removing the block template and for edit summaries like this. After their return they have just posted this on their talk page, which kind of speaks for itself. It's probably best if somebody uninvolved can review please. GiantSnowman 18:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI, our current guideline at WP:REMOVED does permit removal of the block notice itself, (this changes regularly each time a new RFC is held on it) its only declined unblock requests that are protected from removal during the duration of the block. Since the talk page revocation wasn't technically correct, maybe just give them a pass on the userbox. Monty₈₄₅ 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No matter what reason the editor has, that box and the bad edit summaries can not be okay. "Two wrongs does not make one right", and I dont see why we would allow this just because he could remove block notice. Also as User:GiantSnowman said, the talkpage access was also removed due to bad edit summaries. Qed237 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

True, two wrongs don't make a right; but where a situation has been escalated as a result of experienced editors misapplying policy, (even one we keep changing back and forth) I think we need to be careful to not compound the error and so should give the other party more slack then we might otherwise. It doesn't excuse the conduct, but if we hadn't edit warred the block notice back on, they wouldn't have said what they did in edit summaries, talk page access wouldn't have been revoked, and the userbox probably wouldn't have been added. Monty₈₄₅ 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for edit-warring the block notice, but for repeatedly inserting the Catalan names of Spanish footballers into their articles after warnings, etc., (and was reported for it here). Hope this clarifies. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Monty has a point: edit warring by several editors to restore the block notice further enflamed the situation. However, Lauyulam doesn't appear to hold collaborative editing in really high regard, so I'm not sure we need to pussyfoot around this too much. I've removed the obviously unacceptable notice, and left a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit-warring, in regard to the users trying to restore the block notice, was done in the best interests of the situation. However, Lauyulam returned the favor with vagrant slurs that were meant just to be rude. The mistake by others did not justify Lauyulam's actions, and that should be considered when settling this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like someone unblocked him/her (unless he was on a temporary block that simply expired), but at any rate, this is just uncalled-for. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was a 48-hour block, now expired. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Floquenbeam: - while I personally didn't restore the block notice, I probably would have done had I been on-line at the time, as I was under the (incorrect) assumption that only expired block notices could be removed. Regardless, are you saying that that justifies their banner accusing me (and others) of being mentally ill? GiantSnowman 11:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, I assume this is some bizarre new way of saying "Thanks, Floq"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yes, of course, thank you... :) GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it justifies it, or even excuses it. Only that we should consider it as a mitigating factor in deciding how to deal with the subsequent conduct. Clearly removing the banner was justified; normally something like that might justify a block, and what I'm saying is that in light of the history here, instead of a block now, we should wait to see if Lauyulam continues being disruptive before deciding. Monty₈₄₅ 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

...But not wait very long it seems. See talk page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Those admin....or better say dictator just know how to block users. never mind, block me and I am going to leave. It's a joke to say I'm vandalizing and edit warring. I want to tell those dictator who claim that they know well abt football (or may be nothing except football), go to listen how those commentator call Xavi. "Xavi" is pronounce as "Ch"avi , in Catalan pronunciation, not "s"a"b"I in spainish pronunciation. These are certainly Catalan names. --lauyulam 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauyulam (talk • contribs)

And I want to warn these dictator : Don't vandalize my talk page again --lauyulam 14:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauyulam (talk • contribs)

Per WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA. I've removed the banner from the talk page. BMK (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. He has the right to delete stuff from his talk page. He does not have the right to post those types of insults (there OR here). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

By all accounts however, the user will most likely include it again in some childish act of defiance. His so-called "warning" does give an optimistic outlook.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the underlying discrimination here. As a mentally ill editor, we deserve the right to be admins and disruptively edit the same as anybody else. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I offered help as a mediator due to the obvious language barrier. Revoked in the light of what I have seen/read (needless to say that, even if I was still interested in offering it, the other user would say "talk to the hand"). Good riddance! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Hastert

Some admin eyes (or any experienced neutral editor) would be appreciated on Dennis Hastert with regard to undue weight in the lead. The man's life is not just the recent scandal. Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:Dennis_Hastert#Indictment_in_lead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User 174.3.213.121

This started with an edit I made to Scotiabank,

I removed an image of Scotiabank Place that was in the article as I felt it wasn't relevant to the article anymore because the bank itself no longer sponsors the arena and the other two images were of branch locations themselves.

User 174.3.213.121 undid the edit and put in the summary "just because you love euge & nhl hockey, doesn't mean the corruption RE: cdn tire/scotia/canada banks should be ignored" which I still have no idea what he means. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotiabank&diff=prev&oldid=664735983

I then tried once again to delete the image and was greeted with another summary of "unexplained removal. likely conflict of interest (NHL hockey fan interested in protecting scotia/cdn tire's corruption to prolong league's duration". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotiabank&diff=prev&oldid=665054835

The user doesn't appear to be active on his talk page and his talk page just is other incidents of him getting into edit wars or issues with comments made in summaries. They did not respond to any of the users/notices posted.

His user talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:174.3.213.121. This is the only link I can provide as he doesn't have an actual user page created.

--WestJet (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the next step you might take is to go to Talk:Scotiabank to begin a discussion with other editors who watch this article. It would help to see if your edits had support from other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the article itself is really active. The user doesn't respond to anything posted on his talk page and just basically does what he feels is right. In the past he's made comments about other people's religion in edit summaries. WestJet (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Agostino.prastaro using Talk pages as a forum

Agostino.prastaro (talk · contribs) has been using Talk pages of various advanced topic mathematics/physics pages as a forum for his CV and the like for the past two years. Per WP:TPO and WP:PROMO, I have been repeatedly reverting his most recent self-promotion in Talk:Poincaré conjecture, and I have left messages on his Talk page. He does not seem interested in discussion or learning/respecting WP policies whatsoever.

He has a legitimate CV, but the latest announcements are clearly WP:FRINGE. Something as significant as he claimed would absolutely receive coverage all over the math world, and might even be covered somewhere in MSM. There's apparently not a peep on any blog asking if this is what it claims to be. Choor monster (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, needs to be blocked immediately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And now a direct attack [212]. Definitely not here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that he's never edited a user talk page. I think a limited duration block would get his attention and encourage him to engage editors bringing these problems to his notice on his talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• And now an anon, 81.168.78.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has joined the misuse, restoring Prastaro's direct attack. Choor monster (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the talk history, both Prastaro and User:Choor monster should be blocked. It is not clear to me what is wrong with Prastaro's attempt to discuss this at a talk page of the article on the Poincare conjecture. He has published in refereed journals on this, and raising the issue at talk concerning a possible mention in the article does not seem to me to be beyond the pale. I didn't get a chance to see if there are references to his work in the literature, but at any rate that's the issue that should be discussed, instead of the multiple reverts as practiced by User:Choor monster. Tkuvho (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's completely clear to me what's wrong with Prastaro's edits: he's simply promoting his own crackpottery. As you said, you didn't get a chance to figure this out, and yet you know that I am in the wrong? Sheesh. There is nothing to discuss, it is 100% revertible anywhere it shows up on WP, even his own user page. Choor monster (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For some more context, this is the same editor who claims to have proven the Goldbach conjecture (and the rest of Landau's problems, apparently for good measure), Riemann hypothesis, Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness, the realization of quantum gravity, the smooth Poincare conjecture. Definite crank. What's really strange is that some otherwise decent journals actually do publish this guy's stuff. Having looked at a few of the references, apparently the recipe is to make the paper so incomprehensible that it cannot be properly reviewed by a referee. When unsure how to prove a theorem, refer to three earlier papers that are equally incomprehensible. I'm rather astonished that it works, but there it is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:TPO and WP:PROMO make it absolutely clear that, whether or not Prastaro's papers are great stuff or bizarro gibberish, his edits are 100% revertible everywhere. Tkuvho's concern that maybe the work is actually mention-worthy and we ought to find out is misplaced. We wait for RS to promote his work for us. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Although not directly relevant to those guidelines, being an obvious crank does rather cast doubt on Tkuvho's view that we should AGF this. As an editor already observed, WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted at User talk:Agostino.prastaro inviting the editor to explain himself. Since his response there was not satisfactory, I think the next step should be an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. He may be a solver of these famous problems in his own mind, but that doesn't entitle him to space on Wikipedia. There seems zero chance that he will wait for confirmation by the mathematical community that any of his solutions is valid, before adding his material. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

His response to you definitely seems to be a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --IJBall (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

I am surprised for unjustified personal attachs against my person by someone entering in this discussion. None of these mathematician is able to enter in the mathematical subject considered in my papers, hence they prefer to lunch insults to me. This is really a non academic approach ! I posted some talks on Wikipedia about my published solutions to some important mathematical problems, believing to do a good service to the International Mathematical Community. I believe that talk-Wikipedia space is the suitable space to this purpose. In fact these were some instructions that I received some years ago from Wikipedia. EdJohnston says: There seems zero chance that he will wait for confirmation by the mathematical community that any of his solutions is valid, before adding his material

Dear Johnston, I have not problem about what you claim for confirmation by the mathematical community ... History is made by centuries ... What is important for me is that some serious international mathematical communities have accepted and published my solutions ... I do not pretend that all world gives me his consensus. Let me recall, that Perelman's proof of the Poincare' conjecture is yet today disputed from some sector of the mathematical community ... but also Einstein's General Relativity is considered a wrong theory from some 'serious scientist' ... However, I do not think that the Wikipedia's interest is to apply a santa inquisizione against scientific subjects. Regards. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (87.10.230.75 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

On the contrary, I did look at your mathematical papers, specifically the one on Goldbach and the one on Navier-Stokes. In the Goldbach paper, you commit elementary errors. The Navier-Stokes paper is incomprehensible, with key parts of the proof missing (instead we are vaguely referred to other papers of yours, equally incomprehensible). I have no idea how you managed to publish this stuff, but I am beginning to believe that this is just a successful troll against mathematics publishing. Someone should compile a list of your publications and contact the editorial boards demanding an explanation. This seems like fraud. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at some of this person's work. He claims to have solved several of the most famous open problems in mathematics, and repeatedly cites his own papers which are published in journals with no editorial standards, such as Mathematics Without Boundaries, and the Garbage Machine (a.k.a. "General Mathematics") section of ArXiv. The style of writing in these papers is incomprehensible and involves saying all of the fanciest words in pure mathematics, and writing endless complicated formulas and definitions without apparent purpose or direction. He seems to be here to publicize his delusions of grandeur. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa competence on medical topics

Ozzie has promised to be more careful with sources in the future. Request withdrawn. KateWishing (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) is an enthusiastic and good faith contributor to medical articles, but his reach exceeds his grasp. On Paternal age effect, Ozzie deleted several references while leaving the associated claims intact.[213] I reverted him with an explanation.[214] He has continued this behavior on several articles since. Here, he deletes a high-quality 2008 Cochrane review for the claim that "Steroids help reduce the risk of death or disabling neurological deficit." In a later edit, he adds a new reference for this statement -- a single 2004 trial republished in a book. To find "better" references, Ozzie searches keywords of existing statements on Google Books. If the result shares enough similar words, he adds it, even if it does not mean the same thing. I explained this to him with three examples from his edits to Paternal age effect. Here is one of those: Article text Source text Source link Diff "Later age at parenthood is associated with a more stable family environment, higher socio-economic position, higher income and better living conditions, as well as better parenting practices, but it is more or less uncertain whether these entities are effects of advanced parental age, are contributors to advanced parental age, or common effects of a certain state such as personality type." "Research has demonstrated an inverse relationship between maternal age and child maltreatment. [...] Youthful parenting is intertwined with other factors. For example, less positive parental nurturing and discipline were seen in mothers who were younger, who had more than one child living at home, who were single, who had a lower level of educational attainment." [215] [216] This unintentional misrepresentation of sources has continued. In one edit to Acute erythroid leukemia, he adds a single-sentence cause section, later reverting my removal of it: "The bone marrow creates cells that become leukemic white blood cells." The reference says nothing of the sort. His other edits to the article are also problematic, such as making "History" a subsection of "Epidemology", populating the Symptoms section with the ambiguous and irrelevant claim that "Acute erythroid leukemia representing less than 5% of all cases," and adding the misleading claim that acute erythroid leukemia requires a bone marrow blast count of more than 20%, when the source is referring to acute myeloid leukemia in general (AEL has more specific requirements). Numerous other examples of accidental source misrepresentation can easily be found in Ozzie's recent history. More often than not, his references do not fully support the attached claim. I don't have time to mentor Ozzie or review every one his edits, so unless someone else volunteers, I do not think he should be editing medical articles. KateWishing (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I follow MEDRS as is dictated by wikipedia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Doc James should be present--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) What we need is someone to show Ozie10aaaa the ropes and explain the MOS when it comes to medical articles (I don't mean to be patronizing). Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC) absolutely we all improve everyday--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I hope you can at least see why you need to read the entire article when citing it and not just use it because it showed up on a Google search based on a sentence or phrase. You have to understand the context of the sentence, it's not just a matter of finding a statement in a respected medical journal through a search. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I always do, but there is always room for improvement (for me )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but why are the sources being replaced in the first place? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [217] (the first question being made) was changed to a book which is MEDRS compliant Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) [218] (the second question being made)...I pinged DocJames in regards to it May28 (the talk page history indicates he visited the page [219]) [220] (the third question being made)...I had changed the source...here I asked the editor to please take to talk page [221] having shown the above, due to these proceedings I will not only be more careful but have lost some interest in editing the articles in question...(we all have room to improve, and I welcome advise given, so that I can improve everyday )...thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC) So long as you're very careful with sources in the future, no topic ban will be necessary. I suggest only adding sources for unsourced statements (no replacements), and only when you're certain the article and book say the same thing. I'm sorry to subject you to this; all of your edits are clearly made with the best intentions. KateWishing (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) If Ozzie is this incompetent with sources, why wouldn't he ask for consensus or a second opinion before removing sourced material? Perhaps he could start doing that in the near future until he reached the competency to do it independently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [222] May 24 this editor was asked please do not leave any more messages on my talk page (banned) [223]from my talk page (just so you know) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Interesting, I did not realize AN/I was your talk page...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) could someone please close this ANI. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock of JackTheVicar

JackTheVicar (talk · contribs) was blocked by Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) for three weeks due to actions in this thread. I noticed Jack had no chance to give his right of reply in that thread and was blocked without any real discussion. He's filed an unblock request and I have proposed to unblock him if he takes a self-imposed interaction ban with Winkelvi (talk · contribs). Jack has agreed to this, but Kevin is strongly against unblocking him under any circumstances. Since we don't have consensus to unblock, I'm going to have to ask the community as to what we do. Your thoughts, please. style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Kevin is in fact emphatically not against the idea of altering Jack's block, but just isn't willing to do it until the causes of the block are addressed. Kevin Gorman

• The IBAN condition and Jack's statements that they understand what the problem with their actions was (both the civility and canvassing elements) is good enough for me. It might also be worth a warning that further civility and NPA in general likely won't be looked upon kindly, but that's up to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The promise to avoid the conflict from now on, under parole, would be a way worth trying. I have noticed the editor as a solid contributor of content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone in every situation should be given a right to reply and, if relevant, explain. This is a very basic aspect of human life that is ignored in Wikipedia. I implore closers of discussions here to please check the recent contributions of people who are reported here to check whether it is clear or whether it may be reasonable to assume that they have at least been on line since the submission of a report. Come on people. This should be basic. GregKaye 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At a minimum he violated harrassment , civility, canvassing and hounding. He approched ten people off-wiki asking for them to come to his ANI to suppor him. He consistently refused to acceptresponsibility for his own action, and ignored alll the excellent advice people gave him. there's a big in the newest MW release that someone used to delete my first comment while insuliting me. it's 1;30 am so i'm not rewriting it fully tm, bit i don't really imderstand how the totality of his be

Also, i have never stated that i with certainty against unblockng jack. That;s a really, really big reading of my posts, one of which I copy here below ````

I would be inclined to reduce his block length if he indicated he understood why what he did was wrong. Every time he posts he minimizes his own actions, and stresses, to paraphrase, 'other bad people made me do it.' Blocks are preventative; unless he understands why what he did was (severely) wrong, he'll likely repeat it, unless he has the stick of a threatened block. At this time I am not modifying his block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs)

In the recent conversation on Jack's talk, you wrote "I normally am supportive of early unblocks... not here .... Please reflex to ANI if you must"[224] so that is what I have done. The only other options were to go back to Jack and say, "sorry, you're going to have to have a 3 week holiday, cheerio", or "screw you Kevin, I'm unblocking him anyway", neither of which would have led to a peaceful conclusion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock – I don't know this editor but I have looked through the diffs and agree, some of them were a little hostile. However, the block term is a little excessive and, with no explaination allowed by Jack, a little unfair too. Still, this wouldn't be the first time Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) has been heavy-handed when it comes to "incivility" complaints. Cassianto^Talk 11:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So.. you're pretty much saying I was wrong to block someone who canvassed ten admins off-wiki to try to get matters decided in their favor because I was wrong about one block? Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. Off-wiki canvassing via email goes on all the time; are you naive enough to think that it doesn't? FWIW, the block was justified under the circumstances, but the length, in my opinion, was far too excessive. Unfortunately, you seem to never get the balance quite right, do you? Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• • @Cassianto: If you're going to make the accusation (re not the first time) could you please provide evidence, otherwise it seems to be personal attack territory (I'm not threatening or waving an admin stick, just a polite request). Thank you :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • See the dispute where Gorman blocked Eric earlier this year. Not an accusation, more of a factual event. Cassianto^Talk 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. A three-week block for someone with no previous blocks and a record of improving the encyclopedia is excessive (especially when you consider the third week was added on for something Jack had already been blocked for). Jack has agreed to avoid interacting with the other user in question, so keeping him blocked would be more punitive than anything. Calidum T|C 11:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reread my initial post, and also note that Jack still has not seen anything wrong wth massive canvassing. Jack produces content, yes. That kind of canvassing drives away content producers, and that kind of action undermines the core values of Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Calm down dude, no need to bludgeon this. I'm not saying the block wasn't warranted to begin with, only that's excessive and overly punitive at this point to keep it in place. Jack has agreed to avoid the other user in question (under threat of an indefinite block, mind you) and has said on his talk page he understands he made mistakes. I'm not sure what else you would like to see; would a pound of flesh suffice? Calidum T|C 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If he had recognized the problems, including the intimidation and canvassing, in a way that made it seem like he actually sounded like he got it (and my threshold for believing people isn't too high, and accepted responsibility instead of blaming the part - then I would've been content altering the block. Nothing he has said that I have seen has indicated he sees the (very, very significant) problem with off-wiki canvassing done with the intent of intimidating a user. I don't think a three week block is too long for that - others have gotten longer for the trio of npa, canvassing, and deliberate illicit intimidation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock Jack has made the offer. This kind of threat from Kevin reeks of someone with a vendetta/on a powertrip. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: Are you referring to the last sentence? If so I agree it was quite ill advised to say the least. I'd like to hear Kevin's thoughts on that during (his) tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's to the last sentence. Seems to have no policy-based rationale and not helpful to anyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jack has offered to avoid interaction with someone, Jack has not addressed the rest of the issues. I view massive canvassing used to intimidate someone as significantly against the encyclopedia's interests. Letting someone know that if they do it again the block length will increasse hopefully has a deterrent effect and certainly is based in policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: - Can you point to the policy that allows you to block someone "for at least six months", so we're all crystal clear on that one? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy makes it clear escalating blocks are endorsed, and that their level can vary based on level of offense. Offwiki canvassing and intimidation has gotten people arbcom banned plenty of times before; I believe six months fits in with the general policy of escalating blocks. I'd rather give a user a warning about what would come if they repeated an action than just escalate a block without telling them if they repeat an action - it both seems more fair and acts as a preventative. Out of honest curiosity, how do you view the seriousness of canvassing ten people off wiki and using the results to intimidate another user? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"I believe six months fits in with the general policy". You believe? That's the best you have? A hunch? A gut-feeling? That doesn't sound very robust to me. Canvassing/requesting an opinion. I'd assume good faith and believe it was done in good intentions. I've not seen the alledged canvassing emails either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laure nt is dead} 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"You haven't seen them because sharing them with would violate a policy with legal implications and if I showed them to you I could be banned. Escalate blocking is clearly stated in our main blocking policy, WP:Block. It doesn't specify durations, and leaves them at the discretion of admins. Given he severity of the offense, I view - and I think rightfully - that six months would be apropriate. Please read our policies about stuff like this, even if just briefly, before. If you didnt know our block policy was WP:BLOCK, google would;ve gotten you there, ctrl f 'duration' would've gotten you to the policy secion that supports what I did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"It doesn't specify durations, and leaves them at the discretion of admins" - ahhh, got it now. Carry on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock. Are you all seriously saying this? You're calling telling a user there's an entire group of people who hate them, and that you've been conspiring with that group to ensure any complaint about your behaviour will be ignored, is "a little hostile"? Jack's problem is not the other user, Jack's problem is Jack. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying what Jack did wasn't problematic. We're merely saying keeping him blocked after he agreed to stop the behavior in question is unwarranted and there were problems with how the block(s) was doled out (excessive length and not being allowed to defend himself/provide mitigating evidence). Calidum T|C 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Where did he agree not to canvass off-wiki, or give the impression that he was canvassing? I must've missed that. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's one such example of Jack admitting his mistake [225]. What else are you looking for, an op ed in The New York Times admitting he was wrong and won't do it again? Calidum T|C 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd read a message saying "okay, I messed up but he started it why isn't he blocked" as a recognition that the behaviour won't be repeated. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman while I uphold and support the view that JackTheVicar is well advised to consider his situation and that some action may be validly taken despite anything said please note that, before issues were raised with JtV, his last previous edit was an admittedly argumentative Revision as of 23:13, 29 May 2015

An editor began the Civility thread on JtV's TP at 01:48, 30 May 2015 with comment in agreement regarding JtV's incivility coming at 05:06, 30 May 2015. Following this came the comments:

• "Jack, I've blocked you for two weeks. Your actions are not okay. Follow NPA/Harrassment/etc in the future, or you will be blocked for a longer period of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)"
  • "Kevin Gorman • usually, ANI gave people a chance to respond to the accusation which I would have done within the next few minutes. To do so without a response, smacks of arbirtrariness. But I don't care. I have other hobbies. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)"

IMO, despite anything that JtV may have done, he is right here. The final timings may seem questionable but JtV's contributions show a history of starting editing sessions beginning in the 13:00-14:59 time period and it is reasonable to consider that s/he was just logging on. Please consider giving people a chance to respond. The aim of sanctions surely is resolution and I personally don't have any faith that a cornering of an editor in TP isolation for some personal and potentially private interrogation is a fair way to proceed. This is not to say that a block may not be warranted but this is not the way to do it. I await your response and hope that this thread will not be closed until you the chance to give it. GregKaye

Kevin is currently dealing with some meatspace stuff, so I have no idea when that will be. JTV was, prior to his block - and this was the reason for the extension of the block - emailing me very frequently asking me to intercede in discussions because he felt hard done by. This was the core problem; the off-wiki canvassing. I'm happy to forward the initial email he sent to any administrator. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has archival settings of three days following last edit. There is no hurry. GregKaye 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds, with the best will in the world, is any of this drama as important as writing the encyclopedia? I suspect not. Now, can somebody find me more reliable sources that show any notable musician outside of Mike Rutherford using a Dewtron synth so I can spin an article out of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, if you think this thread is unimportant drama, why did you open it? Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I answered that upthread, but to summarise I had no other choice other than leaving Jack with a block I didn't agree with or wheel warring with an admin. It should have been obvious by now I want him unblocked and this thread to close; indeed, every time I have posted on ANI it has been with the aim of closing a thread down so we can get back to work. Apologies if that sounds a little harsh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, alternately, coming up with a solution that addresses the canvassing etc... I never said I wasn't comfortable unblocking Jack, just that I found your unblock conditions insufficient. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

it doesn't seem harsh, it seems naive. I'm sick and tired of users going "this is just drama! Let's get back to writing the wiki! Writing the Wiki is the most important thing!" Because, you know what? I agree with you. I think writing the wiki is the most important thing. And that's why I have such a problem with users whose actions create chilling effects: because we should care that the wiki gets written and tolerating users who drive off others reduces who's writing the wiki. If you're tired of this discussion, take it off your watchlist, but please stop acting like the best thing for the wiki is for us to unblock anyone smart enough to productively edit an article without looking at the impact their behaviour has on other users. When that impact is negative, we lose users by retaining this one, and that's a zero-sum game. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Which users have been lost? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that this is the behaviour that drives people away. Ideally we shouldn't lose those people to address it, and "but he writes articles!" shouldn't be a defence to that kind of behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So your point is pure original research. Thanks for clarifying that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of experience (and I've been tracking this since about 2007) have shown me that the biggest things that drive people away are speedy deletion tags and reverted edits, generally done by editors in good faith that you'll never see on this board. The stuff we're talking about here seems to be way down the list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of experience (and I've been editing since 2006, and am, in meatspace, a full-time researcher into how collaborative platforms and environments work, specifically...Wikipedia) has taught me that tags and reverts drive away the early editors, but that there's nothing better than toxicity to drive away more experienced contributors. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Jack had his edit [226] reverted by the other user [227] which seems to have started this whole mess. The revert was one of seven made by the other user in a span of 30 hours. Maybe if someone had done something about that this could have been avoided. Calidum T|C 15:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Kevin should remember that blocks are not disciplinary. Extending the editor's block in the midst of their interchange was ill-advised; two weeks is plenty enough time to attempt to reason with them. Jack should remember not to personalise disputes to such an extent. At the very least, I support reinstating the original block period. Jack has promised to stay away from WE, so the block has outlived its purpose. Alakzi (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

See my reasoning above as to why I fully believe the block is preventative and not personal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Alakzi: are you aware that the block was extended for off-wiki canvassing around the initial thread, and things the blocking admin had missed, not the things the user was initially blocked for? Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  The length of the block is not a function of their accumulated offences. Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the correct answer. Looks like Kev and IH need to bone up on that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm very concerned by the comment regarding conspiring off wiki, and I don't think it has been adequately addressed. At one point after the block, in reference to the post regarding off-wiki planning for retaliation, he said "It was probably bluster"... Either there were off-wiki discussions, with 10 people, consistent with the comment, or it was bluster and there weren't, how is there any room for a qualification of probably? JackTheVicar is the one that would know, to say probably is evasive. If that sort of off-wiki conduct did occur, it is a very serious problem, and we need to treat it as such. I'm not opposed to considering the block duration once that is fully addressed, but I'm loath to let it just be brushed under the carpet. In the interests of transparency, I would also like to know if anyone currently participating in the discussion was one of the 10 canvased per the comment, (I think only 1/10 has been identified) or were otherwise alerted to this discussion off-wiki. (Not to accuse anyone here of being canvassed, but in light of the circumstances, it seems reasonable to ask) Monty₈₄₅ 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not I, first saw it here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would unblock him myself under certain circumstances, but not these. Jack's posts minimize his own actions, and frequently, paraphrasing, state "other people made me do it." He canvassed ten users and then used that as a threat against another user. Ignoring his NPA etc violations, the intimidation alone is absolutely not okay, and I'm surprised people don't see the issue with it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kevin Gorman: What would your unblock conditions be? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock until Jack the Vicar has dealt with the totality of the problem. BMK (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock JackTheVicar's hostility and threatening behaviour are clearly meant to have a chilling effect. This sort of intimidation is damaging to our ability to create a neutral encyclopedia. I think this is a big deal, and I think Kevin made a good block. It is good that Jack agrees not to do it any more, this can be demonstrated in 3 weeks. Chillum 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain how WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE is not applicable. Alakzi (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The third bullet under "Blocks should be used to" that says "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Right above the second bullet describes that blocks may be used as a deterrent. The unblock request sounds like lip service to get unblocked. There is deflection of blame and there are still a lot unanswered about the nature of this conspiracy he used as a threat. Who exactly was canvassed? Someone was threatened and told they had a group of people out to get them. This is not punitive, it is to protect the community. I think a 3 week block is very lenient considering. Chillum 18:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Chillums: Ironholds is the only person who has come forth so far, the claim of ten as from JtV. I have a copy of the email he sent to Ironholds and although it's not the worst I've seen, it's also definitel not appropriate and is active canvassing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Deterrence ought to be interpreted in the context of the likelihood for the problematic behaviour to be repeated. Do you believe that he will continue bothering Winkelvi, or that he might similarly bother another editor? If not, it would be fair to say that his block has outlived its purpose - would it not? It is quite rare that people will readily (and fully) admit to all of their transgressions; it is not our job to extract a confession. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that based on the off-wiki stuff, we may not be able to tell if things are going on. Obviously when it comes to offwiki conduct, our ability to monitor is minimal, but I'd still like to see some commitment in that regard. Something along the lines of promising not to discuss the conduct of other editors or editing disputes off wiki, unless all those involved consent to it, and with an obvious carve out for reporting things to functionary mailing lists like Arbcom. Monty₈₄₅ 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that this user will find new and creative ways to be disruptive and that it is reasonable for the community to get a 3 week break to recover from this recent incident of bullying. Chillum 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's pure conjecture; this was his first offence. And, unlike the American justice system, we try not to demonise first offenders. Alakzi (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that totally unnecessary remark just won you a lot of friends. I assume you prefer the justice system in Saudi Arabia or North Korea? Or how about Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or Cameroon? [228]. Or perhaps you might want to keep your political views to yourself, since they have no relevance to this discussion. BMK (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe that this merits a response. Alakzi (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet you just did. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm an anarchist and thus lacking in nationalist sensibilities. I apologise if my comment offended anybody. Alakzi (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You are an "anarchist", and yet you're arguing over the interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and procedures? Don't you see a certain ... weirdness about that? If Wikipedia was an anarchy, there wouldn't be any policies or procedures, and every interpretation would be as good as every other one.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, although thanks to the political proclivities of its co-founders it's much more libertarian than is healthy for it -- but that's still a far cry from anarcy. BMK (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not what anarchism means. You can ask on my talk page if you'd like me to explain. Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm 60 years old, and I know what anarchism is. Be happy in your dream world. BMK (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're being hostile towards me, but OK. Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm absolutely certain that there is much that you don't understand. BMK (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.... you say above quite definitively that you are an "anarchist", but your user page says that you are a "libertarian". Are you under the impression that these are the same thing? BMK (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the rest of the English-speaking world, libertarian means anarchist. Alakzi (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, no it does not. Anarchy is a very different thing. Chillum 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You could've just read the lede of our article on libertarianism: "While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism." Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

About a year ago, I closed an RFC that involved definitions of anarchism and capitalism. I suggest that this off-topic discussion be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, let's just see how long before BMK's incivility will elicit anybody's protest. [229] Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose unblock, per the ANI report [230], their personal attacks were seriously out of line and unnecessary. It seriously goes against WP:NPA, WP:Harassment and WP:Wikihounding. JTV promising to stay away from Winkelvi does not prove that he will not restart his attacks once more against some other user. Secondly, he seriously violated WP:Canvass, by contacting, or seems to have, 10 editors to in fact intimidate Winkelvi over whatever was going on. Then, they contact admins. Two violations so far. Thirdly, he only admitted to his wrongdoings under a threat of an indefinite block. This doesn't seem very truthful if you ask me. And what bugs me the most is their reasoning to their actions was because "they made it me do it". I'm sorry, but that is lame. No, they didn't make you do it; you are at fault for your own actions. They could have easily reported the user, but they decided to violate a bunch of policies. Saying "they made me do it" only proves the temper the user may have in content dispute, 3RR and edit warring by personally attacking users and harassing them. And quite frankly, they also have this reasoning of "he also did a bunch of things; why isn't he blocked?". I am well aware of WP:OUCH, but it only proves the case weaker as they don't see the wrongdoings. They only focused on Winkelvi. Again, they could have easily reported the user. However, I do agree that it was unfair that JTV didn't have the chance to respond to the ANI report. That's my only issue in terms what other people are saying. Otherwise, I agree with the block and I disagree with unblocking JTV. Callmemirela (Talk) 00:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock; Jack's incivility crossed the line, and his block is quite justified. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note Kevin was blocked by GorillaWarface as a compromised account this morning. What's going on there? Arkon (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  Now Kevin is "temporarily" desysopped. Arkon (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  The block and removal of permissions is completely unrelated to his block of JackTheVicar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

hoax articles by Zoso98

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

---

Zoso98 (talk · contribs) has been creating hoax articles and garbage for months, one of which has unfortunately existed since February; Phil McCoy is full of unverifiable/false information using false references, including false ISBN for non-existent books. McCoy may possibly have existed (see claim of being relative here) but note the first draft of article includes image painted by Adolf Hitler credited to him. This edit is also false as no Greg McCoy is on this schoolboard. This user needs to be hit with the banhammer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there are single-purpose accounts that have edited only hoax pages by this editor, there may be sockpuppets involved too. Deli nk (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For example is this a sock? Note the obsession with Phil McCoy. DBaK (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure there are socks involved. It seems like this guy edits a lot of low-profile articles (like the school district one) so could have messed with a lot of things that have gone under the radar. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I suspected there were socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zoso98. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They all need to be blocked as trolls. The Jays one just vandalized an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They have been all blocked as a result of the sockpuppet investigation. No need for any additional admin action. -- Whpq (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hate speech from User:201.209.77.147

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

---

Ought to be blocked for this edit summary: "Reverted censorship of the truth by brainwashed tranny freak". Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Monty₈₄₅ 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. That was fantastic! Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Troll and sock accusations

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

---

Recently, I was accused by a couple of editors of being a sock. Like when I was called a troll, both instances were unfounded and without warrant. (Bb and medeis) Does this constitute a breach of policy here on behalf of the accusers who lack evidence. Or is it OK to go a fling the word sock and troll around ?

I feel unfairly discriminated against here and would like a second opinion on this matter. If the accusers can not back up their claims isn't that trolling, after all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of actually contributing to the encyclopedia, or are you just planning to continue asking ref-desk questions that are unrelated to building the encyclopedia, and then rake muck when people object to your questions that are at least somewhat trollish? Monty₈₄₅ 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hang on a second? I think I was the one asking the question, so can you please try again without trying to twist my question in a jaded way back to me. Or tell me this. Since when was asking ref desk questions dependant on writing a whole section on ancient Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:HERE, specifically WP:NOTHERE. Having intentions of working towards writing an encyclopedia has always been a requirement. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that we assume good faith and take the IP at their word that they had no trolling intent with their questions about racial attitude. However, in that case, their comments were so clueless about the divisive nature of naive discussions of race in the United States that I would suggest that an indef competency block for total cluelessness would be appropriate. That is, if the IP wasn't trolling, they should have known that their questions would be seen as trolling, and, if they didn't, they should just stay away. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This disruptive editor's already been blocked and his appeals denied after his last ANI. He's wasted hours of time and prevented me last week from doing a translation necessary for a time-sensitive nomination. You hang up on him and he calls back to ask why you hang up. μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• IP, you seem to have a misguided sense of entitlement with regard to the desks. No one is obligated to accept you or your questions. If you manage to piss off a majority of the regulars, or a majority of the regulars who care one way or the other, you lose. I'd don't see anyone vocally supporting your position, so I'd say you've lost. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I had some support in principle for my question and the neutrality of it. But, just because I had a difference of opinion does that give people a right to make sweeping accusations and for that to be OK? If I'm medeis, this gives me right to call anyone sock and troll who I please. Can you not see the blindingly obvious double standards that go on here and are willfully ignored.

And any outspoken voices have their wiki political ambitions squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

MariaJaydHicky new IP disruption

A new IP, Special:Contributions/86.131.167.114, is being used by banned editor MariaJaydHicky who was so disruptive in pop music articles, trying to push the "Contemporary R&B" genre onto her favourite songs and albums. This person fabricated a quote,[231] supposedly taken from page 122 a book,[232] but it's clear from the book's table of contents that the index starts on page 119, which means that book prose will not be found on page 122. We are looking at block evasion and edit warring. I asked for and received[233] page protection, but more eyes are needed with regard to this IP. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has already been blocked for 31 hours, but considering this almost immediately afterwards, I suggest also revoking talk page access (and maybe even revdeleting that nonsense). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Support loss of Talk page access – that diff is over the top (and it's still on the IP's Talk page, as of 30 seconds ago...). --IJBall (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access. Chillum 01:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

69.132.34.133

IP 69.132.34.133 continues to restore challenged, unsourced content to List of programs broadcast by Me-TV, without any participation in discussion, despite there being two open discussions on the talk page, and despite the IP editor having received a [direct invititation to discuss, and despite numerous edit summaries from me, pointing out the open discussion and urging participation in discussion. The IP presumably has seen these things, but still restores the problematic content, like here where he writes, "Cyphoidbomb, it was NOT a backtalk, but it WAS vandalism recently. To me, you are one rude user! >:( Now, if you don't cut out that unfair bull****, some administrator will as well BAN you for good! >:( So, your ass needs to leave it the way it was! >:("

Most of this began with this edit by Vjmlhds, who removed a lot of unsourced date ranges. The IP editor reverted with the explanation, "Vjmlhds, it IS vandalism, and if you don't cut out that unfair bull****, some administrator will as well BAN you! >:( So, leave it the way it was! >:(" I happened to agree with that bold edit, and commented thusly on the talk page, since none of the removed data was sourced and I feel there is virtually no reasonable way to verify that X series ran between Y and Z dates, which creates a verifiability concern. We're talking about a network that airs a lot of reruns, not original content, so even if we were to scour television listings, how do you prove definitively when Beverly Hillbillies started airing on this network? Unless you could source the start/end announcements, (and typically there would be no end announcement) you'd be trying to prove a negative, that Beverly Hillbillies didn't air before this date, and didn't air afterwards. There is also an issue of whether or not reruns are notable, and where the people who submit the volumes of this ponderous content get their information. But this is a bigger discussion for a different venue.

Per the behavior and comments made by the IP, we clearly have NPA violations, AGF violation both with me and with Vjmlhds, and ownership problems. I'm also assuming the editor saw my talkbalk link and is confusing that for "backtalk"? This might suggest competence issues. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• • 69's behavior and edits are way over the top. And Chypho is correct in that this network airs reruns that have aired and tons of channels over the years - no need for such intricate (and unsourced) detail. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This IP editor has 4 edits over the past 7 weeks. Is this an urgent situation? Because blocks are supposed to be preventative. They responded to you on their talk page but but all of the warnings have been from you. Maybe a higher level warning from an admin might get their attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever administrative intervention prevents the disruption, I'm happy with. Like you or any other power user, I don't have time to waste on editors who are involved in long-term edit wars. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User has gone over the edge

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is obviously very passionate about LGBT issues, but I'm afraid has suffered some sort of meltdown, judging by their recent edit history. The main area of contention relates to Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce, for those under a rock), and which name should be used on articles before her transition. Skyerise was warned yesterday for violating 3RR, and things settled down a little bit, with a discussion opening at WP:VPP. This discussion has drawn large numbers of editors; both Skyerise and I have contributed there and in other fora. And yet, today…wow. Skyerise has:

1. resumed edit-warring;
2. attempted to bully new IP editors by warning them for "vandalism" for perfectly legitimate edits [234] [235];
3. reported me for "vandalism", when they know full well that good-faith edits are not vandalism (and have been warned for false accusations of vandalism beforehand);
4. and left four separate warning templates on my talkpage over four separate edits within a period of less than 20 minutes, despite my repeated warning for them to stop harassing me

I think a cooling-off block is in order, as passions are obviously high, but the project mustn't continue to be disrupted. If the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP thrashes out a new consensus that aligns with Skyerise's views, then Caitlyn Jenner and related articles can be changed accordingly. ¡Bozzio! 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And now they've opened up a copy-cat ANI report. How very mature. ¡Bozzio! 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a spurious report. Bozzio is describing as "perfectly legitimate edits" edits to modify wikipedia articles around transgender individuals to refer to them by their previous name, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY. That is something to warn about. I don't see any warnings from you to Skyerise except edit summaries, and we don't notify people with edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has made 6 reverts to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon in the last 24 hours. BLP Violations are an exception to the 3rr rule, but I'm not really convinced the edits being reverted here are BLP violations. Just because a policy deals with living people, does not make it's violation a BLP violation under the 3rr rule. 3rr BLP exceptions should be clear violations of the primary WP:BLP policy. But its not clear enough so I don't think think a block without consensus would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: usually I'd agree with you, but I don't think the BLP policy was written with this in mind - in other words, to cover situations where something can genuinely be tremendously hurtful, but not defamatory or libellous, which is the standard we apply. The result is a policy that says "we should respect our subjects" but then provides a specific legal test for whether we respect them enough to enforce that respect with no holds barred. And this is fine, if the law keeps up to date. But: it doesn't. Deadnaming is a tremendously hurtful thing to do to any transgender individual, unless they've said they're okay with it, and the presumption we apply is that they haven't. It's just as hurtful, just as offensive, as what we'd class as "defamation" or "vandalism". It's totally within the spirit of the 3RR exceptions to prohibit it, and to give users some leeway in enforcing that prohibiton. That it isn't in the text is a deficiency in the text as a result of the environment it was created in. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what you say is logical enough to justify not blocking for 3RR right now, but given how obviously controversial the changes are, I think any resumption of edit warring should be met with a quick block. That said, Skyerise appears focused on talk page discussion at the moment, I believe that may prove unnecessary. Resolute 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think your position may be a bridge too far. I certainly strive to respect transgendered individuals, as well as all subjects of BLPs, and I think as a community we have come to accept your position at least in so far as it applies to an individual's Biography. But when it comes to historical events that the individual participated in, recorded on other pages, I think your position may be going substantially further then the community is willing to support, at least judging by the current state of the RFCs. More to the point, I think we need to be really careful about allowing 3rr exemption creep. There is a lot of good logic behind not trying to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to 3rr violations, and the carve outs should be as small as possible to protect particularly important concerns, such as actual slanderous falsehoods, and where they can be applied with minimal ambiguity. I just don't see the core concerns of BLP policy compelling us here, and again I think the 3rr exemption should be limited to that core purpose. Certainly other policies should, can, and do provide broader protection to BLP subjects, but again, we need to be really careful about when we authorize edit warring. Just waving BLP policy around can't be allowed to give you carte-blanche. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I just had a run-in with Skyerise, who I didn't know from a pile of sand an hour ago, and found their approach to defending an edit very aggressive. In the space of about 10-15 minutes, I had two warnings and an advisory on my talk page, with neither warning needed or particularly applicable. Any comment on their editing, including the spraying of talk page templates, is interpreted as a personal attack, yet I found this heavy-handed approach to be both aggressive, as I noted, and an attempt to intimidate me into backing down. There seems to be a lot of frantic energy expended in an effort to skirt the discussion at WP:VPP and to force name changes in articles listing or describing Caitlyn Jenner's achievements while identifying as the male athlete Bruce Jenner. Skyerise needs to take a deep breath, step away and calm down, and gain a little proportion that appears to be lacking at the moment. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, please refrain from repeatedly offering advice in multiple venues. You are coming off as extremely condescending and your advice is unwanted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeat violations of MOS:IDENTITY by User:Bozzio

Bozzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly engaging in WP:BLP vandalism by editing against MOS:IDENTITY on article related to Caitlyn Jenner. They have already received a discretionary santions warning from User:Ironholds yesterday but has chosen to ignore it. They have also engaged in user talk page vandalism by removing valid warnings because they disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. The warnings were valid under that policy. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please provide diffs of where they have removed warnings from other users' talk pages so that we can evaluate that part of your concern. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. [236] and [237]. Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I've never said I disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. I think it's a perfectly sensible guideline, but you've misunderstood and misapplied it completely. You've tried to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobic nutjob, I think you need to settle down a bit and actually take in a little of what other people are saying. I know you're pretty passionate about this, but try and work within the Wikipedia guidelines rather than fighting. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is really on the same subject of the above, I have now made it into a subsection. Epic Genius (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bozzio is well aware of the discretionary sanctions these articles are under - sanctions that mandate users "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". It's impossible to look their most recent edits and conclude they're doing anything of the sort. My suggestion would be that an admin block to prevent this situation being perpetuated, although if that doesn't work I suspect a topic ban will be pretty much the only way to de-fang this situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both users arent really acting their best today, so I slapped them both. If both users know what they both did wrong, we can be done with this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess Skyerise isn't really a fan of fish. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian. :-) Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is awkward. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for a bright line WP:3rr violation, with 5 reverts to the same article in the last 24 hours. If someone wants to implement a separate discretionary sanction, I have no objection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of them

Isn't there a big RFC with heavy participation going on about this right now at WP:VPP? Why is anyone on either "side" changing it in one direction or the other before that RFC is concluded? Is there any reason not to topic ban both Bozzio and Skyerise under the discretionary sanctions? Both are clearly treating this as a battleground, making it less likely that cooler heads will prevail, and both have been warned about the discretionary sanctions. I'm probably going to do this sometime today unless someone can convince me not to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen Skyerise engage productively on the talkpage; they're a consistent voice of reason in discussions. I suspect that banning them will make things less cool and reasoned because it will result in a vast imbalance in the voices. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have participated in the discussion and am thus involved, however my opinion would be that page protection would be better suited than blocking editors. There are just so many people involved that it would likely not stop with 2 blocks. Chillum 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need full protection on Caitlyn Jenner's main page because there are numerous editing disputes there right now. Then, there will only be a need to block people who edit war across multiple pages. Just my two cents. Epic Genius (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the area is under discretionary sanctions, so a 1 revert rule might be a good thing to try. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, Monty845. A 1 revert rule has to be well publicized on the talk page as there has been a lot of reverting this week (including two by me on Monday). I hope we have learned some lessons since the Chelsea Manning case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has had a few run ins with skyrise over the Caitlyn Jenner article recently, I do not think that they have done anything which would warrent sanctions at this point. I appreiciate the subject knowledgeable editors who are willing to watch busy artcles even if they do tend to be passionate about it and make some mistakes probably out of frustration with editors who are still on a learning curve with WP policy as it applies to BLP who profess a pronoun change request. ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)—

We still have 1RR sanctions imposed on the article. This should be made prominent at the article's edit notice. Epic Genius (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't find Skyerise's well-intended but ideology-inspired effort to sweep historical facts under the rug[238] on Wendy Carlos constructive. -16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

..by listing it in the infobox? Yes, that's certainly sweeping it under the rug. Perhaps you could approach Skyerise with the same good intentions you read into their actions, hmn? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Zippyz1234

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

---

User has repeatedly added unsourced and unimportant awards to the pages of numerous NFL players, such as Rob Gronkowski, Randall Cobb, and Julian Edelman, among others that can be seen in their contributions. They have repeatedly been warned to stop, and even been warned that they will be reported to this noticeboard, but they have continued to make these nonconstructive edits. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User has not edited since the last "you will be reported" warning left on his talk page at 20:10 UTC today. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a two day old account with 30 edits. The edits I checked were okay, nothing like vandalism although they didn't necessarily improve the articles. I think we need to see how Zippyz responds to the warnings as they have made no edits to a talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

However, they were making those last few edits at the same time I was leaving that warning. I noticed the edits right after I left the warning, which, by the way, was already after the warning from Template:Uw-vandalism4. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

72.15.25.104

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

---

IP 72.15.25.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a history of edit warring, which he hides by deleting every post made on his talk page. My incident with this user stated on this page. He had changed "statistics have been updated as of" date to a false one, so I reverted his edit. He then proceeded to reverse my reverse of his edit. I again reversed his edit, telling him that the stats had not changed since May 31, therefore the date must remain that. He then responded by posted on my talk page that he was "Just trying to update the page you f*cking idiot", which you can see here. This type of outlandish behavior is unexceptable on Wikipedia, and I fear that his disruptive behavior will continue if punishment is not issued. Also, IP was notified of this discussion, but he again blanked his talk page. Taffe316 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He actually has the right to do that (although my belief is that only accounts should be able to blank their talk pages). If the IP putting in false information, and continues to do so after the true information has been pointed out to him, that's vandalism. Probably an admin will see this report and deal with the IP, but in the future, you can report the IP to WP:AIV. BMK (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Already reported to WP:AIV but forgot to close this down in the process. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Jesus Christ, son of God, brother of the Holy Spirit.

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

---

Jesus Christ, son of God, brother of the Holy Spirit. (talk · contribs) I feel a bit concerned about this user. The name is a bit extreme and may offend some (unless of course he really is Jesus Christ, in which case I beg forgiveness). Similarly, the scriptural edit summaries are - erm - unusual. Having said that, all the edits I see so far are good vandalism reversions, no complaint there. So I am not sure if this needs admin attention or just some prayer, or more tea. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They've already be warned twice against this. New editor, so a final warning might be appropriate. But this isn't appropriate, and doesn't sem like they're going to stop. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:IMPERSONATE, shouldn't the account be blocked until they provide evidence to OTRS that they are, in fact, Jesus Christ? Turning water into Coke Zero, feeding the multitudes with two boxes of Oreos, or something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that water > Coke Zero represents any sort of transformation DBaK (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You could interpret removing vandalism as "curing wikipedia" or "casting out an unclean spirit", I guess...AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But I've done that myself; does that mean I'm a god too? (The answer to which, as everyone knows, is always "yes"!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, aren't we all sons and daughters of Wikipedia here? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Well to be fair if they are really new then maybe they will catch up with their messages in a minute. If on the other hand they are someone who has been here before (odds available at Ladbroke's) then they know perfectly well what they are doing and are "avin a larff" comme on dit. I am sure that within, say, three days their intentions will become clear ... DBaK (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I expect some kind of comparison of the above users to the ever-unexpected Spanish Inquisition is appropriate here: please insert one at your leisure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This user seems like a productive editor who has done a good job of reverting vandalism so far, but even as a fellow Christian, I agree that they need to tone it down with the preaching in their edit summaries. Talking about their faith on their user page (and through their name) would be one thing, but using Scriptural edit summaries on pages that have nothing to do with Christianity is definitely a bit extreme for Wikipedia. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:IMPERSONATE, soapboxing and not in the least funny. Support immediate block. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Help needed protecting a technology article against attack

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

---

I am a technology editor with a very strong and diverse background in technology (BS Chemical Engineering, Masters Information Technology, well read with 500 pages of notes on economic history and the history of technology). I was the main contributor to Industrial Revolution, Economic history of the United States and to other articles such as Electrification, Automation,Mass production, Interchangeable parts, Economic history of the United States and others. My rewrite of Industrial Revolution met good article standards and the topic was elevated to high importance by several of the WikiPjogects that it is in.

I was planning to work on a merger of Productivity improving technologies (historical) with Technology, which from experience with Industrial Revolution I know will this will be a major undertaking. To date no one has interfered with any of my major rewrites. This time I find the source article under attack from a gang who do not edit the technology field but are retaliating against me for filing a case against one of their allies. I also suspect they have opposing political views. These people are only here to make my life difficult and have never contributed any content to this article. However, they did engage in removel of content without discussing it on talk.

Is there a way I can protect these articles and myself from these thugs through WikiProject technology? These people are dead set against me working on this article and have removed my content elsewhere. I started a difficulties list against one of these people and was hoping not to have to take it here, but you can view it Talk:Productivity improving technologies (historical)#Original research and additional citations. Today a second person removed content without using the talk page and put an incoherent tag on the article saying it doesn't have a theme, which it clearly does. This incoherent tag showed up as soon as I stated that I had done so much work due to their constant pestering that I was considering nominating it as a good article. Of course, that tag prevents me from doing that. These people are against the content. I can't continue to work under these conditions.Phmoreno (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Phmoreno, it would be easier to evaluate your complaint if you named the editors you find problematic and provide diffs (evidence) of conduct you find disruptive. "Thugs" and "these people" are too vague to identify any editors and you need to illustrate what the problem is rather than describe how you view the situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid naming names and perhaps have the article frozen until I could get a Project Technology editor to review it. However, here is my reply to User:Cwobeel:

1. You made a very poor first impression by removing material you considered OR without discussing on Talk, which was especially bad because I asked you to add the proper tags. I told you I had hundreds of pages of notes for this article (I can usually locate a reference in a minute or two) but, you decided you knew better. I also asked you to work through Wiki Project Technology, who already rated this article B class and made no claims of OR.
2. You start by citing my statements regarding the definitions of productivity and technology as OR when they are consistent several books cited in this article, plus the Talk:technology link I posted that gave some selected quotes. There is a lot further explanation of the various definitions of technology listed in these sources. So basically, if you don't understand the definition of the article, why are you are coming here criticizing the article?
3. As for the statement about the origins of chemistry, if you had read the History section you would have seen the statement with reference 7. Also, there was a link to De re metallica that discusses this fact, if you had bothered to read it.
4. Regarding references in the Contributors to Productivity section, that is a style preference. A lot of editors do not think it is good style to reference section headers. The references are in the sections.
5. Several sections lacking references use links instead, another style preference.

I did provide numerous additional references, but every time I do, more tags show up.

After I mentioned the GA nomination User:Bobrayner showed up to start removing content related to point 4 without discussing it. He also added the incoherent tag.

All I am requesting is that this be reviewed by technology editors and not either of these two or their allies. In all the years this article has been in existence there never were any complaints.Phmoreno (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ownership dispute. There isn't a single actionable incident to report or review here. Could someone please close this thread and give the OP some helpful advice about DR? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and thus, edit war, at College tuition in the United States

• Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo, 71.101.54.88, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention.96.59.141.215 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's evidence of talk page discussion? Weegeerunner's on wikibreak^{chat it up} 05:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this original discussion and this more recent one is what 96.59.141.215 is referring to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion it's clear that there was no agreement "that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article." There is no vandalism here, and no edit war. This is just normal BRD. The anonymous editor made an edit. I reverted it. And now we're discussing it. Flyte35 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka user

Borsoka user is comiting disruptive edits on Romanian historical regions, i tried to make a good article but romanians and hungarians don't allow that. He is reverting all edits even if are know facts and cited facts. I made him idiot in the last talk and i assume that, he cite me rules he breaks. :) I tried to reach a consensus but he is going with edits and reverting known facts. If you cannot ban him(because is his own page) please ban me, i give you reasons to ban me. He say a book in hungarian and latin from 1900 with old diplomas, who is a famous work of history is not reliable, just because he don't like it. I tried every thing to talk in talk page, to bring sources. He trow me in face the rules, original research, he has no real argument. An the romanian nationalist too, because o try to make a neutral article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_of_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Borsoka

If i am wrong, i am ok with the ban, but he drives me crazy. Vasile iuga (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Last time I looked Romania and Hungary are in Eastern Europe, which means that discretionary sanctions are in effect, if any admin would like to look over the behavior of these two editors and impose some on them. BMK (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of case you make when one of your logics is Romanians and Hugararians do not allow factual editing...and Vasile iuga has every right to show you policy if you are breaking it with original research. I may be wrong, but if you show actual diffs my opinion will greatly change.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I believe Vasile iuga is filing the complaint against Borsoka but, you're right, diffs (evidence) are essential in evaluating this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, you are right, dumb mistake by me, but my opinion on the subject is still the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the talkpage in question and Vasile iuga's prior contributions, I have blocked him under WP:CIR. He evidently lacks the skills to write coherent English, make his views adequately understood and uphold a civilized discussion without descending into personal attacks and bogus "vandalism" accusations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may make a remark, I have been desperately trying to persuade Vasile iuga to seek assistance either from members of WikiProject Romania [239], [240] [241] or in the Teahouse [242], because he obviously does not understand the basic rules of our community, as it is demonstrated, for instance, by his following remarks: [243], [244], [245]. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Nishidani

I am concerned that a troll may have hijacked User:Nishidani's identity (his user page was recently blanked). A comment was recently placed on his talk page in which he appears to refer to himself as "genocidal anti-Semitic propagandist Nishidani who is hired by Hamas to spread Pallywood lies about Jews" [246]. This links to a diff, apparently designed to place Nishidani in a bad light [247]. His user page has been restored to its old form after he requested its deletion. A couple of minor, but odd, edits have been made by "Nishidani" since the restoration of the user page. I may be overly-anxious about this, but it is there a chance that another user has been able to recreate the Nishidani identity? I should note that Nishidani does sometimes document nasty comments made about himself, so I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PB for that oversight, but I blanked the page as a result of User:Johnuniq's advice, which was accompanied I think by a suggestion I then restore it in due course, without the (contentious) defense of my reputation which headed it in response to consistent and regular innuendoes made against me over the years. Today, I got the usual edit summary attack after I reverted the abusive removal of solidly sourced text at the Jewish Anti-Defamation League Page, and was immediately reverted. 'here we go again', I thought. I didn't expunge that revert, thinking someone would do it automatically. As it stayed up for a while, I thought,'Well time to register that this still goes on, and get my editing record back, shorn of my defense, on the homepage, with a note on the talk page (I'm bad at diff research, and like to keep a personal track of these things, in case the obvious needs documenting). That's all: had no intention to stir controversy, or whatever. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, much ado about nowt then. But you really should restore the deleted colon at Talk:Jewish deicide [248]. What were you thinking? Paul B (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't 'thinking' or perhaps I unconsciously dislike colonization? . .Thanks for the tip-off. As the edit summary shows, I'm getten old. Ah, if only we had more 'close readers' around. Will do. Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FaterNatan editing

Dear Sir, Madam,

I am being accused of "vandalism" by a Wikipedia partial User-Inspector > who erase my posts. I am a Sorbonne Scholar and I have been working for 30 years on the Location of the Real Site of the Temple of Jerusalem (2.500 pages with reliable sources) www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org I dont want to force anybody to be convinced by my discoveries. I just wish my point of view to be known, even if it is not conventional, but just common sense. I will give you one simple example : The Second Temple (Hasmonean) was completely destroyed by Herod -including its foundations > and Herod built an entirely New Temple : Therefore, I just say that Herod Temple should be called "The Third Temple". Is such a common sense affirmation "vandalism" for Wikipedia ? In other words > can I contribute to Wikipedia -with my erudite discoveries in History and Archaeology of the Temple of Jerusalem- and will the User-Inspector stop to erase my Contributions ? Thanks FaterNatan — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaterNatan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are not vandalism, but we don't allow original research in Wikipedia articles. It is an encyclopedia and so all content must be sourced to reliable sources. I'm sure you are doing good research, but your website does not count as a reliable source. I suggest reading up on Wikipedia policy and don't hesitate to ask for advice from me or other editors.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations at Chooriyan

I didn't want to bring this here, but I'm not sure how else to resolve this. In this edit, Meenalraut (talk · contribs) removed a copyvio tag added by CorenSearchBot without fixing the issue. After I removed the copyright violation, he began edit warring to restore it: first time and second time. I have asked him on his talk page to stop restoring the copyright violation to no avail. I guess there could be a language barrier, but given the number of license warning templates on his talk page, I don't think Meenalraut cares much about copyright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate or anyone, Can you provide evidence to show that this is Copyvio?

Meenalraut or anyone, Can you provide an argument to indicate that it isn't? If it is decided that it is copy vio can you give assurances that this behaviour will stop?

Thanks. GregKaye 18:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said, CorenSearchBot tagged it. If you click the link, the bot cites this page as the original source. I've since located another copyright violation at Solid Patels from the IMDB. I'm guessing there are more beyond that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

New Bowei Huang 2 sockpuppet needs blocking

Currently at the ref desk we've got a user:Gyotu posting almost verbatim copies of prior questions posted by Fivult who is an indeffed sock of the User:Bowei Huang 2.

See, for example, this post by Fivult:"God and the Devil are opposites? In order for two things to be opposites, they must be equal. If they are not equal, then they are not opposites. God and the Devil are not equal. How can God and the Devil be opposites if they are not equal? Fivult (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)"

and the identical post on God and the Devil by User:Gyotu: "God and the Devil are not opposites? God is good. The Devil is evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. Aren't God and the Devil opposites just as and in the same way as good and evil are opposites?"

This question on Christianity and political causes diff follows the same modus operandi.

Can someone please nip this in the bud? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The user makes no real attempt to hide who he is. I don't think he's been formally banned yet. He should be. Because then his junk could be reverted on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive new editor who's been warned a couple of times on other things.

The latest by Dayquill. Take a look at his Talk page too, just a list of warnings and he's only contributed 5 things. Block for a month? --A21sauce (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

World Passport

Isn't the article, or at least most of the content thereof, on the World Passport, itself falls under "primary (original) research", "advocacy, propaganda or recruitment", "advertising, marketing or public relation" as well as "content [...] violates [or likely to violate] [...] the laws of the United States [of America]", because it is essentially a self-help manual for the citizens of the United States of America on how to break immigration and other laws of foreign Countries, by means of active misrepresentation? -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)