Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [1] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [2] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [3], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [4] [5]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched : ? 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [6], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [7] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [8] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [9] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [10] which I restored [11]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[12] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[13] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [14], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [15], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [16], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [17]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[18] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [19] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [20], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [21]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[22]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon ^talk 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a dumb idea. I've edited quite responsibly in the SCW&ISIL area for several years. I have started and built out a number of good articles there, have no record of edit warring sanctions there, and regularly patrol changes and revert vandalism in this area. Large parts of both the text and organization of the pillar ISIL article still stand as written and organized by me last year. Some people don't like my cleanup efforts but targeting my participation in ISIL topics is wrong headed.

I'm also surprised to see WV still posting in this thread after he failed to answer for his own behavior just above, claiming he was too busy. Someone should look at his falsifications and act on them. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Within the context of the behavioral issues that have been raised, starting a response to another editor with "what a dumb idea" may underscore that this is not such a dumb idea after all. Just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh. [23] kettles, pots and all. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The formal proposal is in revisions history. Feel free to use it. But it won't have my support until any of the sides properly establish their viewpoints. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you providing a better worded proposal QEDK. I agree it's preferable to the current version, as it's more precise and fairer to Legacypac as it leaves less ambiguity, but I'd rather defer to another editor to introduce it as I'd rather not become more involved in this than I am already. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can introduce a proposal, however only uninvolved editors can close it. That's how it works. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I've noticed that you've nominated a bunch of redirects by Neelix for speedy deletion, branding them as nonsense. Why? They seem perfectly fine to me. Neelix is an experienced editor who clearly knows why such redirects are required. I therefore support the CBAN proposed by LavaBaron as I think you need to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Chesnaught (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Neelix disappeared up his own orifice in a blaze of self-failure, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Ches doesn't know it, he must be living under a Wiki-rock. Even so, it does seem at this point, from the edit summaries as well as the fervor behind the deletion nominations by this one editor, that there is an unhealthy flavor of vendetta afoot. Just my observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'A bunch' of Neelix redirects is a very unfair characterization. I processed (CSD, RfD, AfD, or cleared as ok) over 2,200 Neelix redirects just this weekend on list 5 so far [24]. [25] plus some on lists 1-4 too. You must have missed the community decision that any Neelix redirect can be deleted G6 housekeeping if an Admin thinks it would not survive RfD.

Also Someone should look into WV's false allegations above since he keeps spouting nonsense about me here please. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Legacypac's incessant breast-beating and pronouncements of their editing's importance, their efforts are proving indiscriminate, disruptive and spiteful. Just a few minutes ago, Legacypac reinstated a pair of speedies I declined without substantive explanation, without bothering to check out the reason I gave, with a snarky (at best) edit summary. It's one thing to whack Neelix's hundreds of synonyms for female mammaries; it's quite another to aggressively try to delete redirects like "possession of a firearm", when the simplest Gsearch would shows several million uses, included frequent references in US statutes and court cases. Their jihad is more disruptive than the problem; the reason that nobody noticed Neelix's crap for years was that it was mostly harmless. That can't be said about Legacypac's behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the reinstatements and thought of coming here to mention them, but am glad someone else took the initiative. At this point, yes, the Neelix-related deletion requests by LP do seem spiteful and disruptive. As I noted above. Is his war on Neelix really doing any good at this point? I submit, "No". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just a gentle reminder, this isn't the place to "pile on" against Legacypac. Please clearly state whether you Support or Oppose the Community Ban proposal, preferably with a bullet point and bold, in the main threadline, for ease of bookkeeping. LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for late reply. Lugnuts, of course I am aware of Neelix's departure, but as Winkelvi was saying, LP does seem to be on a vendetta against him for some reason. Chesnaught (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vendetta - there is still a BIG cleanup job to do. Neelix created thousands of fake words and other misleading redirects. It remains easy to pick off dozens of these in minutes. Editors that are spending their time bitching here instead of cleaning up or doing something productive should be ashamed of themselves for they truly are the proverbial peanut gallery. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of language won't help you out at all here. Furthermore, these redirects that you are nominating for SD aren't always the malicious ones which Neelix created; some of them were actually fine. Chesnaught (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The VAST majority of my noms are deleted. Sometimes others see stuff that can be retargeted or think something should be saved. That is why we have Redirects for Discussion. I don't see a result of not delete as a failure.

Regarding Legacypac's apparent "vendetta" against Neelix redirects, there are some 80,000 nonsense creations by that one editor which the community agreed needed to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion (rather than mass-deleting all of them, and rather than keeping all of them as good-faith contributions). To support this, the community also passed a special criterion for WP:G6 to allow admins to speedy-delete them. Both of these discussions were large threads with broad community support, not just one or two editors deciding to go rogue. This was happening entirely in the background until about a week ago when a handful of editors began executing their own vendetta against Legacypac, following him around removing his CSD notices, and that's the entirety of the reason that these masses of obvious-delete redirects are getting dumped at RfD again (and then speedy deleted anyway). So if you want to end the disruption entirely, stop removing the notices. I have no comment on the proposal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This edit, with the summary "the peanut gallery can choke on their nuts" is probably enough to convince any rational editor that a CBAN is necessary for Legacypac. The pattern of abusive personal attacks and provocations has gone one far too long. An editor that has no qualms dragging any and every editor who differs wih him to ANI or Arbitration Enforcement on a daily basis should realize that he has been hit by a long overdue WP:BOOMERANG. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alansohn. Despite the issues being brought to the attention of the user, they continue with the same behaviour that brought their habits to the attention of ANI. And Legacypac should count himself lucky it's not a block/lenghty ban/indef. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors calls other editors SCUM and FUCK on the top of their talk User_talk:Lugnuts should not be talking about bans over civility. Anyway I was already blocked for complaining about Lugnuts rudeness, so punishing me again because he is still annoyed at me taking him to AE is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling any editors scum, if you take your head out of your arse, you'll see it links to a highly funny TV show. Yes it fucking does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ~~ban~~ block of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, but topic bans are NOT a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh 666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proposal for a topic ban, but rather a community ban. Ches (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a proposal for a WP:CBAN topic ban from pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as I quoted above - you may find it helpful to review WP:CBAN. This raises the question of what it is that you are supporting. Is it a topic ban from WP:GS/SCW&ISIL pages, or a complete ban from Wikipedia for continuing to clean up Neelix's redirects? NebY (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The former, sir, although given LP's recent bullying of other users, I would be in support of the latter should it ever be proposed. Ches (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LP is on the right side of the Neelix redirect issue. He is explicitly carrying out the stated view of the community. I've had occasion to see Legacypac in action over the last several months because of our mutual interest in pruning the WALLEDGARDEN of "World's Oldest People" articles. LP is often brusque and snarky but generally right. His contributions are a boon to the project. It is not a violation of civility to call dumb ideas dumb, nor is it unconstructive to ridicule the ridiculous. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. So if you act like an uncivil ****, but hunker down with a thankless task in the meantime, you get a free pass. Glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't strike me as a reasonable recapitulation of my comments. Nor of LP's behavior. Which is unsurprising, but still sad. David in DC (talk)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. ~~The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months.~~ Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

Here
here
here
here
further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.***

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

Dishonesty is on display above, where Jytdog, for the umpteenth time, attempts to reframe a straightforward situation as something else convoluted and 'out of bounds'. The straightforward situation is that I replaced what I perceive (per the ¶ above) to be an "unfounded personal attack" on me with that phrase. I could have used {{rpa}} but wanted different wording. This straightforward action was reverted by Vanjagenije and I was threatened with an immediate block if I removed his personal attack on me again. This is bullying. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether that was a personal attack. I don't think reasonable people would disagree that threatening someone with an immediate block for removing what they feel and can reasonably seen to be a personal attack is reasonable. And its particularly inappropriate of an admin, because we expect them to behave better than average editors and not to act when involved, and here, the attack was by the admin, Vanjagenije. SlimVirgin agrees that he should have considered himself involved.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... the prototype Mk I?

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, The Bushranger? I thought this was ANI. Would you be willing to answer my questions: "Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?"--Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the main issue: If I'm in violation of my TP ban because I discussed Formerly 98, as Jytdog claims, then Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban for doing the same. If not addressed here, it becomes ripe forWP:AE. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for admins to enforce policies on the folks they don't see as sharing their POV, only, and call requests for evenhandedness "disruptive"? Seems to be. :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I renew my request that Jytdog to acknowledge the violation, or dispute it. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is without merit. Discussing an editor and his reasons for his behavior around his username/account, and what the community should do about that, have nothing to do with my TBAN. I have not touched on the topic of my TBAN since it was imposed, except at Arbcom. This is a transparent and weak effort at retaliation that is yet more evidence of your generally disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?!~~ That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Wikipedia and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just a note. As he did in the last ANI that led to his TBAN from COI, Elvey has mostly gone to ground, per his contribs (although there is this strange bit of activity with a doppelganger account per Special:Contributions/Elveyzilla). I am grateful for the (mostly) lack of drama but this matter does need closing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am concerned that the Elveyzilla activity looks like a possible attack/research page, because it seems to be a copy of the talk page of another user (with the use of a transparent "zilla" alternate account to disingenuously deflect attention from the main account). I am going to ping Alexbrn, and perhaps take the page to MfD. This is yet another concern that I wish administrators would pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently on a public computer and I don't have access to my account. Back in November I noticed that after a self-imposed 2 month break Elvey immediately went back to editing against their ban. I compiled a draft ANI proposal in my userspace here. I will add further comments when I am back at my home computer. I will also bring the links from my sandbox to this discussion with commentary at that time. Adam in MO via --75.132.99.164 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've spent half an hour reading but i still cannot figure out the reason for the initial ban, and it strikes me as over-reach. Anyway, i'm not sure what to make of this but continuing to watch and try to understand this inscrutable case. What's it about in a nutshell? Is there a summary anywhere? SageRad (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the intital case (linked in my OP) because Elvey was disruptively interacting with other editors here over COI issues. I asked for a topic ban and he behaved in such a way that he came within a hair of more serious sanctions, but came away with that. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose the following resolution:

Elvey is reminded that accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. The "pharma shill gambit" has no place on Wikipedia. Any future accusations of COI must be made at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:COIN, must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle with that Guy but thank you for commenting! has been wind whistling here...... Elvey was already TBANed by the community for acting disruptively in COI matters, and he went right back to it, behaving inappropriately yet more. Your proposal in response to that, replaces the TBAN with something weaker... how that is consistent with anything we do here? Or maybe you think the original TBAN was inappropriate? These are real questions. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against Sorry, Guy, but that is a terrible idea. We need to move toward stronger action. A community ban is needed here. If we aren't going to give our TBANs any teeth then why have them. Elvey has walked through this COI Tban on multiple occasions and a community failure here would endorse more disruptive behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as a step backwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate. While this discussion arose out of violations of a specific topic ban (re COI), the general problem, as stated at the TBAN, is hounding, and, as noted in this discussion, general behavior across serveral topics. If Elvey only needed reminding of proper behavior a few words would be suffice. That they haven't shows that the problem is deeper than addressed by a mere reminder. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose user is in clear violation of an existing community sanction. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I "do not know and cannot claim to know" [35], [36] whether you're lying. But if I were to repeat that phrase twice in a thread, in consecutive replies, it might look like I was calling you a liar, merely by calling attention to the question of whether you're lying. I think that you would be justified in interpreting it that way. However, SlimVirgin and Drmies might not agree. Likewise, by drawing attention to the fact that Monsanto has deep pockets in three consecutive replies, right after mentioning an editor that was ostensibly protecting their interests, doing this three times,[37], [38], highlighting it in a nice green color, and especially juxtaposing it with a statement that it's some kind of mystery why that editor supposedly protects someone's interests, it certainly looks like you're calling that editor a shill. This could be some sort of accident on your part. Maybe those particular keystrokes are soothing in some way. It could be that this "deep pockets" thing is some kind of tic or compulsion or some sort of poetry that I'll never be able to appreciate. Whatever. I also don't know why the admins don't see what I'm pointing out here. I know what I'm seeing, but all that can be done is to point it out, and then shut up about it if it doesn't get traction. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. Any future accusations of COI must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. No one claims COIN has no issues that hinder its effectiveness and evenhandedness.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per prop prokaryotes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

Proposal Elvey is community banned for 3 months with the standard offer for failing to abide by community consensus regarding their COI related edits. In addition to a continued ban on COI, Elvey is banned from participating in SPI related discussion, broadly construed. Elvey can come back to the community after 6 months and make their case for the TBANs to be lifted.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. To be clear, I understand this to be a community-imposed site ban for 3 months, with topic bans about both COI and SPI (I assume that meant SPI, not SPA), both broadly construed, with the option to appeal the topic bans in not less than 6 months from now. I believe that this is the proper response in the context of the previous community topic ban and the subsequent conduct, and a necessary step to let the rest of us get back to peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the proposal to SPI. My mistake. Good catch. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the next step. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - given this, a reasonable action for clear violations of current sanctions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP, and I am fine with this. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to respond adequately while I'm under the ban. However, I've apologized - on this page - for the COI related edits I made. Jytdog claims I didn't even acknowledge them; that's another in a long line of false accusations by Jytdog, which seem to work so well. I was topic banned largely for objecting to misleading presentations of evidence regarding my posts on COI matters. So objecting to the flaws in evidence in this case seems likely to be similalry futile or counterproductive, irrespective of the flaws, anyway. Feels unfair to be facing such a perfect storm.

I have a history of conflict with voters J. Johnson (at Earthquake prediction, where he is very frequently in conflict with other editors), Jytdog, Adamfinmo and Tryptofish. Some of them regularly work closely to support each other or the same status quo POV (which I'm sure they will all agree is a NPOV.)

I see no discussion here justifying the a ban from SPI related discussion, broadly construed. I object to that as unreasonable. I responded, as did SlimVirgin; see ***, above.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that we "regularly work closely to support each other", , you are just continuing the conduct that brought you here. Editors can agree with each other without actually editing in a coordinated way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey certainly does have a history of conflict; that is why we are here. His statement that "some" of us (who, precisely?) "regularly work closely to support each other" is not only false, it is prime example of where he attacks editors rather than positions, and a manifest violation of WP:AGF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, I didn't say and don't think that you regularly work closely to support those other users, but could have been clearer. I said you are very frequently in conflict with other editors at Earthquake prediction.

I ask the closer of this (and others) to make note of the way these three users ignore the words "Some" and "or" that surround that misquote. Context matters and yes, I could have been clearer. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could have been clearer, but you were not, and I think that was deliberate. To avoid making an actually false statement you imply that I am part of some cabal, which amounts to deception. If part of your defense against the charge of a TBAN violation is that you are being oppressed by cabal you need to provide specific evidence (such as diffs), not disingenuous aspersions. BTW, which "misquote" are refering to? Tryptofish and I both quote exactly your very words some half dozen lines above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal adds confusion to confusion. I've tried to read the August 2015 discussion in which Elvey was topic-banned, following a proposal by Jytdog, but I can't understand it. (Pinging Drmies, who closed it.) It appears that Elvey was banned from Wikipedia discussions about WP:COI. Now Jytdog is back, asking for a total ban because Elvey allegedly violated the topic ban. But he wasn't banned from editing articles about physicians who have challenged COI within the drug industry, etc, which it seems is being used against him. And this comment, which is being cited to support a ban, is ambiguous; I don't read it as a COI accusation. When a comment is ambiguous, we ought not to rely on it to ban someone from Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal here was not proposed by Jytdog, so he should not be made the issue. It looks to me that there is a pretty strong consensus in these discussions that there was nothing ambiguous about the glyphosate comments. Artful, perhaps, but very clearly intended to paint Boghog, a good editor, in just the way that ArbCom has said is unacceptable. It's fine if you have a dissenting view of those comments, but it is a dissenting view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog opened the thread and proposed a six-month ban here. When that wasn't supported, someone else proposed a three-month ban instead. But that Elvey should be banned stems from Jytdog, as did the topic ban in August that Elvey has now supposedly violated. A better solution, if one is needed, might simply be to ask Elvey and Jytdog to avoid one another. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we tried asking Elvey to abide by his TBAN? I provided nearly half a dozen diffs of Elvey blowing through their tban. Asking them to follow the rules doesn't work. It is time to give teeth to the community consensus and let Elvey cool their heals somewhere else for a little while.--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I don't have much of an opinion on the ANI thread I closed--just doing my job, I suppose. However, I agree with you that the one comment on Talk:Glyphosate isn't as unambiguous as it's made out to be. There are more diffs listed below, in a post by Adam in MO, and I don't see it there either. Maybe there's violations in an extended context, but that's too extended for me. I see the violations in the edits to the COI template, sure, but those are from October and the editor was warned. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the reply. If we ignore the diffs from October, where he was warned, we're left with him having edited David Healy (psychiatrist) (who writes about COI in the drug industry) – and I believe mainspace editing isn't covered by the topic ban – and the disputed, I would say ambiguous, diff. Also, Adamfinmo, you seem to have focused quite a bit on Elvey recently, and Elvey doesn't respond well to that. His responses attract more attention, and so on, and here we are. If Elvey and the editors in dispute with him could minimize their interactions, that might be all that's needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You will remember that I commented recently that you might be finding GMO-2 on your plate sometime. Let's try not to let things go that far. I'm not sure how much you read of the diffs that I posted, but please let me run this by you: "You, Drmies, must have atrocious reading skills, because we must not excuse Elvey simply because we want to cast aspersions on big companies with deep pockets." OK, I don't actually mean that, but I suggest that you look again at the diffs I posted, with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diffs you gave earlier--it's a lot of diffs, but it's just one discussion. I do not see there what you want me to see, which is a violation of a topic ban. Also, I cannot really parse your hypothetical insult; too complex for me. There are reasons, I suppose, why one would want Elvey chastised--rudeness, a poor sentence here and there, an obsession with a particular former editor--but I don't see evidence for this particular charge. In addition, the way to prevent ArbCom from having to deal with this or that is not to ban an editor. If there is consensus that Elvey's behavior make them impossible to work with or whatever, propose that--but I cannot see evidence of a topic ban being violated in the Glyphosate discussion (which, by the way, does not lack editors who act like what in worms is "a pore on the worm's side"). Drmies (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I am pretty confused by what you write, as Elvey has continuously violated his topic ban since it was imposed. I reminded him of his TBAN when I am saw him violating it and that led me to go look for others. I haven't posted this before, but his response to my warning was typical - he basically copied/pasted what I wrote and thew it back at me with regard to my TBAN. When he blew of my reminder (as he had the warning from the admin before back in November) and continued dealing in COI-related matters in WP I gathered diffs going back to October and presented this case. He has clearly blown off the TBAN on a regular basis, and more recently his pursuit of an editor for socking (whom Elvey was convinced was editing under a COI), disrupted things at SPI so much that Elvey was barred by Vanjagenije from participating further. Elvey's continued disruption around COI matters and his ignoring of the TBAN is so clear... Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the confusion. Tryptofish asked me to look at some diffs, and I did. I see no violation in those diffs. Their throwing your accusation back at you--that may be rude, or maybe it's appropriate, I don't know, but it's not a violation of this specific topic ban. Now, you all should really leave me out of this: I have nothing to add, I am not aware of these conversations, I don't know Elvey from Adam (I think--certainly from Adam in Missouri). It's not me you need to convince; it's other editors, and you'll need some diffs that are stronger than a rather cryptic comment about deep pockets. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let it go after you told me that you don't see what I see, and I agree with you that this isn't about convincing you. (And I think I parsed that thing about worm anatomy.) It's a tough thing about Wikipedia: one of us can feel like they see something as plain as the day, and someone else just doesn't see it at all. And I wasn't simply talking about the community topic ban, but also the DS from ArbCom, so see: this. But for the benefit of whoever it might clarify things, here is what my pseudo-insult was intended to convey: Elvey shouted, repeatedly, that I and other editors lack simple reading comprehension skills, on a page where ArbCom imposed DS. Set aside anything about the TBAN on COI, do we really want that kind of editing environment? Did anything I said or that Boghog said justify that? It's an understatement to pass that off as "rudeness". And I cannot imagine how anything about "protecting companies with deep pockets" means anything other than editors who are "shills" per that ArbCom link I just gave. Do editors protect companies with deep pockets because of editorial judgment? Perhaps someone would protect companies against inaccurate negative material, but the "deep pockets" stuff is clearly an appeal to think that this is paid editing. What is happening is that editors learned from GMO-1 not to say outright that an editor is working for Monsanto, so they have cleverly figured out that if they say it more vaguely, then folks like Drmies won't get it. But that is clearly what happened. And I sure hope that we will nip it in the bud. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Drmies didn't review the case from the very top. Makes sense now. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct: I looked at what I thought I was asked to look at. I see your points about the "deep pockets", of course, but it's vague--that companies have deep pockets is no secret, but a COI allegation should not be about who has the pockets or how deep they are, but about who receives what allegedly comes out of certain pockets of a certain depth. And I am loath, in this case, to impose a harsh penalty on a phrase like that. Again, I understand some of the frustration, I think, and it is entirely possible that some kind of restriction needs to be imposed, but I can't impose this restriction for this offense. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that Drmies. If you are willing, I would appreciate it if you would review from the top, and I think that given the context what Trypto is saying might make more sense to you. Thanks for tolerating the request, even if you don't want to. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watching this from a distance, i am happy to hear this sentiment from Drmies. A specific accusation of COI is one thing, whereas a general statement that there may be an industry agenda at work somewhere is another thing. However, in the course of a dialog about article content there is no place for either, i would think, except for general comments on the shape and trajectory of an article through time. Same would go for saying that "activists" are working on an agenda, as well, for accusations and aspersions of these kinds definitely go both ways. Whether or not the accusation involves money, it still refers to motivations other than good encyclopedic work. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, Tryptofish, I see the problem with the three or so edits from early January. I do not agree that the Healy edits are a violation, and I do not see the problem with this edit and this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'll try to provide more context.

First let me just note on Elvey's perspective on his topic ban, here:

And Jytdog got me topic banned because I kept on accurately describing what a policy said and people who didn't want me to do that called that disruptive.

So in his view, he did nothing wrong. Which is why, I reckon, he has ignored the TBAN.

One set of his TBAN violations (not all of them) arise because he thinks Formerly 98 (who no longer edits here, for reasons external to WP that affected his ability to be present here, and led him to try (badly) to "vanish" - he ended up violating SOCK) Elvey pursued an SPI against Formerly fiercely, driven by his conviction that Formerly (and I) are pharma shills. Elvey brought up COI matters explicitly in the SPI: dif. As I linked above, Elvey pursued the SPI so fiercely that he got banned from the investigation by Vanjagenije. The discussion where Elvey became disruptive is mostly on the Talk page of the SPI, here.

in this dif at the SPI he makes it clear that he is movitated by fighting pharma shills, which in WP is all about COI.

and here again on SlimVirgin's Talk page where he wrote:
What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic.

and that leads to the first dif you said you don't see as relevant, where he wrote:
I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added.
The PARADIGM-HF trial made big news, and is the trial that was eventually used to get Valsartan/sacubitril approved as a drug. There was ~some~ controversy about the design of that trial, and the anti-pharma brigade tried to make a big deal out of it in the WP article about the drug. Formerly and I tamped that down. Elvey later came by and opened a section on the Talk page called "This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug (that is a dif to the Talk page) - it is the only thing there. And you can see that Elvey is in pursuit of pharma shills - in other words, COI editing in WP. So that is what the first dif is about. btw The material I added that Elvey called "promotional" was a quote by Steven Nissen, a fierce critic of the behavior of pharma companies, who said the drug was a "a truly a breakthrough approach" and its approval was the most important event in cardiology last year.

about the second diff, he wrote there
The way in which Jytdog stubbornly refused to acknowledge, well, anything, at the discussion you linked to (that he, oddly, excised from an article talk page!!!)) shows how extreme his editing is. ....“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
— [[User:Upton Sinclair]]
With what I have written here, can you see that he is accusing me of being a paid editor, on the pharmaceutical industry's payroll? I struggle to see how that is not within his TBAN.

About Healy... that is arguable. Elvey's TBAN is for COI, broadly construed. Healy writes about COI in medicine all the time, and thinks that is why SSRIs are still on the market. Elvey's edit to the Healy article was adding a "bombshell" (his words) article by Healy about COI in medicine. The exact thing he has been focused on here in WP for the last month. In my view it is all of one piece.

Finally, here is a random diff (of the many that exist) of Elvey stomping right on his topic ban, addressed to me, ironically, under the section header "Paid Advocacy Editing by SPA HealthMonitor":
Jytdog - Belated ping. I bet you can't get the community to take action against SPA HealthMonitor, who has a disclosed FCOI and blows off that "should not"

Do things look at all different now? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (note, added a bit. not REDACTing since no one has responded Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Unclear why SPI ban, and 3 month ban for 2 talk page comments, after warning, proposal to far reaching. prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done your homework. Here is Elvey's very first edit upon coming back from a self imposed break, a violation of the TBAN. Here is another. Three more times, in the same conversation. Then I warned them. An Elvy continued. How much evidence do you need that Elvey doesn't give a hoot about their TBAN or the consensus of this community? --Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, Jytdog who brought this here, gave E a warning on Jan 14 2016, after this i saw two comments on a talk page, as discussed above. After this i am not aware that he/she continued. prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the original post, Elvey blew off the TBAN early and never stopped - not after he was warned by and admin and not after I reminded him, and even just a few hours ago per this. He cannot let it go. 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are gabs, [redacted, do not link to external archives of deleted content this here is evidence for COI], which should be investigated by SPI, see also this IP edit. also i see that you seem to be involved. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact many of the people who are involved here are also very much the same people involved in the related ANI/COI thing. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic from Elvey's behavior and this proposal. You are not addressing his behavior. Of course I am subject to boomerang; please address that above if that is where you want to go. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't "many" of the people here come from the COI venue? That is his most recent area of activity and where the topic ban came from, and it is to be expected that the people there are most cognizant of that situation. (I note that one of Elvey's frequent complaints is being judged by editors and admins who are "involved", as if any kind of adverse interaction with him should preclude future comment.) On the other hand, I have absolutely no prior involvement with any COI or pharam topic. My involvement here arises out of similar behavior by Elvey in a totally different topic. Note also the new (23:20) comment by 80.44.144.26 at the bottom of #Related problems, alleging similar conduct at Carlos Castaneda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson (JJ), I went to the page and guess what. There is this edit which seems to have been contested by 2 IPs. And then wasn't contested later by other editors, talk is only brief, and besides that appears to be a valid content addition. That people are involved here and in similar disputes is foremost an observation. I value the judgement of uninvolved editors more, given the conflicts and degrees of involvement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is uncivil behavior acceptable if one happens to be "right"? I take no position on the content disputes at Carlos Castaneda, or on the clean-handedness of the editors involved, but point out that on the talk page there Elvey exhibits the same uncivil behavior that got him into trouble at COI. I quote some of his comments: "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."; "There is no excuse for your removal .... What blatant example of bias that is. Thanks for making it so blatantly obvious."; "What part of ... do you not understand?"; "I don't believe a word of what you've said, either about the article or Sampson and I don't care to spend the time to verify it."; and (again) "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."

Your position has a tautological exclusion problem: totally "uninvolved" editors, having no interaction with Elvey, likely have no basis of complaint, and thus no reason to be here, while anyone who has been "involved" is (in his view) tainted, and shouldn't be listened to. While most of the people here might have a bone to pick with him, that is very the point: the community finds him to be very aggravating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, prokaryotes. All the misrepresentation makes the closer's job a lot harder and a lot more time consuming. I don't envy their position. I ask the closer to speak about the accuracy of the accusations each participant has made - where did and didn't context make what seemed like a valid accusation turn out to be invalid, when investigated? I see allegations by supporters and opposers being challenged on this front. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What misrepresentation? The quotes are accurate, and your comments are prima facie uncivil. If you think there is some context that justifies such language you are free to demonstrate that, but you have not. And without that you are just blowing more smoke. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The above conversations show continued poor behavior across the board even being under topic ban. That this has occurred in multiple topics drives that point home. In the instances pointed out at the glyphosate article, their behavior also violates the spirit one of the ArbCom principles related to aspersions.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions. Issues in other topics unrelated to that only compound the issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the wording community banned for 3 months with the standard offer confusing. I can interpret it in two ways:

The user is banned for three months. During that period, accepting the standard offer may result in the user being unbanned immediately. If the standard offer isn't accepted, the user is automatically unbanned after three months.
The user is banned indefinitely. After a period of three months, he may be unbanned if the standard offer is accepted.

If the original topic ban conditions are unclear, then it would be good if this discussion clarifies these conditions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, Case number 1 was my intention. When Elvey was initially TBAN they placed themselves on a voluntary block for 2 months. It was my intention to mirror this.--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard offer is that, after six months with no socking, the user can return if they "promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban [and] [d]on't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." The six-month period can be adjusted, but what does it mean in the context of a three-month ban proposal? If he says after 12 hours that he promises to avoid, etc, could he be unblocked? And given that he has already said it, can the ban not be avoided altogether?

Adam, it seems to me that, if Elvey says "I did not intend to violate the t-ban but undertake to make stronger efforts not to appear to do so in future," and if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well, and we can close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV that statement would not be an accurate representation of his past behavior. He has disregarded the ban, clearly discussed and brought up and tried to address COI matters, and in addition has disrupted SPI while doing so - and disruption when dealing with COI matters is what got him banned in the first place. The community might want to consider closing this without action if he wrote something like: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I disrupted SPI while trying to get an editor blocked who I am convinced was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward, and I will not argue about the community taking action if I violate my topic ban again." And by the way I do not seek Elvey out - he came after drug articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, applying or reversing blocks are always up to the administrators. When Elvey first received their TBAN they went on a self-imposed 2 month block. The 3 months, here proposed, were mean to mirror that. I have no intention of interacting with Elvey going forward, as long as their edits remain within community consensus. That consensus appears to be that Elvey should not discuss, comment on, or edit anywhere near COI issue, nor should they be involved in any SPI related discussion, at all. Elvey is a good editor. They have a contentiousness and attention to detail that I'd like to see more widely utilized. But until they are willing to work collaboratively and to stop the contentious edits, it won't be possible for them to utilize their full potential.--Adam in MO Talk 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, he didn't (so far as I recall) mention COI during the SPI, and indeed didn't at first realize who was behind the IP addresses. The concern was advocacy and the use of several accounts/IPs.

Adam, quite a lot of your edits seem to be related to Elvey, so it would be a good idea to reduce that interaction. At Clear aligners, for example, Elvey added a section on price, which was helpful. You arrived shortly afterwards and removed it, along with a section others had added on the same issue, even though you hadn't edited that article before. [39] (I noticed this only because I've edited that page too, so there may be other examples.) If Elvey sees himself as being pursued, even if you don't intend that, he'll respond poorly and we'll be back here again soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: doesn't your suggestion that "if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well" also run the other way? That is, why not have Elvey reduce his interactions with others? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson, yes, indeed, it works both ways. The diffs I've looked have involved people arriving at pages Elvey was editing, but if he's doing the same thing to others, that should stop too. If everyone involved in this keeps interactions to a minimum, things will improve, and if problems continue despite that, you can always raise it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does, where he typically charges the other editor(s) that object as WP:OWNing the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slimvirgin Elvey brought up COI matters in his pursuit of Formerly (I just mentioned these above, but am repeating them here as this has become a sprawl):

dif. That one is dead on:
This person has claimed to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet recently claimed working (per User_Talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts AND has claimed to have never been paid for editing AND have no COI with respect to pharmaceutical companies.
Elvey's focus on what he believes to be a COI issue with Formerly is explicit there.

in this dif he brings the "pharma shill gambit" which in WP is all about COI.

and here again on your own Talk page where he wrote:
What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary".
That is also pharma shill gambit, which is about COI. I know you agree that Formerly was a pharma shill, as you wrote here at the SPI. But you are not topic banned from COI matters; Elvey is. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, my concern at the SPI was the combination of advocacy and avoidance of scrutiny. Whether COI was behind it, I don't know ("editing in the interests of" was in the sense of "for the benefit of").

Regarding Elvey's diffs, I don't see it in the second or third, but I do see it in the first diff. That seems to be a topic-ban violation, if the ban was on discussing Wikipedia and COI. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SV, thanks for acknowledging the TBAN violation in the first dif (and btw his TBAN is "COI, broadly construed". Here is the closed ANI if you need to review that). The 2nd dif I cited was sprawling, and I should quoted the relevant bit which is "

the sock, which is infamous for scrubbing articles of information critical of big pharma,...

". In my view, the 2nd and 3rd diffs clearly describing the "pharma shill" claim, in light of the first, show clearly that Elvey was in pursuit of an editor he believed was editing articles under a COI (in the pay of the pharma industry). About your comment, where you wrote

This user edits in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and avoids scrutiny by swapping accounts and IPs.

....you are very well acquainted with the COI guideline as you have made 459 edits to it. You know very well the distinctions we make between advocacy and COI, and the language you elected to use there, as you attempted to persuade the people to working at SPI to take action, is very much the language of COI.

As I said, you are free to do that, as you have no TBAN for COI matters. And in any case, sharing a perspective with Elvey, that Formerly was harming WP by editing in the interest of the pharma industry, should not affect your judgement with regard to the fact that Elvey has continually violated his TBAN and, as he did before, was disruptive in doing so, now in yet another venue.

The community has found that Elvey becomes disruptive when he deals with COI matters and it has become clear that he cannot seem to be restrain himself from addressing COI matters. Proposal two is entirely normal in this kind of situation, which is why the consensus of !votes actually looking at his behavior is supporting it. Please reconsider yours.

Editors like Elvey who cannot deal with COI matters well and become disruptive in addressing them, harm the overall effort to address COI in WP, as their behavior gives fodder to those in the community who oppose efforts to better manage COI here. That is why I care about this. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I know very well. If I felt convinced that that editor had a COI I would say so; at times I've thought so and at other times not. And that is not the topic of this discussion.

Re: Elvey, I couldn't support a three-month ban on the basis of that. Bear in mind that when Elvey opened the SPI, he didn't know who was behind the edits. The issue with Elvey is not that he doesn't deal well with COI. It's that he doesn't deal well with issues he feels aren't being addressed properly, or where he feels he's being ganged up on. During the SPI, he began to think that it wasn't being handled the way SPIs normally are, and his suspicions led to repetitive posts and being shrill. And so I do agree that he needs to learn how to handle disputes differently, not become so upset, not be so repetitive. But going straight to a three-month ban is too much. The usual practice is a series of escalating blocks.

He has written below: "I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward." That should be enough regarding the COI issues, and if he mentions COI again, the topic-ban violation will be clear. What should be clarified, though, is whether it applies to mainspace. I don't think it does or should. In addition to clarifying that, whoever closes this, assuming it is not to ban him, might consider asking Elvey to practice removing himself from a discussion when he starts to feel very upset, or when other people say his posts are becoming repetitive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SV. Per the notes on the case, he opened the SPI under Formerly's renamed account name. See here at 22:38, 5 December 2015. If you look at his contribs, all that day he had been edit warring and arguing with Formerly on the Valsartan/sacubitril article and its talk page, and his last edit on the talk page that day was here where he wrote:

Good. Now log in and stop avoiding scrutiny by, e.g. using multiple accounts/IP addresses on multiple networks

He did know whom he was pursuing. While Elvey may have broader behavioral issues, the point issue that he seems to get especially out of control/emotional when dealing with COI matters. That is why we was TBANed in the original case and why he was yet more disruptive at SPI. I understand that you don't agree about that nor the remedy. And in my view Elvey's TBAN is standard per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban -

"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic."

I don't see what he has done to deserve actually narrowing the scope of his TBAN, nor why you would propose that. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing that the topic ban be changed. You opened the topic-ban discussion in August. You requested that Elvey be "topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI ...)." You also asked for an interaction ban. The discussion was closed by Drmies as "Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed." Drmies has said in this discussion that he does not see the Healy edits as a violation. [40] Whether he meant that mainspace is not part of the topic ban or that those particular edits weren't problematic, I don't know. I'm arguing only that we should clarify whether the topic ban covers mainspace. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the SPI, there's no indication that Elvey knew who it was at first. He opened it under one of the IP addresses. MikeV archived the case on 6 December under that address. Berean Hunter moved it to the name on 20 December. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per OhNoItsJamie. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first of this IP's 2 dozen edits (edit summary "Warning of copyvio" using {{Copypaste}} and then many ANI edits) suggests this may be an experienced (banned?) user socking and performing administrator -like tasks. But my hands are tied; I'm banned from opening an SPI case. Can someone do something? (Also, voting in an archive!) --Elvey^(t•c) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boohoo. Complaining about an IP who likes to help out across this encyclopedia. Not connected to any accounts whatsoever. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it's all the community can do in the face of the TBAN violation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per SarahSV. I see serious issues in this case, with many of the same editors in the recent ArbCom GMO case in alignment here to "punish" an editor they don't like. I call on a completely uninvolved admin to close this, and dispense trouts as needed. Elvey has issues, but those casting the stones are not without their own. Jus da fax 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax your vote doesn't deal with the fact that there was a topic ban nor with Elvey's ignoring of it nor with the actual disruption he caused (again) while pursuing the topic he was banned from. As you wrote there, clearly the politics are what are important to you here. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you directly addressed me, in a disingenuously-worded, vaguely threatening reply to a notification on your talk page, it was already clear you were cruisin' for a bruisin', and indeed, after your spite-naming of me as a party to the GMO Arb-Com case, which you have never supported or had the common decency to explain, you have been blocked, as well as admonished by ArbCom for abusive editing and topic-banned. "What's important to you here" you say. How dare you. It's very clear, given the record, what you are up to, and I have warned you before, which you saw fit to ignore, so I now formally warn you to stop harassing editors who don't think or edit in a way that you personally approve of. Your attacks on Elvey, in my long experience since you first posted on my Talk page, are demonstrably motivated by bad faith editing, which, again, I have pointed out to you before, when you have attacked others. You face further blocks and sanctions if you do not stop. Get real, dude. Jus da fax 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments only reinforce the validity of my remark that your !vote did not address Elvey's behavior regarding his existing TBAN and clarifies that it was really about your dislike of me. Thanks for clarifying that. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judasfax: The specific "issue" here is violation of a TBAN, which (aside from Elvey's counter-charges against Jytdog) is not an issue with anyone else. Perhaps you would excuse his general incivility because he doesn't feel enough love, but I think cause and effect actually runs the other way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This appears to be personal for Jytdog. Look at the way he attacks here just now, where he joins a discussion where I am mentioned just to spend nearly 500 words on an ad hominem attack on me. Opening and pursuing the (valid!) SPI on his banned friend, Formerly 98, was appropriate; 99% of my edits in that regard are not a violation of the TBAN, as I see it, but I acknowledge that my discussions with V in and about the SPI, I pointed out what I saw as numerous policy violations by him and that he saw those as disruptive and he used the mop to ban me from SPI. (I opened #Questions, which I urge the closer to address, and later realized V doesn't have the authority to make that unilateral ban there, though I'm still respecting it as he could probably still get away with enforcing it.) Here is the comment Jytog proposes I make, corrected for accuracy: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I opened an SPI (on a user Jytdog is so close to he shares their private communications) and that at one point (this was a very long discussion) mentioned, in a quote, that another editor was convinced Formerly 98 was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward" --Elvey^(t•c) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

elvey, this ANI thread is about your behavior violating your TBAN. Bringing evidence of your behavior, is not an ad hominem attack. About the SPI case itself - there was a valid SPI case against Formerly as I have acknowledged; however your pursuit of Formerly was due to your conviction that he was editing under a COI - that he is a pharma shill. Could you have done all that work on the SPI without explicitly violating your TBAN? Probably.... But would you have launched that SPI to shut down a "pharma shill", if you were really honoring your TBAN and not dealing with COI in WP? I don't think so.

None of this is "personal." You are disruptive when you try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. You have shown that yet again by disrupting SPI - and you are still not accepting that you were disruptive at SPI. It is not good for the project for you to try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. That is why the original TBAN was put in place by the community and why the community is proposing to extend the TBAN to include SPI. You have not heard what the community is telling you. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

I don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that observation actually add anything to this case? I've heard it before, and I wonder sometimes if it doesn't rather work the other way. I would agree that threatening ANI is not generally appreciated, but what I actually did was told PepperBeast it was certainly going to happen.. but when I could find the time. Perhaps not the best way of doing it in retrospect, but he could have just backed down and apologised you know - that can work wonders in situations like this. What is certainly a fact here is that I got quite upset and I let it show. I had nothing to gain from creating an ANI in terms of the article or anything - ie it couldn't have been pitched against PepperBeast doing anything, except perhaps apologise. Please don't assume that it was. My personal ANI would have actually centred around a point that I am raising below instead... Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BMK that there are various flavors of the month that are yelled in order to try to "win" a dispute. It is also popular to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling usually doesn't help, especially when what is being yelled is wrong. There are a few editors who like to yell "bullying". Sometimes yelling "bullying" is done by bullies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it all a bit mysterious in how much I'm supposed to have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lewis does not appear to have edited since this thread began, but I concur with your read - his reaction is not acceptable conduct. I worry about the response we will get when he does come back and comment here - it may likely be more of the same. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I think you are just wrong to voice that here. It’s negative speculation and I find it somehow prejudicial. I haven't said anything yet...

Ok, I am a person with very strong values, and I feel that needs to be said first. I’m not particularly good at interfacing and making friends here etc, but I am normally very collegiate I promise you. I can get into occasional scrapes though and I'm probably not particularly liked. I certainly don't scrub my personal pages enough. When will I learn? But I promise you that I do not look for incidents like this, and I do not ever want to see them. I come here either to read or to edit. Looking at some comments above, I've seen some advice has already been given for some kind of punitive ruling towards me. But before people get ahead of themselves, can anyone here tell me how bad my conduct has been, and actually provide actual examples of the areas I have been unfairly or even unduly upset? No one has yet addressed my position in this case, or my point. It's actually a weirdly pre-emptive ANI. But I will accept any point where I have personally gone wrong. Why would't I?

A few days ago on the Sat 17th I made one [edit] (ie nothing to wave sticks at), in an article I’ve never edited before or since (so absolutely no reverts etc) and the next day it was removed and I was basically Warned for making it. It could have been the case that Delta13C thought I was a sockpuppet. If so, he or she was wrong - and that would be a simple AGF matter, soon resolved hopefully. The problem is that I felt that the Warning, combined with the "No." that Pepperbeast gave me when removing my single contribution, meant that ‘a Level 2 Warning’ was on the cards for anything similar that I may have contributed. I felt I was being told to 'back off' basically, and I didn't like the feeling at all. It felt threatening, and that is why I reacted as I did. I saw a very valid improvement to make to the article here. I made one decent-enough edit (better than what was there for sure), and am always willing to work on things when people treat what I’ve done with due respect. It’s not the removal of my contribution that is the problem here (or 3rr or anything like that) – it’s how my contribution was dealt with.

In terms of ‘harassment’(!) of PepperBeast (who I do find very cocky and rude I'm afraid), I made one admittedly-upset and fairly-long comment on his Talk page, and then left one very short reply after he responded to it. I admit that I am prone to longer comments – I can’t help that, and I’m sorry. But please people - don’t be too rude about that, it’s just the way it is. It's partly a time thing - I don't really have the time to shorten myself, and I always begin big. But yes that was all it was – two comments to him, one long, one short. How can that be "harassment"? PepperBeast has also suggested that he’s started this ANI because I said I would make one myself (which was to be in part about patrollers in general). Is this really the right way to treat ANI?

I wasn't going to create my own ANI today (I suggested I was too busy at the moment to PB when I gave him my timeframe), but I have to find the time respond to this particular ANI now. I accept he wasn't going to be ecstatic bout having a pending ANI hanging over his head, but I'm really busy (as a carer who works all hours) and ANI's like this one really do force people's hand – as mine has been forced here. So I don’t think it was right of him to do this for a number of reasons. There were plenty of other options for him. Certainly no harassment was around. I think this is all about respecting the real-life lives of the various people who make edits to this place.

Now please - I genuinely would appreciate knowing what exactly I did wrong in the first place, including regarding Civility in my reaction to the very-antagonistic reception my single contribution received. I can’t always help being annoyed, but I do want to help being “uncivil”. I believe I have a very clear point indeed here, and as I suggested on [talk page], my own ANI was actually going to question the correct attitude for 'patrollers' in general, and whether there shouldn’t perhaps be a ‘code of conduct’ in their behavior to people - including new accounts, returning users (like me), IP's etc. Basically to avoid upsetting decent well-meaning people, and especially in delicate areas surrounding health. I think ‘curt reverting’ (to give it a name) can be an extremely negative thing for Wikipedia. I’ve already explained this to Delta13C, after he apologised for his Warning upsetting me. I accepted that apology and moved onto discussing content, as he suggested, and as can be seen. I wanted this level of conversation to be on my talk page really (or the article's), but it ended up on PBs as Delta replied to me there instead of on my own. I couldn't do anything about that, obviously. I'm entitled to respond to someone under their comment, and I already told Delta that is what I always do - but he says that he missed me asking for that. So there was two conversations going on PB's page. I didn't personally see any bother though. I did feel these two people are a bit too connected with each other, though.

Yes I'm sorry, but I did originally see PB and Delta13C as ‘tag-teaming’ in some sense – because it was the only way Delta’s out-of-the-blue Warning made any sense to me. I simply assumed that one of them says “No.” to an edit he doesn’t want, and the other “Warns” the user. You have to admit that is basically what happened, with no policy-based reason behind that I can see at all. Isn’t that the basis on an ANI issue? ie unless it got sorted out otherwise?

I have to say that if Pepperbeast simply apologized as Delta13C quite-easily did (though he is rather rough on me here), it would have all been fine. I have never turned away an apology from anyone on Wikipedia. But I began quite upset and I think I had a right to be. My edit was in good faith and ALL content edits take some time. Removing text takes only seconds. People really do sometimes forget that here – the actual time that ALL content-makers put into this place. I believe it is wrong to be curt to people who have taken the time to make an edit like mine. Especially in areas like this to be frank. I’ve felt in that past that Wikipedia somehow tolerates rudeness to people in the area of alternative medicine. It that right? The oft-maligned ‘Wikipedia is Not the Truth’, general Policy, AGF etc – it all points to the same thing; find the right balance because you do not need to judge. I can tell you from experience that these people are usually ill, often with cases where conventional medicine is sadly not really working for them. You’ll be surprised how many people turn to herabalism especially. In certain cases I've even seen them pointed there sometimes (with the usual provisos), when doctors reach the end of what they can do. Placebo? Who knows. When the results are really good they are soon taken up by the pharmas. But those are still used by the herbalists though. Why don't we give thse vulnerable people a break and stop being so cold and nasty to them so often? I’m not personally associated with any alternative health, nor do I lean towards any of it really - though a chiropractor did once manage to sort my back and I'm a big fan of 'good food'! I think it's just wrong to assume that people are ‘involved’. All I did was make a simple edit. I didn’t deserve to be effectively warned away. I think I just editied perceived 'protected content' that really didn't deserve to be protected, that's the underlying story here. And it was protected far too overzealously - that's the bottom line.

Regarding this ANI, the obvious question for me to ask is where is the actual "harassment" I'm accused of giving? I haven't harassed anyone, I never will and never have. It’s a particularly bad thing to do in my opinion. PepperBeast has also suggested he created this to ‘pre-empt’ my ANI, and he seems very confident about it doing it too. This confidence really concerns me to be frank. Do I not have a right to be concerned about him? I personally think that the over-exuberance of some change-patrollers can actually be a negative thing for the act of encyclopedia building. I certainly don't feel like I made my edit on a level playing field in this case, or that my edit was valued in any way at all. I think there could be a problem that some editors with particular 'jobs' can see themselves as being on a higher plain to others, and perhaps even subject to a slighly different ruleset. I think it's a problem for this place: a place I can promise you that I've always tried to help improve.

If this response is seen as "more of the same" (I'm at a loss with that one I’m afraid), it's because I actually have a point isn't it? I won’t be making my personal ANI now though - and actually, how can I? My question regarding patroller conduct is raised here instead. Someone perhaps could think about it if they want. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to apologise to you because I haven't done anything wrong. Your edits are not sacred and I did my best to explain to you what I thought was wrong with that particular edit.
I don't know why you keep saying "harassment", when, in fact, I deliberately avoided what I think is kind of over-the-top language. I said you were hassling me and threatening to take whatever your big problem was to ANI. Well, here we are.
Actually, you made two long comments, the first, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700317501&oldid=696396936, starting with If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Wikipedia's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. After I replied to that, you came up with a second, much longer rant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700373035&oldid=700356227, and finally, you repeated your ANI threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700851858&oldid=700407744 I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it.
I am not responsible for Delta13C's warning, or anything else that Delta13C does. I have no idea why you think I am "too connected" to Delta13C or even what "too connected" means.
My talk page is not a place for you to rant about everything that's wrong with WP.
Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you made this ANI a lot more personal than I was intending to do with mine. Yes I did make a mistake above, missing the my middle response to you. You called my angry reaction a 'personal attack' (does that ever make things better?) and said my edit contained Weasel Words, which doesn't make sense to me in this case, as I explained. In my opinion the reading of the term and the refs contains Original Research. I mainly addressed the content of the edit and my feelings surrounding it. If you feel that my explaining my own views over a content issue that you've addressed yourself constitutes a 'rant' and a point of harassment (or 'hassle' as you actually did say, but in terms of an ANI people are obliged to see it as the same thing), I would say that's very subjective, and hardly an issue for an ANI complaint. Btw, your point about the Intro needing to be so decisively negative because the rest of the article is so singularly negative (or has become so perhaps), is actually a very complex one. And as I've said, I've always felt that imperfect improvements should be improved upon, not given a straight denial. 10 years ago I think that was far more likely to be the case. As I remember it, people were much more inclined to edit or hone things out in turns, and the general atmosphere was far more productive. I’m sure that articles like this one contained more balance then too – albeit with various issues surrounding weight and wording. It's quite rare to see a perfect first edit anyway, isn't it? What you've got to ask is, does the contribution improve and progress or advance things? I think that over the years Wikipedia has become too much of a static shop front, but these kind of articles are nowhere near good enough yet. Very often when I use Wikipedia I see broken or misrepresenting links and failing statements, and they certainly exist in this article still.

So yes I can see that I fully responded to you twice, and not just the once as I said above - but with this ANI you really forced my hand here when I effectively said I wasn't ready yet. And it's an awkward hour right now. I can only find pockets of time, and in no time some people call for beheadings in these places - ANI's can be quite OTT at times they really can(!) I've got someone now asking for sanctions over my supposed "screeds". Look, I apologise if I got it wrong about you and Delta13C being a 'tag team'. But you did manage to appear like one, which I am sure you can see if you really looked at it. Look at your sharp and conclusive 'edit note' followed by his completely out-of-the-blue warning. But that was just an unfortunate sequence perhaps. And also unfortunately, Delta13C did make his reply to angry-me not on his own 'Warning' section, but on your Talk page instead - even though I clearly asked him to keep it all in the same place. It was wrong of him really, and it was another thing that made it look like you were 'combining' to me.

I do think my points on patroller etiquette are very much still valid though, and that is what my own ANI would have focused on. If you simply apologised for being so 'owny' (saying "No." to me over this Intro basically, as you did to the other guy on the discussion page) I would never have gone onto make an ANI of course - as I said. I think most ANI's can't really be done when someone's apologised. I may still have dropped-off my thoughts on patrolling in some relevant discussion page somewhere however, like I used to do with these things (the Patrollers page or whatever). And finally, surely no one should ever be above apologising here, but you will know that I'm sure. And it's especially the case when you know someone wants to hear it surely. It should be just standard practice when you've done something 'off', and you can surely still make all your points after doing it, and in whatever way you choose. It worked between Delta and me (though he hasn't quite continued the sentiment here unfortunately for me) and it would very-easily have worked for us. Sorry I called you cocky and rude above, but I do think you could perhaps come down just a step to my humble editor level. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought your comments on my talk page fell a little short of being personal attacks. Calling me rude and cocky here, however, does not. I'd accept your sort-of apology, but you're still haranguing me for some kind of mea culpa for undoing a single edit, and it's not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did call it a 'personal attack', and I took you up on it and talked of ANI if you didn't apologise for your attitude. I was pissed off! It was purely the way you made the revert that upset me - curtly saying "No" (the rest of the edit note is more complicated to deal with, and this isn't the right place to talk of article-balance or strict Intro rules re the rest of the article.) You'd never seen me before, and I'd made one single edit! And of course I was immediately Warned by Delta too, which doubled my anger to the "pissed off" level you saw. It was not the fact you reverted that really angered me at all. As I've said below, you have to expect quite a lot of full reverts in Wikipedia these days. I've certainly never asked for an apology from someone for doing that. It was the way you reverted, and the way it all happened wasn't good. It felt like I was being warned away. Surely you can both see that now, to some degree at least? ie after it happened - though not at the time perhaps. I admit it was bit paranoid of me to see you as 'tag teaming'. Tbf, I think you should have seen my point of view, and maybe apologised the way Delta did instead of making this ANI. I'm sure I wouldn't have done anything then, despite the point I wanted to make on patroller etiquette and the need for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions may be needed Matt Lewis has made it clear that he is unwilling or unable to take on board the criticism of his conduct that has come out of this thread. The huge rant (10 KB!!!) he posted in this very thread is combative, suggests his prior combativeness was a desire to prove a point (?) along the lines of WP:DTTR, and in general displays an attitude reminiscent of the Wikipedia of eight or nine years ago. Wikipedia does not need to drive off new editors, and I question whether someone who snaps at established editors over a templated warning would react much better towards an inexperienced user who actually does post an unfriendly message at his user talk page. I just get a terrible feeling about Matt Lewis at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10KB!!! Huge rant! Oh come on Mendaliv. It's takes about 2 minutes to read out loud. I write the length I write and I apologised for that when I wrote it. If you don't like it, don't read it, or just don't read it all perhaps. Don't you think you are being bit over the top yourself here? If you really have a "terrible feeling" about me, maybe you need to take that "chill pill" you recommended to me above over another 10k post! They are just a long posts. Give me any amount of longer posts over a typical group of sometimes completely needless comments and I'll show you which take up less k. Some Wikipedia pages can seem to go on forever, but it won't often be down to the longer posts. As anyone who knows me on Wikipedia will tell you, if I ever write anything at any real length it's always constructive. I really do feel that Wikipedia risks driving off new and even old editors at times. I don't see how you can categorically say it doesn't. It’s just my opinion, and it's not a crime to have one surely (unless I've missed anything truly radical the past year or so). As I just suggested to PepperBeast above, I think that 10 years ago in certain ways Wikipedia was actually a more productive place. Not in every way of course not, just in some. And I never said any solution was easy did I? Discuss, absorb.. or ban? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so aggressive? I seriously think there's something wrong here if you think this is an appropriate way to respond. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really 'aggressive' is it? Look at your comment towards me again please. Is it really the right way to approach this? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree the reaction here seems OTT. And I'm someone who does often write long posts and can be quite aggressive in defending myself. Probably the warning wasn't necessary, but I imagine an article like Naturopathy does often have problems with well meaning editors who support naturopathy but don't understand our sourcing and other requirements. And while looking at the long term contrib history or perhaps the long talk page of Matt Lewis may suggest that they are not new and didn't need such a warning, a quick look at the contrib history may not clear things up so much. Ultimately I guess, if you are an experienced editor and don't need a warning, then it's not like there's some harm in receiving one. If you're not an experienced editor, then receiving a warning served to inform and also makes it difficult for the editor to claim they weren't aware of our policies and guidelines.

I do agree improvements with mistakes that can be easily corrected should be corrected rather than simply reverted. In fact I got in to a minor dispute with another editor over this about a week ago (not much about my edits). But on the flip side, sometimes edits are problematic enough that even if you think there is some minor improvement in some area, it's better just to revert and require the improvement to be far better. Colloboration can sometimes mean "sorry that's just too bad" rather than just "I see what you're trying to do but there's a problem so I'll fix it". Also, sometimes editors may just genuinely disagree about whether improvements are necessary (or perhaps they will agree, if they say proper improvements but can't see it until they see them), in that case, there ultimately needs to be consensus on the best wording so you're going to need to initate discussion.

And while editing in situ can be easier, other times for a variety of reasons it's better to come up with some draft on the talk page. The biggest confusing thing about this is if it's such a big deal, why is there zero discussion on the article talk page? Does that mean Matt Lewis now accepts that improvements aren't necessary and if so, why is there still so much fuss?

P.S. Just a quick reminder that edit requests are only intended to be used for simple changes that already have consensus (whether from previous discussion or which can be assumed). A simple "no, please establish consensus for your change" to an edit request is fine although that doesn't seem to have been what happened anyway. If editors are using edit requests incorrectly, it would be better to educate them on the correct usage of edit requests not to require long discussions when rejecting an edit request. Admitedly I'm not really sure what discussion page is being referred to anyway, since there's no comments by Pepperbeast on the Naturopathy talk page (perhaps in archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I explained in great detail above. This is all happening on my talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I haven't read all you said, but I see zero chance you can come up with a good explaination of why the discussion should be held in your talk page. If you want to modify the article and get into a dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. (There are some exceptions where it may be fair to hold some discussion on an editors talk page, but I won't go in to detail except suffice to say if there is actually going to be any change, the primary point of discussion should be the article's talk page.) This means if you haven't discussed it in the article talk page, it's pretty much impossible to make the claim people are being unresonable or rejecting any changes. So either you care about the changes and they are a big deal and there is a discussion in the article talk page, or you don't really care about the changes and this whole long discussion is largely moot.

And BTW, you've made a big deal about how you're an experienced editor who didn't need warnings, but then seem to be giving us an example showing you still don't understand how wikipedia works (if you do think the changes are justified but are not discussing it in the article talk page), so perhaps the warning was fair. (I'm assuming you do at least understand people can give you as many level warnings as they want. But nothing is likely to happen to you unless you violate some policy or guideline. And some resonable comments in an article talk page proposing changes particularly if you've taken on board what has been said before and our policies and guidelines, carries almost zero risk of being blocked simply for these comments, unless you're either a sock of a banned editor or have a topic ban.)

Also one thing I learnt from the above discussion before my first reply was that other people had told you to take it to the article talk page so I see even less chance you can explain why there is no discussion in the article talk page.

Your rants about how poorly your proposed changes were handled is of course offtopic on the article talk page. However such rants are rarely going to get far if they're over a nonissue (i.e. there was no change needed for the article anyway). Come up with an example where good, or nearly good changes were rejected (or perhaps it was impossible to know if the changes were good because they were reverted for a trivial error which could have been easily resolved to allow proper assessement), and you may achieve something productive.

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all [41]. Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

TL:DR version; no discussion in the article talk page = no evidence you really tried to collobrate on improving the article = almost impossible to establish people are being "owny" or rejecting resonable changes = no issue for us on ANI = don't give warnings about how you're going to take people to ANI over such non-issues = if people come here because you gave such warnings, just say "whoops, sorry my bad" not write out long replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I can't disagree with you more. Matt Lewis's explosion in response to being reverted and templated is flat out disturbing. First of all, Pepperbeast's revert was perfectly in line with WP:BRD, insofar as Matt Lewis introduced new material into a stable article without discussion. Matt Lewis, being a regular, should know well enough how BRD works. It might've been courteous for Pepperbeast to then let Matt Lewis know why he was reverted in a more lengthy explanation somewhere, but not strictly necessary. Now, Delta13C templated Matt Lewis with {{uw-unsourced1}} for that contribution, which would have been the appropriate warning otherwise. Last I checked, WP:DTTR hadn't become a guideline—with WP:TTR still listing good counterpoints—and, honestly, I'm not sure you can even call Matt Lewis a "regular" in the sense of DTTR considering his level of activity in recent years. Perhaps article talk discussion was lacking, but that's on Matt Lewis within the BRD framework. You can't just go and blow up, threatening to take everyone to ANI in response to what is, in the scope of things, the tiniest slight. If we take Matt Lewis's conduct as indicative of his general attitude, which I believe is reasonable, we have a person who is very rapidly demonstrating himself to have a civility problem. Loquacious threats to drag unsuspecting editors to the dramaboards have a distinct chilling effect, particularly against inexperienced users. It's disruptive, and the fact that Matt Lewis immediately leaped to that level leads me to believe we need to take a much harder look at his user interactions if there's no indication this was an aberration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop calling me 'flat-out disturbing' etc please? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find the phrase upsetting, but I've got to call a spade a spade here. You need to understand that your conduct here has been inappropriate and disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Nil, I find this a bit hard to accept this when you admit you haven't read all of my defense. I don't want to repeat too much for you, as long-post repetition is not well-liked is it? But I will say this (as I've already said I think in two different places)... I didn't discuss the edit first as I saw PepperBeast's "No" to someone else on the article Discussion and I didn't find it very welcoming. So I was bold. I’m always prepared for anything I contribute to be removed by someone on Wikipedia, especially as the years have gone on. I expect that era of 'can I improve?' has simply gone, for these kind of articles at least. I have said very-clearly that my anger towards both Delta and PepperBeast (but was it really "hassle" from me, though?) was NOT about my contribution being removed! And I did NOT make one single other edit! I am very HAPPY to work with anyone who isn't rude to me on content. It's was ALL about the very particular way I was 'received' by them. Deta's Warning seemed to just appear out-of-the-blue, straight after PepperBeast said "No" in removing my edit. And when Delta14C moved his 'Warning' discussion from my Talk onto PepperBeast's Talk page (even though I asked him to keep it on mine), I felt even more sure that they were 'team-working' together on protecting this essay from certain unwanted edits. However I accepted Delta's apology re the Warning 'iking' me - though he didn't seem to accept that a warning was completely unjustified here. I then discussed a content issue in the whole article to him (as he suggested I do, though perhaps not there obviously) and then PB said “take it elsewhere”. Ok, fine. But why was Delta even on PB's Talk? And then this highly unconventional ANI suddenly happened.

I'd actually like to know if Delta gave me the 'Warning' (which of-course many people will find intimidating however you say they don’t all matter) because he thought I was a sockpuppet of the IP who also got a "No." from PepperBeast regarding a similar type of Introduction change? And maybe also if anyone really thinks that this ANI was a particularly good idea, and was made quite in the right spirit? Readjusting the track with me might have been a better idea I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some real advice for all you guys out there, please do not post essays, it doesn't make your argument a pinch more believable than what it'd be without all the fluff. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get this. In the sense that Matt Lewis has been all but screaming "Don't Template the Regulars" from the git go as though it's policy, I agree that it hamstrings his credibility. In the sense that I'm calling him out on demanding other editors follow nebulous essays by linking to the essays, then I don't really get how that hurts my credibility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay.

And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. Silly me, I should've understood that. I agree wholeheartedly. Essay-length responses on any talk page, let alone ANI, are really counterproductive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to comment here again, but sorry... you've been given a 500 word English essay to write? That's less than 20 lines on my monitor, which is about 2 average paragraphs surely? My 1,600 word post (if that's what it was) was my main defense to an ANI. I've got to ask you what your English essay it was on? English is my 'subject' (I'm 45 btw, I'm not still studying it) and I am really interested in what they ask of students now. Tbh, I don't see how anyone can practically request this kind of thing of Wikipedians. If a long post is too much for someone to personally to manage, surely they can just leave it to someone else? My defense wasn't made to anyone personally - and people's hands are rather forced in these situations. I think you can look at this both ways really - ie some people find it a bit of a chore to read more than a longish paragraph or so (and presumably do all they want to do), while others have real difficulties keeping their comments to a single paragraph. But Wikipedia is a big place and is supposed to cater for a broad spectrum of people - so what's the bother? There is no great hurry here, or a shortage of staff is there? I've not been repeating anything over and over, which can be a real pain over many long posts I'd agree. Surely you wouldn't say this to anyone outside of ANI, so why say it at ANI? And isn't it rather picking on a defendant? You probably don't see it as being rude when in here, but I think it is. I'm a decent human being who has already pre-apologised for writing the length that I have (and often do). And I'd like to say that in 10 years I've never once complained about anyone's writing needs or style, nor ever made suggestions for anyone to be punished in any particular way either for what it's worth (I've never personally seen that as my role). And believe me, I've wrestled with some notorious sock-farmers and article disrupters over my really active years here too. I just do not like being totally-needlessly needled at, with Warnings or whatever. And I really do not think it's good for Wikipedia. (380 words). Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something. The shorter the speech, the happier the audience. I didn't critique your writing style, just the need of writing 1.6k words to defend yourself. Since, I probably have some informal kind of ADHD, I went through the first three paras of what you said and it has missing commas, periods and uses words that are not related to the context. Undue exclamation marks, a display of battleground mentality and no quotations from policy. And you thought was I said previously was critique. Ha. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are "words that are not related to the context"? You mean I went off topic? If I opined over an area of Wikipedia, I assure you it is related to all this. And "missing commas" indeed! How does that work out? For people like yourself, I've actually taken to using as many commas as I can these days - eg placing them before and after using 'and'! I use them all over in fact. Your list is just wrong, and is totally needless too.

I just can't believe that I actually said above "there isn't exactly a staff problem here"! Attending to ANI must be a nightmare for Wikipedia in general, and it's always been full of passing poppers posting pointless comments. I should have told PepperBeast I'd be taking the whole 'patroller etiquette' issue to a noticeboard-type place, or ask a decent admin or something - ANI is a crazy place to take anything that isn't clear disruption or abusive 3RR or something seriosuly article-effecting like that. I was just rusty that's all, and really cheesed off, and ANI is the place that came to mind. I don't know what PepperBeast was thinking of either in counter-reporting here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking "fercrissake, I'm getting blasted and ANI-threatened by some guy I've never interacted with before because I did something perfectly normal. It's going to be ANI'd anyway, and I don't know what else to do about it". PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PepperBeast, you just to understand that there was nothing perfect about the way you began our interaction. Or with that other person too. Because (aside from imo non-policy-related article 'ownership' issues) this 'tough' "No." approach is just really unsuitable for a communally-built encyclopedia. You still argue that this manner of reverting someone's contribution is perfectly normal. Nobody is supposed to have an elevated editing position on Wikipedia, and it seems to me that even this ANI suggests you likely feel that you have some kind of special position here. We all should know that everyone is supposed to treat complete strangers with civility, equality and respect, and especially in this controversial area - an area I think too-many people think they can be rude by default.

Nobody is going to support any of that here though, and I don't even know why this ANI is still open. I'm tired of coming back to check if it's been archived yet, or if something has happened. And I expect you are too. I wish I never even thought of the bloody acronym.

It's all about the attitude. I've just had a quick look at that frankly-unwelcoming article talk page, I can see even-now Delta13C is being intimidating to someone who had questioned the article's neutrality. He's asking if he/she has a "a conflict of interest with naturopathy in any way?" I don't think you can just ask that kind of question out of the blue at all. Not without a very good reason stemming from the actual editor, and not purely the subject matter! It's all too intimidating. Delta14C was the editor who 'Warned' me for making one single edit - so yes that does relate to this ANI. And (before you complain again) I was obviously going to bring him up in here, as he was entirely following your lead, and some of you do seem to work as intimidating groups. What did you expect when you made this ANI?

It's ALL too intimidating, and I worry that all this is typical in complimentary medicine (ie 'CAM') areas on Wikipedia. I think you both feel too empowered and neither of you have any right to lean on anyone. The angry way I reacted to you both? Well, that's a separate matter. It's a reaction, and a really pissed-off one. I just hate seeing bullies. I am certain that you both feel you are fighting some great 'war' against pseudoscience, and set out to be tough guys toward every fool you feel you come across. Can't you just edit Wikipedia like you are supposed to for pete's sake? Using core policy properly should make these articles work - avoiding your own 'POV' is always the key. The idea of WP:NPOV has to work both ways to work properly. When people think they are somehow exempt from POV (in this case partly due to this highly unscientific ill-defined, super-conclusive, fits-all, and ultimately-unsourced and 'OR' idea of "scientific consensus" for everything to do with whatever alt-health is supposed to cover at any one point), you end up with articles needlessly reading like they are hatchet jobs. That is the net result. Wikipedia should not have that vibe, nor give that impression. It's highly unprofessional, and no doctor or scientist would approach it like this. You can tell the real story here without being macho about anything. The only reason that a reasonable probably rarely happens in these articles is because it's made so unwelcoming for moderate editors to step in and help. The hardliner ethos seems to be so completely entrenched that changing to more typically encyclopedic approach is pretty-much met with ridicule and/or distrust. Regarding my own single edit, it's pretty obvious that I was seen as a 'possible' sock puppet frankly too (ie if not just some silly-billy alt-health proponent) - but ignoring AGF like that is just not on either. It's just not the rules.

Please, just show some basic respect to normal people please. Behind all this is actually just a carer asking you people to offer a level field of respect to perfectly-decent and perfectly-intelligent people who often just happen to be (sometimes quite seriously) ill. It just happens to be a group that deserves basic respect. It's all about your approach. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what more I can add to this discussion. Any comment I make seems to elicit an increasingly grandiose rant. Matt Lewis, you're hardly in a position to lecture me about "basic level of respect". PepperBeast (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well we all know the mechanics Wikipedia sometimes operates under. It's like a simple but effective machine; from the article interaction to the notes to the responses. Shorter criticsm gets advisory wikilinks including on 'personal attacks', longer critism is always dismissed to as a 'rant'. Just add a small array of colourful cliches to release in turn. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a patroller's 'bot' around that effectively automates every form of human interaction. Is this done yet? Matt Lewis (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

The editor keeps adding Bubbling Under chart peaks at Rick Ross discography, which cannot be verified through sources provided. I tried to explain to the editor that those peaks s/he adds cannot be verified at his/her talk page. But s/he removed my explanation, and reverted the page to his/her revision 1, 2. S/he keeps saying in the edit summary that These are routine calculations. Very much allowed. I'm not sure what routine calculations have anything to do with the fact that the peaks aren't verifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So very happy you chose to involve other editors in this issue. WP:CALC, a sub policy of the WP:No Original Research policy, states specifically that:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."

The Bubbling under charts act as extensions of other charts. For example, if a song charts at #5 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart, which serves as an extension to the Hot 100, one could most certainly deduct that 100+5=105. This is simple addition, and to argue that this doesn't qualify as "simple arithmetic" is asinine. Additionally, this user has began edit wars on the pages Rick Ross discography (as well as my personal talk page), without adding any further explanations of his edits other than the argument made in his original edit summary, despite the fact that I presented a policy that specifically countered his argument. Though I personally feel that Harout72 is guilty of disruptive editing, I'd personally prefer that no repercussions are given to him and someone just simply explain to him that what he's doing is incorrect and violates WP:CALC. Funkatastic (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You simply do not want to hear what others are saying to you. You were not brought here because you added Bubbling Under peaks, you were brought here because you kept adding peaks that cannot be verified through the sources that your edit here adds. This here is one of the sources that supposedly supports those chart peaks, which does not list any chart peaks for any songs whatsoever. The issue here is about the fact that you're either not familiar with WP:Verifiability or you knowingly keep disrupting that page. Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section.--Harout72 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just accused me of exactly what you're doing, you're not listening to counter arguments. I did not add a single source to this page, so if that's the argument you're switching to now that's great, because now you look even dumber. The only thing I did was take the Bubbling Under positions from the Notes that already existed on the page and reflected them to the tables. So if your new issue is with the references, you're not even talking to the right person. This is hilarious. As you added in the final sentence of your last argument, "Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section." is once again, completely ignoring the policy WP:CALC.Funkatastic (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your edit. You have copied and pasted an entire older revision of the page from which I had to remove all of those sources and peaks due to unverifiability. By doing that, yes, you are adding sources which do not support your added chart peaks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the proper move there, isn't to completely remove all of the content. It's to add a notice at the top of the section & article saying that the article is unverifiable and it's sources need to be updated. So once again, you made a mistake. Funkatastic (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this at Rick Ross discography and I'm not getting involved beyond this except to point out the fact that Funkatastic, you don't seem to understand it is not "basic arithmetic" because the Bubbling Under chart only tracks songs that have not yet reached the Hot 100. Therefore, a song that falls out of the Hot 100 will not reappear on the Bubbling chart. Thus, that particular song might be #101 in Billboard's calculations in a given week. To then list what is #1 on the Bubbling Under chart as #101 is inaccurate, because in reality it might be #102 or even #110; without actual figures, one cannot know. I've noticed what you've done at Meek Mill discography with Azealia911 (talk · contribs) with re-adding the Bubbling Under peak onto 100 and it's inaccurate, persistent and disruptive. Please recognise that you are misconstruing what the Bubbling Under chart actually is, and what it isn't is a simple extension chart (if it was, songs that fall out of the Hot 100 would reappear on it). This isn't anything personal, it's just that I've come across this misunderstanding many times over the years and it's frustrating to see it all over Wikipedia. That's why the note should be placed next to an mdash, because in the end, it did not chart on the Hot 100, its exact position outside the top 100 is not known, and the Hot 100 and Bubbling Under chart are two different charts. (Also, WP:CALC was not created for this reason and the cited passage indicates there must be consensus about said "calculation" for it to be added. There clearly isn't consensus among users about this, even beyond the scope of this.) Ss112 10:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Ss112 has just said: the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension of the Hot 100 because it only includes songs that haven't yet reached the Hot 100, and does not account for those that have fallen off yet might still be just below 100. WP:CALC does not hold here, because the criteria are not the same between the two lists. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Funkatastic has either not seen this or still does not care, having just edited 2 Chainz discography, still operating under the assumption one can add the Bubbling Under onto 100 and citing WP:CALC in his edit summaries. It needs to stop; it's disruptive, persistent and inaccurate. Disruptive because he will restore his edits if anybody takes him up on it. Ss112 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me if the user in question had indeed seen the above explanation on why CALC does not apply here, not been bothered, and carried on doing what they want regardless. I was originally wary about partaking in this discussion, as all attempts to contact the user via discussion or their talk page usually result in them blanking any attempt of communication, usually accompanied by an insulting statement in the edit summary (see their talk page history). I was also reluctant to add my thoughts as I didn't want the conversation to completely derail (see this discussion about a content dispute, which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up. If the user is simply ignoring what Ss112 and BlueMoonset are explaining here, then further action may be a possible route to take. Azealia911 _talk 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funkatastic hasn't been pinged here lately, so I'm doing so now to ensure that the conversation is being followed as well as the explanations as to why the calculations are producing invalid results, rather like adding apples and oranges. (WP:CALC simply doesn't apply when the numbers being combined are determined based on differing criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that unlike other policies and guidelines that instruct users to be bold, CALC specifically states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious" I have yet to see one discussion in which there is consensus amongst multiple editors that CALC can be applied in this manner, rather the opposite. Azealia911 _talk 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*@Harout72: You've forgotten to notify Funktastic about this ANI complaint. I have done it for you, but given the fact it pops up in a big orange box every time you edit the page, I fail to see how you have missed it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Ignore this. I noticed he removed the ANI notification. My bad. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO, that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. If a song reaches the Hot 100 then any charting on the Bubbling Under charts wouldn't be the peak. I understand the concerns, but not a single one of you has raised a valid argument as to why WP:CALC doesn't apply to the use of Bubbling Under Charts. If you'd like to try and start a discussion on any of these pages to try and create a consensus that simple addition doesn't qualify as basic arithmetic please go ahead, but because that claim is so farfetched I'll continue to make these edits. I've yet to do anything that qualifies as "disruptive, persistent or inaccurate". Two more things I'd like to point out, I have never stated that the sources on these discography pages, nor have I ever personally vouched for him. Secondly, the above user says "which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up" is completely irrelevant as it happened over a year ago, the only reason to bring up this dispute would be an attempt to personally attack a user instead of discussing the contents of the topic. Don't know how you could still deny these as personal attacks when in this scenario the content isn't the slightest bit pertinent to the current topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's valid because it's proof that, as you have also just stated, you (will) continue to add what you consider "routine calculations" persistently to the point of disruption. As I and other users have just explained, it is not a routine calculation; they're two different charts and the Bubbling chart is no longer a simple extension chart, otherwise it would still be listed as such (#1 being #101 and so on--there is no proof this is the case today). Even pointing out that if a song makes the Hot 100 "the Bubbling Under position would not be its peak" demonstrates you still do not understand what any of us has just said. Claiming without proof you have consensus to make said edits is wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this now. Ss112 01:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funkatastic still keeps reverting Rick Ross discography to the revision which adds sources that leaves all of his added Bubbling Under peaks unverifiable. He still chooses to do so even after he accepted that his edit adds sources that do not support those chart peaks. Even after being told that Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. Hopefully administrators prevent further disruptions by this editor. He even reverts edits of other editors at all discographies where he's told what he's doing is wrong.--Harout72 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above two posts both claim I said things that I never posted here or anywhere. I never once claimed I had a consensus, nor did I ever claimed I added sources to the page Rick Ross discography, both of those claims are 100% fictitious and furthermore prove that these users aren't even aware of the point I'm trying to make, let alone the topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cited WP:CALC here and in your edit summary, which claims you need to have consensus to add numbers together for it not to be considered original research. You don't have consensus on the matter of adding Bubbling Under peaks to 100 to be adding it anywhere. You are now reverting @Cornerstonepicker: and claiming their reversions of your disruptive edits are "vandalism". Also, do not change the heading of this discussion; that's not your place. You didn't start this discussion, Harout72 did. Most of your edits are also unsourced, as you don't have any proof Billboard considers #1 on the Bubbling Under chart #101, which makes it original research as well. Since you are the user changing dashes into inaccurate additions (inaccurate, as I and others have explained above) of numbers, the burden of proof is on you. Ss112 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Especially Kanye West discography with WP:3RRV. Since his explanation is invalid, not sure why the persistence with unhelpful edits. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would a topic ban proposal be too extreme? One that would prevent the user from editing discography articles completely. It's evident that no matter how many users attempt to explain how CALC can not be evoked as a reason for their actions, they clearly do not want to listen. What do others think? Azealia911 _talk 22:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no administrator blocks Funktastic for those erroneous additions despite consensus to the contrary, which is the only other thing I can think of that might get said user to stop without going to a ban, then I would favor a temporary topic ban on editing charts and chart data in discography articles and discographies in regular articles, perhaps a month, to be made indefinite if the behavior is resumed after the temporary ban is lifted. A line was crossed with the claim of "vandalism" when one of the CALC edits was reverted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this topic fly by: I can only add that I warned Funkatastic about this while I was an administrator, and, were I still an administrator, he would be indefinitely blocked until he acknowledged that his edits violate policy, guidelines, and that most horrible thing to mention, truth. As multiple editors have explained to him, the Bubbling Under charts do not function as an extension the main chart.

For those that aren't versed in charts, the Bubbling Under charts are a chart of the fifteen or twenty-five best-selling songs that have not made the main chart. If a song ever charts on the main chart, it cannot reappear on the main chart. Thus, if the 101st best-selling song used to be the 99th best selling song, it will disappear from the charts entirely, and the song showing a position 1 on the Bubbling Under chart is actually position 102 or lower. That's the reason that WP:CALC doesn't apply, and what Funkatastic is able unwilling or unable to understand. A WP:CIR block would be quite appropriate here: even if Funkatastic is well-intentioned, his edits are damaging.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

JoeSakr1980 is adding trivial information to leads of relevantly important articles such as:

...And many many more.

This has justifiably been reverted by a lot of users including: Hammersbach, SegataSanshiro1, Elie plus and many more. It also appears he works for the Lebanese government ([42]). And now he's edit-warring to get his way. Something needs to be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there appears to be heavy disruption at this article by the same user: Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is also vandalizing several articles. Either that or they're not competent enough to be here (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecuador&diff=prev&oldid=701328645)142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of talk page messages to this editor. They haven't edited since then and I'd like to see how they respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Etienne, if they cannot abide by policy they should not be here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSakr1980 is still fairly new, so I've left a message spelling things out very clearly. Outside of the visa requirements article, he's mostly only at 1 revert, though on a variety of pages and usually for similar (if not identical) edits. His edits appear to be in good faith, if perhaps in the wrong part of the article or accompanied by other problems. I would not immediately dismiss arguments citing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself.

142.105.159.60: please read WP:NOTVAND. You are also edit warring just as much as JoeSakr1980 is.

If JoeSakr1980 ignores my warning, I will take further action. If another admin takes further action before then, whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: would you say this edit was likely in good faith? I can certainly accept that someone would mistakenly believe a wrong fact about English spelling, but the entire edit consists in subtly breaking the spelling of several words or changing them into different words. Also, what about the fact that JoeSakr1980, below, claims to never have known how to reply on his own talk page, yet he not only suddenly started doing so, but was as confident as to make a "cleanup" of it (i.e. deleted all the warnings)? To me, something about his good faith doesn't add up. LjL (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually could see some of my IELTS students making most of the changes in the link (particularly changing "two rivers" to "to rivers"). Those that I can't see my IELTS students doing, I know I've made the same mistakes in Spanish. I'd bet $10 he wasn't using ctrl+f. That link does support a potential WP:CIR argument, but doesn't quite spell out bad faith for me.

His first to his talk page was blanking the whole page with the summary "clean up" (not just the warnings). The next comparable edit (which was not labelled as a clean up) comes several hours after he said that he hasn't figured out how to reply on the talk page yet. Some less technologically proficient users get intimidated by the edit window, especially when English clearly isn't their first language. (When in doubt, imagine that the other user as that one elderly friend or family member who keeps installing toolbars, thinks Google "makes internets," and thinks that Facebook is a standard Windows application).

Again, all that could be part of a WP:CIR argument, but more edits of that type would need to be presented to overcome the fact that he's only been here a few months and that most of his activity appears to be repetitious or non-experimental. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's stopped his promotional posts for now, so I think this can be closed. If WP:CIR comes up again with this user or if he starts up his spamming again, then action can be taken.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the user who just reported me

EtienneDolet, Well I don't work for the Lebanese government. I work in the German representation office at Nicosia, TRNC. My edits were referenced and you may or may not agree with my edits. I revered the edits for some users and urged them to include then in a possibly new section. As a history or foreign relations topic. My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible. My main scope of edits on Wikipedia are concerned with Via requirements and Visa policies. I've been correcting those, updating them, and undoing every vandalism edit for some time now. Concerning the "Visa requirements for Tunisian Citizens". Me and a visa-policy veteran called TwoFortNights were undoing edits from a user who engaged in an edit war. His edits were wrong and he constantly denied our requests to discus it on the talk page. I have reported him on Berean Hunter's talk page for appropriate action to be taken. I'm not the one who imposes vandalism or engages in an edit war with anyone. I have previously reported many users for being sockpuppets on Wikipedia and the appropriate action was taken by blocking them. Check Vanjagenije's talk page. You shouldn't block me or take such action just because a user thinks I'm an article messer on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time and efforts in making Wikipedia a much better place. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~You might want to try posting in the thread that's about this issue instead of starting a new thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Moved response to thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSakr1980: Please read and follow Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines and Policy on paid editing which says how to comply with wikiipedia's Terms of Use. Also please note Wikipedia is not for promotion and using it for such may result in loss of editing privlages. Thank you for your understanding and compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeSakr1980: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, so when you say "My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible", that's directly contrary to a Wikipedia policy. Relent on this promotion and make your edits be about creating an encyclopedia, or you will inevitably find yourself in more trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this is one of those instances where good English skills are needed when editing in an English-speaking forum. Yes, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", but it is obvious that (talk) did not mean "promote" in the sense of any of the 5 negative examples mentioned, bur rather in the dictionary sense of "to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further" as in the dictionary.com definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote?s=t In sum, I think too many people are hiding behind the text of some Wikipedia guidelines as opposed to understanding their meaning.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me and my English skills alone already. You have been transparently trying to annoy me for too long and the game's no longer fun. You even randomly intervened on my talk page again after knowing very well that you're very unwelcome there. It's time to stop. LjL (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the user who just reported me

Jbhunley, you left a paid editting section on my talk page, as you said I'm still fairly new on Wikipedia. Been here for a couple of months and haven't figured out how to reply to a talk page just yet. I've felt I would be better to leave a section here and on your personal talk page too as you said I shouldn't edit before I clarify things out.

I state that my employer has no relation with my Wikipedia account and under all situations and conditions I take no compensation or financial gains from my edits what so ever. My edits are completely mine and I don't benefit from doing so in any possible way.

My edits were just to spread the info out in appropriate places and I have not an idea that it's prohibitted or would get me in such a trouble with dozens of admins. Sorry for everything. Please let me know about what should I do to end this mess up. Thanks. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSakr1980: All you need to do is not "promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy", just do not do it. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional behavior. You should read our core policies about how information must be presented from a neutral point of view and that information must be verifiable by citation to reliable sources. (Click on the blue links they link to pages than describe the terms.) That said, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for being willing to contribute here. Jbh ^Talk 16:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions

Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. I asked him to retract that but he ignored it. Other editors also challenged these remarks as aspersion. Ping involved editors AlbinoFerret, Semitransgenic, The Four Deuces, Aircorn, petrarchan47, Tryptofish -- prokaryotes (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a profound difference of meaning between statements like 'Arguments like this are used in climate change denial' which seems to be what KingOfAces is saying, and 'The editors arguing this are climate change deniers', which seems to be what Prokaryotes is accusing KingOfAces of having said. Not sure how those two are being confused, although statements like the first one can be logical fallacies. Geogene (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also explained exactly this to Prokaryotes prior to this posting at WP:AE where their behavior is currently being looked at.[43] My only comment actually directed at editors and not on content/subject matter was that multiple editors were misunderstanding some of the concepts behind some scientific content. I'm not interested in addressing the hyperbole that I'm calling editors climate change deniers further, nor do I think we should entertain the silly idea that I was doing that. I was actually careful on wording my posts to focus on the subject and not editors to avoid these kinds of comments as we're subjected to drama pretty often in this topic. Either way, the topic is under discretionary sanctions, so even if someone thought my sourced comments on the subject matter were some sort of violation, that's for WP:AE, not here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are diffs of comments that show no problem that I can see. The claims are generic and appear unexceptional. It certainly is true that people use Wikipedia to promote WP:FRINGE ideas, and often sources are cherrypicked to make claims that aren't valid—the same tactics of climate change denial. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link a comment from there where someone is promoting a fringe theory? prokaryotes (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote:

"There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus"

"...but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial."

To understand his comments you need to read the discussion, the main point being that none of the sources cited supports the consensus, except for a single author (who was criticized for a flawed assessment by the Union of Concerned Scientist). And besides the WHO states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Pointing out the lack of consensus prompted him to write above analogy to climate denial - states ..."editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial" He is not calling us deniers, but compares our honest policy based input to climate denial. Hence why i wrote above, he essential frames...and this is what qualifies as aspersion.prokaryotes (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make this clear he started with denial when he wrote, "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus." . But there is no consensus at all in the world of GMOs (in regards to an overall assessment as discussed).prokaryotes (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional look at the discussion and judge for yourself, are the arguments there the same as in climate change denial, as Kingofaces claims? prokaryotes (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coincidentally there is an article about recent discussions on the food safety consensus, we discuss here, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Responding to ping. Maybe I have thicker skin than others, but despite some robust discussion that is not going anywhere fast I am not seeing much in the way of "very serious aspersions" from either side. I think the OP missed the point as far as apparent "accusations" of climate change denial goes. Nobody on either side of the debate thinks of the others as denying climate change, quite the opposite in fact. It is more presenting the paradox of how similarly presented science can be seen so differently depending on ones ideals. Something not unique to GMOs or climate change. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, "this is the kind of thing climate deniers do" is not an accusation of climate denial. It has been observed elsewhere that some anti-GMO activists are massive fans of science in the area of climate change, and resort to fallacies such as the "pharma shill gambit" when science fails to show GMOs to be dangerous, I wonder if that is the problem here. Regardless, I see nothing actionable here, on either side. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged, and I am responding with no small amount of annoyance. This is "vexatious litigation". It is abundantly clear that saying that an argument is the same argument that has been made in other contexts is not the same thing as saying that editors have actually made that argument in other contexts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vexatious Litigation? If you were all for avoiding conflict, then why did you take Prokaryotes to ArbCom Enforcement almost less than 1 hour after after the 1RR violation here without first asking him/her to self-revert? No warnings, nothing. Just straight to ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is how Wikipedia works. The difference is that there really was a 1RR violation there, with an abundance of prior warnings, whereas there have not been aspersions here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "abundance" of prior warnings. One only need look at Prokaryotes talk page history going back to 2013 to see that the only warning from you was after you filed the case at AE. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A day or so ago, I thanked you at the article talk page for being willing to work together, but here, you are sounding rather partisan, especially given your professed preference for "avoiding conflict". Please see the AE page. There is a section in my filing that details prior warnings to him. ArbCom imposed 1RR, and they had good reasons for doing so. The way it is imposed, prior warnings are considered the appropriate procedure. And it took him well over a day before he finally got around to self-reverting, but he was a lot quicker to open this retaliatory complaint here at ANI. In any event, here we are discussing whether admins should block KofA. It is abundantly clear that they should not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of being "partisan". I am not trying to create conflict, but point out what I see as double-standards of calling this unnecessary litigation. Prokaryotes did not wait a day to self-revert. Prokaryotes self-reverted here only 21 minutes after being asked by Aircorn here. If you had politely asked as Aircorn had, it would have saved us a lot of time at AE. Instead you supported a topic ban for Prokaryotes. It is true we seem to be able to work together and appreciated your positive comment there. I would like you to try harder to work with Prokaryotes instead of threating a topic ban. (I apologize if others see this is off-topic.) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly coming on strong with your beliefs that I am at fault and Prokaryotes should be excused. It was a day from the AE filing. An editor who understands why there is 1RR would not spend a day arguing at AE that the reverts were justified because he was supposedly right in the content dispute, only to self-revert after someone points out the obvious to him. This is not a double standard. The AE filing is appropriate, and two administrators there have agreed about it. This ANI filing is unnecessary. If you are such a fan of asking politely, why didn't Prokaryotes try to discuss it at KofA's user talk, instead of coming here? See? And I have been quite polite to Prokaryotes at the article talk page, even saying that I fully supported the edits that you and he had made at one point. His response to me saying that? He accused me of not cooperating with other editors. And while we are veering off-topic here, I'll point out that editors were quite noisy about wrongly accusing me of SYNTH, but when I supplied the requested source, the response has been silence. There is a source for "scientific consensus", and editors suddenly lose interest in discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to be very clear: 1RR does not mean if you make a second revert other editors are supposed to explain to you that you need to self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request close with no action, per comments above. Geogene (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I too find that KingofAces43's frequent use of the term "Fringe" and "climate denier" problematic and needlessly antagonist. We are supposed to discuss how to represent what is in RS, not use our personal biases about the science (or a scientist) to dismiss any position (or person) we do not agree with as "Fringe". For example here, King claims that José L. Domingo who is editor and chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal with a high impact factor is "fringe". It is little more than an ad hominem argument, just like calling editors "anti-GMO", POV-pushers, etc. This same editor was none to happy when accused of having a COI here, which resulted in a very lengthy AN/I and successful block against the person suggesting King had a COI. You would think King would give other editors the same respect and not use ad hominem arguments, but after repeated warnings, this has not stopped. I am not surprised this case was brought. I think a warning to cease the behavior would be sufficient. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the ongoing OR discussion, Kingofaces is now what appears to be edit warring at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_crops&action=history, where he edits against talk page consensus, of several editors. prokaryotes (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial. Advocacy of fringe beliefs and climate change denial are a long term problem on Wikipedia, hence WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBPS and the like. It is a clearly established principle of Wikipedia that the mainstream POV is Wikipedia's POV. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason to throw editors who are questioing recent edits by King, Air and Trypto in with climate change deniers, unless you want to distract from the real issue. And it is simple: Jytdog wrote a SYNTH/OR "scientific consensus" statement that after a months-long, well attended RfC, was closed with agreement by all that the wording does not have support with available RS. As no new sources have emerged to support some version of 'no scientists doubt the safety of GMOs', these editors who are now ignoring that RfC cannot claim to be doing it in good faith. So sling mud, then no one will notice. It's a PR statement and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-science establishment mouthpiece. Guy argues that Domingo 2011, which shows that HALF of all independent studies done on GMO food safety found "serious cause for concern", should be ignored by WP and not included in these articles until various governmental agencies have adopted different language (admit that questions of GMO safety exist). We have suggested for going on a year now that the solution to this contentious and unsupported generalizing statement is to simply quote the various groups. We don't do that. WP summarizes upwards of 18 different sources in order to claim that this 'general consensus' exists. Having been through the RfC and the related ArbCom, these facts have been well covered so i won't be added diffs again. WP can continue to host unsupported PR statements that fly in the face of MEDRS, and it can continue to be a laughing stock that people are warned to stay away from. Up to you. But PR doesn't work if no one trusts you. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about direct quotes, I have suggested this here, and guess what - the involved editors ignore this entirely, besides we do this for Scientific opinion on climate change. Their reason is probably because the WHO (statement in link)- the highest authority in the field, directly contradicts a consensus statement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That we are being forced to reargue that gargantuan RfC, but unofficially in barely-related noticeboards, shows disruptive editing. That this consensus statement is being added to WP and you are the one who ends up in trouble (again, for simply tending to RS issues) shows that "discretionary sanctions" and handslaps from ArbCom do not actually help anything. This issue needs to go to the authorities and they should be forced to address it. [But I'm not volunteering; I am ignored even when I ping and ask very direct (even bolded) questions.]

It is clear that an encyclopedia would uphold the notion that we add content, well-sourced and neutrally stated, and then if it can be summarized in a simple statement, great, add it to the intro. I call this a PR statement because for one thing, the opposite happened in this case. The statement was written, and the sourcing was dealt with afterwords, largely through drama board gaming by gangs, as we see today. Even though official WP processes were used to determine that statement is without support, longtime editors can still find a way around this inconvenient fact. I call it a PR statement also due to the fact that any true mention of opposition to this POV is left out of articles, again through these same methods. To this day, WP does not mention the percentage of Americans who favor GMO labeling, even though I have complained about this many times in very public places. I've mentioned many times Domingo, who's paper is the very best MEDRS source available on the subject of GMO food safety, and literally everyone at this encyclopedia snores. So, by what WP does say, and by what is being kept out, we do indeed have a PR statement written by a topic banned editor, now being reintroduced and defended by his buddies. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice Petrarchan47's shill gambit above? Comments? Geogene (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene, stop following me around. It's becoming ridiculous. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following? I posted here (top of the thread) before you did. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The apology will be interesting. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene has been following me for a long, long time. I had to say it, even if it doesn't immediately apply. Anyone can do a little search and find this to be true. I see no reason for an apology, but it's easy to believe you weren't aware of our long history. You can check Geogene's talk page archives for more. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask for an IBAN. A two way IBAN. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to leave me alone. It's been over 2 years. Let it go. We don't need to call the cops. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here still discussing whether there should be administrator action against KingofAces, or are we just warming up for another round of dispute resolution? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was dead on arrival and should have closed yesterday. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Suggestion (from uninvolved editor): I suggest that the community make it a policy, in DS or AE/ArbCom areas, that participants on either side must not name-call or falsely characterize/compare the participants on the other side. Therefore, in this particular DS topic area, no use of the word "shill", no mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar such as flat earth), and no use of insults/name-calls such as "GMO paranoia gang". Can we all agree on that? It seems like such directives should be included in every ArbCom ruling in these sorts of DS areas. It would solve a lot of problems. Especially if sanctions were forthcoming for any breach of these principles. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, and I've been trying to get the community to see pretty much that in the thread about Elvey higher up on this page. The thing about "shill" was actually codified in the ArbCom decision. But what is happening is that editors are getting sophisticated about skirting the spirit of the principle. Instead of calling someone a "shill", they talk about "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good", and in the thread I referred to, administrators are saying that they don't see anything about "shill" in that. But the opening complaint of this thread here was about an editor saying that an argument resembled the arguments used by climate change deniers, and some editors are trying to spin a critique of an argument as being the same as saying that editors are climate change deniers. It gets messy when you get into the weeds, just like civility. I wish it were clear-cut. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on Softlavender prokaryotes (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would all be settled if any mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar) were prohibited. I'm not talking about this ANI case. I'm talking about going forward. And, going forward, "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good" and similar statements would be prohibited as well. If someone has a COI claim or investigation to make, that belongs on WP:COIN, not in content discussions or disputes. It's fine to discuss whether research or a source is independent of a company/ies or not, but in this DS area, it's not fine at this point to discuss or hint at other editors' motivations, period. Or compare their arguments/behaviors to other groups, period. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see the problem with comparing an someone's argument to arguments used by climate change denialists. For one, that's a critique of the argument, not the editor. It isn't flattering, but this is not the most horrible insult to hit ANI this week. Geogene (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the point: It is an insult, and in these contentious DS/ArbCom areas, we need to prohibit insults of every kind, on both sides of the equation. Again, I'm not talking about this particular ANI case; I'm talking about going forward. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be able to objectively, and honestly discuss the qualities of arguments other editors use. If it's a bad argument, the editor behind it might feel insulted. But that's not necessarily an insult. The problem comes in when they attack the editor, such as by assigning them problematic motives. That isn't what's happening here because this area has no connection to climate change, and there's really no threat of anyone constructing bad arguments about GMOs because they're climate change denialists. If that were true, if a reasonable person might be worried about denialists sneaking in and using bad arguments, etc, in GMO articles then it might have been an aspersion. Civility and AGF are already required by policy but they aren't consistently enforced. Banning certain words or phraseology would just be another "gotcha" trap for newcomers to Wikipedia and wouldn't accomplish anything because thesauruses exist. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments are based on logic. You can objectively critique the logic of any argument without comparing it to the arguments of a disparaged group, or indeed any group at all. (Just as you can critique someone's claims without fulfilling Godwin's Law.) I see no point in explaining this further, so that's my last comment to you on that score. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene, "discussing" needs to be done in all kinds of ways, but "honestly" isn't necessarily one of them. I agree with Softlavender that such a comparison is insulting, and is meant as a put-down. Analogies can work very effectively, just ask Donald Trump or any other politician, but some of them work by way of rhetorical sleight of hand. If you cannot say something in literal language, you probably should stay away from using metaphorical language. I'm speaking now as a person who has a block button: I am very likely to consider the comparison a personal attack. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'll remind you that editors such as Prokaryotes were made fully aware this couldn't be construed as a put-down before this thread opened as described in my original post here, with even more explanation here, and my comments at the AE case. They were implicitly told I was focusing on the sources and the arguments sources put forth and that the criticisms of arguments for "no scientific consensus" being like climate change denialism were also sourced. The only time I ever directed a comment at editors was: 1. Some were misunderstanding some technical aspects of the sources [44] explained in previous discussions. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at the board.[45]

As a legitimate question to hopefully end this, maybe you can offer some insight both from the admin/ArbCom perspective and the content side? If even introducing the content issue that science denialism in the GMO topic fringe sources and the methods the sources use causes this much of a call for blood, how would we even approach writing about this content in an article? Such content would describe many of the arguments against GMOs being safe as ranging from unsupported to pseudoscientific and described as similar to climate change denialism, vaccine controversy, etc. by sources. That's content and a huge consideration in WP:WEIGHT on the topic. No one should be getting insulted by that content not directed at editors. That's especially if editors that may not personally agree with that view are checking their personal views at the door at login. Not checking such views at the door should be the only way to claim personal offense in this area of the content and contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED.

How would you go about dealing with this dynamic of separating content from behavior issues on this specific topic? I for one am interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack. I'm open to thoughts of clarity on this, especially now that we've fulfilled the point of Godwin's law where editors are invoking Nazis as part of arguments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content. Accusing an editor of using an argument like climate change denial is not at all the same as citing content from purported RS that does so, and then discussing whether the source is RS or is the best RS. Besides I have not seen quality RS that accuses those who question the purported "scientific consensus" on GMO safety as being akin to climate change denial--it is usually GMO proponents like Jon Entine or Pamela Ronald who write in mainstream who say things like that. Nor have I seen RS using terms like "pseudoscience" or Fringe. The word "Fringe" is purely a Wikipedia construction. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Softlavender's suggestion and agree with all of Softlavender's responses to Geogene. We need more civility. These insults are unnecessary and unhelpful and also create a lot of text that does not serve the project. Instead, let's look at the RS and what it says and discuss it without attacking the other editor's intelligence, competence, motivations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Do you consider a comment like "I understand the industry does not want the critics' voices, but I think our article is supposed to be about the "controversy" not just the industry perspective. in relation to a reversion to be any different than the ones being discussed here? I was personally not offended by it in any way and didn't even give it a second thought until another editor linked WP:AGF when responding. I think it highlights how easy it is to make these unnecessary aspersions and the difficulty in enforcing them in any meaningful way as the level of offence experienced by editors varies a lot. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very subtle accusation of biased editing in the first part of that comment. So it was okay for the other editor to call me out on it, and so I regretted it after making it. I should have just said that there is too much of the industry perspective. In fact, I would be willing to strike that part out if it helps. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is good opportunity, a bit more of a hopefully final explanation of my original intent plus general issues we're dealing with in this topic. Part of the problem with what Softlavender described is that general science denialism tactics (e.g., denying scientific consensus where climate change has the most examples) are content issues, not comments on editors. I fully acknowledge that editors sometimes may blur the line between the two in heated debate, especially in cases when an editor personalizes a point of view that might have significant criticism and gets offended (I'm not singling anyone out here). Editors should be detaching their personal views from content when they log in though per NPOV. That's all why I was purposely careful to focus my post about the content, not editors, as I made abundantly clear to Prokaryotes before this thread was even opened and at the WP:AE case against them (where I find it very curious that they went to ANI with this instead of AE during their open case).

Saying we can't talk about sourced science denialism in a topic at all would be restricting content. It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism. Those things are going to come up as part of legitimate discussions on real-world content in these topics. Obviously no one should be going so far as to personalize it into insults directed at editors such as claiming they are an anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOer, etc. We focus on content instead. It's one thing to deal with obvious personal attacks like just I described. It's entirely something else when an editor gets offended and tries to claim personal attack because the subject matter in the controversy has been characterized as pseudoscientific, fringe, on par with climate change denialism in method, etc. by sources as happened in my case. Especially in controversial subjects, we can't be restricting content because someone will create offense out of that focus on certain content. I hear your comments on trying to cut down the drama (we all want that), but we'd be violating multiple policies and ArbCom decisions if we apply your suggestion to these kinds of situations. We instead need to cut down on instances where editors try to falsely claim personal insult when discussion of controversial subjects comes up, not restrict the controversial subject from the content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Stated above: "It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism". Not at all. There would be no need to compare the editors or their arguments to climate change denialism, since the subject would be climate denialism and the arguments would be discussed directly and would be directly relevant, not an attack by using an Association fallacy with something unrelated to the subject matter that is designed to denigrate those making an argument. Should we allow those who dispute climate change to have free reign to say that those who disagree with them are using the same arguments used by the Nazi's, since limiting such comparison to the Nazi's would negatively impact the articles about Nazi's? See Godwin's law.

To say it another way, I think the concern King raised about Softlavender's proposal, is that he believes it would make it impossible to challenge the LOGIC of the climate change deniers. No. The LOGIC, facts, RS, etc. of arguments related to climate change or GMO's can be challenged directly without any need to compare the two. The objection made here is of the unfair comparison of the two with the purpose of denigrating the editors. I would be just as concerned if Nazi's were used for comparison. (Ironcially, when I searched for this section, Godwin's law came up on one of the other AN/I cases. Softlavender mentioned it too.) --David Tornheim (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is among the most fatuous suggestions I have seen on Wikipedia in recent times. Censoring Wikipedia discussion to prevent mention of such well-documented real-world problems as climate change denial would not only be completely unenforceable, it would also be an abrogation of our mission to be neutral and accurate. Of course climate change denialists hate being called climate change denialists, that's their problem, not ours. Climate change denial is real, and to make climate change denial denialism a formal policy here would be outrageous. What would help is for those who self-identify as climate change not-denial-at-all-ists to stop getting so indignant whenever we mention the D-word. The global scientific consensus on climate change is extremely robust, and the continued pathological opposition of a group dominated by fossil fuel interests and fundamentalist libertarians is justly characterised as denial: a form of motivated reasoning. And we're not going to stop calling it that, and if people are uncomfortable with a project that is unashamed to call climate change denial by its name, then they will surely be most welcome at Conservapedia, where climate change denial is the official editorial line. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading a different suggestion here than the one I see. Call a climate-change denier a climate-change denier or an anti-vaccine advocate anti-vaccine. This is not a problem. The problem arises when shallow comparisons are made, saying anti-gmo groups are like, or make arguments like, anti-vaccine advocates, when the groups, arguments, and science involved have almost nothing in common.Dialectric (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually from my own observation of anti-GMO activists and anti-vaxers at work, they use very similar arguments: "not adequately tested", for example, the pretence that they are not anti-X but pro-safe-X, "think of the children" and so on. The tactics of antivaxers are more rabid, but anti-GMO activists and climate change deniers - two groups with almost no overlap in personnel - both make liberal use of tactics straight from the tobacco industry playbook. And there is also quite an overlap between climate denial and antivaxers in US politics at the moment. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are your observations, but we are supposed to be reporting what is in WP:RS, not making up our own theories. If someone said, "These editors are using the same arguments as Nazi's in order to promote their agenda here on Wikipedia", and the writer defended it saying, "that's just my personal OPINION and OBSERVATION", you wouldn't seriously be okay with that would you? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's crude and proves Godwin's Law, but aside from that, what's the big deal? After all, Wikipedia more than occasionally deals with true-to-form honest-to-goodness Nazis, doncha know? Are you saying that if we find a Nazi we should never point it out? Honestly, I'm getting the impression that you lack critical thinking skills here. jps (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors have agreed that denigrating one's argument by lumping them in with climate change deniers is indeed "casting aspersions". As these articles are under DS, I would support some action taken. Guy said:" I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial." In my opinion, it is equally agregious to use these terms as it is to use "shill" (a term I have never used, by the way, and wouldn't support). These needs to be made clear. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree. In my opinion there is no way that mentioning "climate-change denial" (or "fringe", or "anti-vaccine"), when discussing a completely different topic is not casting aspersions. Nor is it content-related: it's behavior-describing. For instance, saying "We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." needs to be re-worded as something like "I'm seeing tactics to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated anti-GMO sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of aspersion-by-association has gone on for some time now on the GMO articles and this behavior should stop. It does not contribute to dialog. No argument in this area requires nakedly biased wording such as 'fringe', shills', or association of arguments or individuals with 'climate change denial' and the repeated use of such wording is divisive. While it may take a few more words to articulate one's concerns without such language, many editors manage just fine without resorting to it, and as most of the editors involved so far in this discussion have written many thousands of words on GMO topics - a few more in the service of a fully articulated argument free of aspersions won't hurt.Dialectric (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision still says the exact same thing I originally did and my comments were referring specifically to sources and content. It's time for people to drop the stick that I was somehow referring to editors even after multiple clarifications on my intent being on the sources and the arguments they put forth. WP:NPA is clear that discussion of content in this manner not directed at editors is not a personal attack even if people may be offended by the content itself, and we need to stick to that policy, especially when it comes to misrepresenting editor's statements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who and what are you replying to Kingofaces43? If, as you say, you are truly 'interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack' then a clear statement from you that you will stop mentioning climate change in any capacity in GMO ~~articles~~ article talk pages, and an acknowledgement that the two areas are completely unrelated, would be a good start.Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the threading, I'm replying to SoftLavender. You're suggestion though is that I violate policy by restricting content when sources describe a topic as pseduoscientific, fringe, and all the other nuances of those terms, including when sources say they are similar to other fringe points of view. That's what I'm currently looking into expanding in some articles. If someone is opposed to that, that's a content discussion and not something suited for ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified that I meant talk pages, which are being discussed here.Dialectric (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, if you're going work on developing content, you can't restrict mention of that content from talk pages. That would toss WP:CONSENSUS policy out the window. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-censoring in a controversial area in no way violates policy. I am not suggesting it as a punishment, rather as a voluntary route for you to avoid further distracting digressions over this issue which I don't see coming to any resolution here unless you agree to one. I can't see how not mentioning climate change will prove any real impediment to work on GM articles.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's violating WP:NOTCENSORED if some editors have gotten offended because of what sources say on the matter and the solution is to not talk about the offending content. We're not here to WP:RGW on content as some people may perceive them to be. We just write about reality as sources describe and leave it at that regardless of whether the content offends some group. If someone consistently has trouble with NOTCENSORED policy, that can be taken up at ArbCom enforcement. I don't see any reason to continue this particular conversation beyond that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content as I explained here --David Tornheim (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sure reminds me of the debates about enforcing WP:CIVIL. One editor's reaction to the word "cunt" ends up being far different than another editor's. And one editor's reactions to "climate deniers" and "companies with deep pockets" ends up being far different than another editor's. I really do not know what to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could begin by refraining from using a word you know will insult people. Please use "the C word" to get the point across without offending people, in this case large numbers of women. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to offend anyone. There is a specific history on Wikipedia about that word, with some editors feeling about it the way that you do (and I pretty much agree with you!) and other editors feeling very much the opposite. It even became the centerpiece of an ArbCom case. (For context: some editors from the UK consider the word to be not much different than "buddy"; to US ears, that seems surprising.) I'd rather not link to the past dramas, but my intention was to utilize a word that has been Exhibit 1 in Wikipedia's inability to get to consensus about WP:CIVIL. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the history, as do you, which is why you cannot claim that you meant not to offend, you've just admitted you know the word is highly inflammatory, especially to many women on this site. I'm suggesting you can make the same point in the future without using the word and potentially upsetting people. There is no reason to spell it out unless you want to inflame, or if there is no other way to convey your point. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does not even make sense, which illustrates how far this dispute has become intractable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am staggered to hear that any English editor would consider that word as meaning "buddy" except in a very private conversation between people who know each other extremely well. I am not fanning flames here. I will go away and do my own research, but I am shocked by this possibility.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the US, and my understanding of the word is in accordance with US customs, and I am no expert on UK culture. I was not endorsing the use of the word. Rather, I was trying to point out to grown-up people that Wikipedia has had a history with it. Given WP:NOTCENSORED, I assumed that other editors would understand it that way. The background for it is what led up to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. If anyone wants to argue about it, you can identify editors to argue about it with by looking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, I did not mean in anyway to comment on your use or interpretation of the word. What I was doing was expressing "to the world" my amazement that some English editors would make such an argument. I am striking my comment above so that hopefully there can not be any misunderstanding.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that! That was very kind of you. For what it's worth, I find it rather surprising too, but if I've learned anything from editing Wikipedia, it's the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just has to be done on a case-by-case basis. If someone is making strong attacks directly at editors or casting aspersions, then sanctions should deal with that. If it's actually a focus on content like in my case, that's not any sort of violation (could be a boomerang situation potentially). Let's take a parallel example from the "other side" of the topic. Saying the statements and literature that GMOs are safe are just bought off by industry could technically be twisted to be a personal attack too if someone was pointy about this. Some examples:

An editor trying to discuss potential source conflict of interest, etc. would be fine in terms of civility, aspersions, etc. (not going to get into validity as content).
Saying that the editor is just siding with Monsanto, etc. is crossing the line into aspersions territory or more.
If they said Nazis would use those arguments (unless pig's fly and it's amazingly sourced), that would still be aspersions territory even though it's discussing content as it's unwarranted guilt by association rather than solely content. Nazis just get mention because some people triggered Godwin's law and trying to frame that mentioning fringe subjects is equivalent.
If they said the arguments for GMOs were just fringe (e.g., if the scientific consensus was GMOs are unsafe) and reasoning trying to push the fringe idea is pseudoscientific in nature similar to that pushed by industry in climate change, that's not inherently an aspersion, and definitely not if it's sourced (again talking scenarios and not actual content validity).

Basically, I'm sitting in situation 4 right now. I can think of some situations where editors have made a very similar argument as 4 though, so if we're going to consider that inappropriate and blockable, I think we could clear out a lot of editors from the GMO topic. I highly doubt anyone is going to seriously consider that valid though. Any thoughts on this framework though? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept that such statements aren't aspersions, what purpose do they serve? When is 'you sound like the climate change deniers' ever the best argument in a given discussion? Any forward progress we've seen in the GMO articles has come from finding and discussing good sources, not on pigeonholing editors into an objectionable association.Dialectric (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good argument when you are trying to convince someone who has rejected reasonable approaches? I think it can be helpful at times to get people to see what others see of them. It's not always effective, but let's take a particular editor here, prokaryotes. This particular editor is topic banned from vaccines for promoting anti-vaccine nonsense. And yet the editor has been very good in certain climate change articles. Here they are seeming to fall into the same habits as their anti-vaccine editing rather than in the good habits of their climate change editing. At the very least, it seems to have gotten their attention. Now, whether it is persuasive or not is hard to say. I'm not sure what the best persuasive technique is when it comes to these hot-button points. But it's not fair to accuse someone of pigeonholing when discussion at times needs to break free of the usual litany of bad sourcing, poor science, and, yes, denial of facts that characterize poor editing practices in this area as well as the other areas herein referenced. jps (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I think your argument has fallacies. (a) Calling someone names is not a reasonable argument against a poor edit (b) Suggesting someone is unreasonable is to suggest that your argument is perfectly reasonable and that you have absolute knowledge of the facts and truth. Wikipedia has a procedure called Dispute Resolution for dealing with content issues that does not include incivility. If editors can not control themselves, they should not be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Agree, especially with (a). --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of your preference for form over substance. It is part of the reason you're topic banned. jps (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That would fall into 2; I'm pretty sure I was clear that wasn't ok at all. It's entirely different to discuss there are similar scientific denialism methods within content at play like in climate change to obfuscate scientific consensus, especially when discussed in sources (#4). That's part of this controversial topic, and even if someone doesn't like that, they need to accept that it's going to be part of the content discussion just as claims came up that there is nefarious doing within sources related to industry on the other end. We can't have double standards here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Softlavender -- this is a serious obstacle to constructive editing and dispute resolution, and must be addressed by the community to avert many more instances of future conflict. GAB^Hello! 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Softlavender These comparisons and labels simply make a tense situation into a battleground. It lumps editors into categories and is contrary to consensus building. The results is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SoftLavender and many others, that dialog must be open to all, without prejudice, and name-calling disallowed. It's not okay to frame some ideas a "fringe" and therefore to poison the well against them. Simply rely on sources. You may find that there is a lot of nuance in the results. Some concepts have some validity and some falsity. There are indeed power dynamics that shape knowledge. If we rely on sources and act with integrity, then it will not be necessary to engage in witch-hunts or inquisitions, and the finer edge of reality will reveal itself, instead of a caricature version of what's real. SageRad (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Oppose While well-meaning, I think that any policy or guideline level advice like this would only be used to shut one side down, by ignoring the content of argument in favour of some specific of how it's phrased. Especially as, in this specific case, pointing out similarities of tactics in denialist movements is the subject of major academic texts, e.g. The Merchants of Doubt, which compares and shows continuity in, offhand, denial that tobacco causes cancer, denial of the nuclear winter/support for Reagan's Star Wars initiative, climate change denial, etc. No personal attacks is a rule, but no attacks on viewpoints cannot be without harming the encyclopedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for The Merchants of Doubt. Can you please provide a proper citation? Also, you did not say this source mentions arguments related to GMO's in the context we have been talking about. As far as I can tell it is irrelevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on whether it is relevant, but the wikipedia article is Merchants of Doubt.Dialectric (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SoftLavender...such labeling and name-calling of editors is clearly being used to taunt and harass. It makes for a battleground atmosphere which could so easily be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SoftLavender - Adopting this policy, with sanctions for repeat violations, would remove a tactic long used by POV warriors to shame and blame those opposing their cherished views. Jus da fax 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SoftLavender As per my earlier comments. Comparing the questioning of GMO safety to climate change denial is a talking point pushed by Jon Entine[46] who does this on behalf of industry.[47] This comparison, and claims of fringe, are not encyclopedic and have no place here. Further, as I wrote earlier, questioning GMO safety is becoming the majority viewpoint in some areas, and has a true scientific basis, as evidenced by the amount of countries now banning them, the fact that 93% of Americans want them labeled, and the findings of harm reviewed in Domingo 2011, for instance. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems, but one simple solution

Problem 1: A small number of editors hold fringe beliefs which they hate to be characterised as WP:FRINGE. A small group of editors are sympathetic to climate change denial and hate it being called climate change denial. A small group of editors are sympathetic to pseudoscientific ideas and hate them being characterised as pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs.

Problem 2: These editors are persistent, and most others long ago bored of arguing with them. That risks one of two outcomes: either those who remain, burn out and end up in trouble; or, everyone wanders off and the POV-pushers get to dominate the article and this claim "consensus". Neither of these is good.

Problem 3: Some people who advocate fringe beliefs are hurt badly in the feels by Wikipedia's unashamedly reality-based stance. This is not our problem to fix.

Problem 4: Some people interpret a polite response as an invitation to keep advocating content that violates policy (e.g. by pretending that climate change "skeptics" are Just Asking Questions), and interpret any forthright response as "bullying" (see Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia for an example of what happens when you get a climate change denier, a holder of multiple topic bans and a serial WP:OWNer to collaborate on how to make Wikipedia "better").

Problem 5: Most Wikipedians could not care less about any of this bullshit and just leave the toxic areas alone, thus leaving only warring factions active there.

Problem 6: I am a nasty suspicious bastard and every time I see anybody trying to suppress mention of climate change denial, I want to stand them on a piece of low lying ground just before the next unprecedented arctic melt (i.e. each successive summer right now).

There is a solution. People with fringe beliefs who want to make changes to articles that do not achieve consensus on Talk are free to start an RfC with a specific, actionable request. They should then abide by the outcome. The policy Wikipedia needs is not WP:CUDDLYBUNNIES, it is WP:STFU. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to think of a practical solution that can be discussed meaningfully at ANI, I am especially drawn to points 2 and 5. I would be delighted to see more fresh eyes on the pages where the disputes are happening. Please, let's have more uninvolved editors taking a look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to google "Wikipedia STFU", this is the first entry, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STFU prokaryotes (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have led a sheltered life, clearly. However, now you understand. The solution to 90% of "uncivil", "bullying" comments is for POV-pushers to start taking "no" for an answer. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is problematic. You start out by grouping people into categories with the word "fringe". It's a grating word to some who see how it's applied. It's a McCarthyism. It's a silencing. We come down to sources and sensible dialog. There is no need for a slanderous word to group some people together in that way. It's off-putting and makes a toxic environment. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Guy's statement. Oppose SageRad's hysterical and ahistorical response. BMK (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My position is based in principle, and is based on observing what is happening within Wikipedia. The proposal buy Guy is a foundation for people like you and Guy to rule what becomes "acceptable" knowledge according to your prejudices. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by requiring sourcing, and having good dialogue about the sources. There are good policies that result in good articles when applied with integrity. We do not need an over-layer of pre-determining some things "fringe" and others things "acceptable". That creates a hierarchy of control that is unacceptable within Wikipedia, and i have observed for a year now the way it leads to a flavor too similar to McCarthyism. It removed nuance from discussions. It creates caricatures of reality. It is an unnecessary layer, and it leads to a bad editing environment. I personally know that climate change denial is denial, but i don't declare that this is the new rule on Wikipedia. That's against policy and spirit, and it's not necessary, and in fact it gets in the way of good editing. The sources alone, and reasonable dialogue, are powerful enough to maintain the articles in good form. There may be a constant conversation and that's okay. On other topics, it's not as clear. There may be nuance. Some things may be partly A and partly B -- partly correct and partly incorrect. We need to admit this possibility, and not set up a panel of judges who determine "This is A!" and "That is B!" -- That is the format of fascism. That leads to binary versions of reality in articles, not the richness that Wikipedia can achieve if we simple follow the policies. SageRad (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this crazy mixed-up world, you are actually trying to argue that your preference for people not to say what they think will somehow lead to a freer exchange of ideas. I guess that's because you think it will somehow raise the level of discourse. But if people are forbidden from discussing their preferences for what ideas should and should not be stated plainly in articlespace, this clearly will not allow for a free exchange of ideas. jps (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does

Once upon a time, the self-described "climate change skeptics" were mad about being called "climate change deniers". Because holocaust deniers were evil and they were good. The presence of lots of sources that eventually pointed out that the term "denier" was more accurate than "skeptic" put to bed these concerns. I'm sure there are lots of threads in the archives complaining about the uncivil way in which climate change deniers were characterized.

Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers. Because the climate change deniers are evil and they are good. I sense a similar story a-brewing.

Bad science is bad science regardless of the venue in which it is found. Comparing bad science to bad science is simply to say that it is not good science. To argue that climate change denial and anti-GMO activism are "unrelated" is to miss the point of the comparison just as it was missing the point to argue that climate change denial and holocaust denial are "unrelated".

jps (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling with this issue, in terms of what is the right thing for Wikipedia. My personal opinion (as a not-reliable source) is that you are correct. In the present, there is a clear scientific consensus about GMOs, albeit with caveats, and Wikipedia needs to push back against POV-pushers who want us to obscure that fact, and there is a pattern that is very obvious to me of, as you say, they consider themselves good whereas climate change deniers are evil (WP:RGW). On the other hand, as of right this second, I don't think that we can say that the science about GMOs has gotten to the point where we can place skeptics in the same category as holocaust deniers. Maybe five years from now, the science will be at the point where fear of GM foods will be widely seen as being on a par with thinking the earth is flat. But maybe not, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of gray certainly draw the short straws on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, for me, the point stands that current evaluation reveals a general anti-scientific bent found in the anti-genetic engineering arguments. This is true even while there is a reasonable broader argument to be had over public health, safety, risk management, and environmental protection which form part of a WP:MAINSTREAM corpus and are part of the overarching goals for many of the same activists who adopt the pseudoscientific thinking. Where they seem to lose the plot is in an over-reliance on categorical claims about genetic modification that lack empirical backing. It is, of course, possible to genetically engineer dangerous organisms. It does not follow that all genetically engineered organisms are dangerous. It is also, of course, possible that certain genetically engineered organisms are dangerous unintentionally. These are questions of empirical science and they have to be interrogated empirically. There are lots and lots of papers on these subjects and the consensus is pretty clear to me that genetic engineering as a process is no more dangerous than any other form of artificial selection. This fundamental point is utterly lost on those in the anti-GMO movement, and it is a point of departure that strikes me as being entirely denialist. jps (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Can we please stick to the point of the thread. The above and several other postings are simply POV unrelated to the subject of the thread.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My god but you are tiresome. If you don't like a conversation, don't comment in it! For someone who complains about harassment, you sure do seem to like to wikihound. jps (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not the contributor WP:FOC. My comment was that postings are increasingly off-topic. I suggest someone looks at hatting these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is that your contributions here are garbage. jps (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I am sure that the vast majority of editors here will understand that your last comment is totally inappropriate for this noticeboard. My replying to you here would be just as inappropriate. Am I welcome to post at your Talk page regarding your unacceptable behaviour?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who links to WP:FOC as much as you do, you certainly don't practice what you preach. You are always free to post at my talkpage. Don't expect the conversation to be fruitful if all you want to do is declare what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Open and honest discussions are always welcome. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from admin Guy/Jzg: "Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers." Can you identify the editors of your so called group of anti-GMO paranoiacs? I edit GMO topics and I am unaware of such a group. Also can you maybe provide a link to an example where this "group" you claim exists at Wikipedia, where this group displays anti-GMO paranoia, which is similar to climate change denier arguments? prokaryotes (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said that in the talk section before this one, so you really should ask him about it there, instead of implying that other editors said it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Prokaryotes displays all of his customary care to follow factual accuracy over predefined agenda: it was someone else entirely who said that. It is, however, true, that the anti-GMO brigade and the climate deniers do use many common tactics, which is ironic as they are generally at opposite poles politically - and sources often considered left-leaning are the ones who say this, by the way: Slate, New Scientist, Grauniad. Anti-GMO activists are as passionate in their promotion of the pharma shill gambit as they are indignant over the activities of the fossil fuel industry. As an outsider to both worlds, it amuses and perplexes me in equal measure. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the problem is with these "opinion pieces", that they are or potentially are biased (based on past incidents), For instance the Slate article is by Keith Kloor, someone with ties to the industry, http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/ The second article by Fred Pearce is not really supporting your claims you make here, and besides Pearce has written in the past critical about Monsanto http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/03/monsanto-water-greenwash Didn't checked the 3rd opinion piece authors background. prokaryotes (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, even this conversation is riddled with aspersions. You're making a leap from editors rightly questioning your use of wording and sources based on the results of a previous RfC, to the assumption that this is motivated by a desire to push an "anti-GMO" POV. The ArbCom case made very clear that casting aspersions in order to kneecap critics of your editing is forbidden.

An encyclopedic approach to this issue would be to list the various opinions and statements, credited to their sources, rather than what we have presently: written as a summary using WP's voice, without proper sourcing. A recent article in TIME puts our coverage to shame with this balanced, accurate wording: The science community holds a variety of opinions on GMOs... and then goes on to list of few of them. The article is titled Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs, which makes these proclaimations that any questioning of GMO is fringe, look a bit absurd. I would argue that this language has the effect of discrediting opponents in place of having actual support for arguments.

The present editor in chief of Elsevier, Jose Domingo, reviewed the literature regarding GM food safety. It is the only review of these studies that exists, and meets WP:MEDRS requirements. Of the studies done not by industry, but by independent researchers, roughly half showed what Domingo called "serious cause for concern", meaning that there is no possible way to claim that the science is settled. Further, this review is being disallowed from not only our summarizing statement, but from gracing any page on WP.

The NYT states that 93% of US citizens support GMO labels (fringe?) and even this fact has been disallowed from WP articles. It is only because of the bias that is being allowed to rule the GMO suite that you can make claims that some bad faith editors are pushing an anti-science, fringe POV.

The World Health Organization states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." But we have been disallowed from properly quoting them.

The problem does not rest with some anti-GMO faction on WP, no matter how many echo this claim. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Excellent argumentation. V Opinion and with no RS to back it up + unnecessary ad hominem --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is really poor argumentation, akin to a lot of what I've seen at climate denial points as well. Yes, it is well known that Europe's Frankenfood paranoia is about as pseudoscientific as certain countries' uncritical acceptance of homeopathy or their belief in hudenfolk. That goes for the WHO as well which doesn't make scientific pronouncements as a general rule and is sadly held hostage to the political whims of the member states when it comes to its white literature (there is a godawful WHO statement on acupuncture I can point to). Labeling arguments, while not being based in science at all, miss the point that 1) organic food already works as a perfectly good label and 2) strict labeling would require identifying precisely what a "GMO" entails which is why any labeling regulation or law would be subject to massive legal wrangling and not a small amount of impossible to verify claims about how you can tell when something is "GMO" or not. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for empirical points. So whadya got? A much criticized review article by Domingo. Hell, I can point to some pretty damning review articles by climate science deniers too. Right now, the issue that petrarchan47 and his clan are pseudoscientist POV-pushers and probably shouldn't be allowed to touch articles on the subject. They just aren't competent. Just like the global warming deniers aren't competent to edit articles on global warming. jps (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's a lot of opinion, not a lot of fact. In fact, you are wrong. Domingo's review has never received one iota of criticism. Encyclopedias should be based on science, not hand-waving rhetoric and downright lies. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm.. you're just plain wrong about that. jps (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A much criticized review article by Domingo. Prove it. Domingo's review has not been criticized; I find this apparent inability to accurately read or understand science highly troubling. petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here ends the lesson. Evidence provided and dismissed. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first study you link above, Matt Demont's project has received millions in grants, including from Syngenta and several grants from Monsanto. I don't have access to the study, so i can not say if this conflict of interests is mentioned by the study authors.prokaryotes (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd study from Italy, is not ruling out risks from GMOs, the abstract "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense." So what are the indirect hazards? Probably pesticide residues. prokaryotes (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the claim that there isn't one iota of criticism is just plain false. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 studies you linked above, how are these criticism of another study? Can't find anything, unless you suggest that their findings indirectly critic other study findings. Bu this would be considered WP:SYN prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are direct criticisms of the study championed above in each of the papers. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously credible criticism able to discredit the review and the studies, as you suggested had been done, was what I was referring to. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So provided. Sorry if you can't understand that. jps (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jps: You have not provided any evidence of the criticism of the Domingo's 2011 study. Please provide quotes from the articles. Although I was unable to find copies of the first two, the last study is available here and it does not criticize Domingo's 2011 review. Why did you say it did? And you are throwing around accusations of incompetence? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to do your research work for you. The study most certainly does criticize Domingo as is seen in the list immediately following the citation. It's fairly easy to read the part where it is cited. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am not asking you to do any research for me; I am asking you to prove that you did not lie. You said above that Domingo 2011 was a "much criticized review article by Domingo." As evidence to support your claim you provided three sources, the last of which is this in abstract. I reviewed the full article of this last source, and the article does not say what you contend it says. I asked you for quotes from the article to prove that you are not misrepresenting the contents of the article. Again you are unable to do so. Instead, you say to look at where Domingo 2011 is cited and the list that follows. That material is here and it does not criticize Domingo 2011, but instead is used to support the author's review:

However, as indicated by the significant increment of the publications after 2006, it seems that the GE crop developers acknowledged the necessity of an improved transparency (Domingo & Bordonaba, 2011). The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:
(a) there is no scientific evidence of toxic or allergenic effects;
(b) some concern has been raised against GE corn MON 810, MON863 and NK603 (de Vendoˆmois et al., 2009; Se´ralini et al., 2007, 2012), but these experimental results have been deemed of no significance (EFSA 2007, 2012; Houllier, 2012; Parrot & Chassy, 2009);
(c) only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazilnut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed (Nordlee et al., 1996) and the not verified case of maize Starlink (Siruguri et al., 2004);
(d) during the digestion process the proteins generally undergo degradation that leads to the loss of activity (Delaney et al., 2008);
(e) even though there are examples of some ingested proteins that are absorbed in minute quantities in an essentially intact form (e.g. ovalbumin, ovomucoid, b-lactoglobulin) (Kier & Petrick, 2008) or proteins that are hydrolyzed into smaller absorbed bioactive peptides (Udenigwe & Aluko, 2012), the consumption of transgenic proteins contained in the authorized GE crop does not result in any detectable systemic uptake (Kier & Petrick, 2008) and transgenic proteins are usually rapidly degraded and not detectable in animal derived products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) (Ramessar et al., 2007);
References
Domingo JL, Gine´ Bordonaba J. (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environment Int, 37, 734–2.

This kind of dishonesty falls under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY and should be sanctioned. The entire demeanor and name calling behavior of this editor starting this section is uncivil as well, for all the reasons mentioned in this AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated that you don't even have basic reading comprehension. Go back, read what I wrote, read what's written here, and see if you can find your mistake. I'll give you a redo. jps (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to obtain full copies of the other two journal articles you cited that you claimed are evidence that the Domingo 2011 literature review is "much criticized". They both cited Domingo, but neither of the other two criticized the review either. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You did not learn. Sorry, fellow. You're not only wrong, you appear to not be able to understand what you are reading. jps (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the dance and really can't stay, but as a part-time DRN volunteer, I wanted to express my concerns over the unsupported criticisms and downright aspersions being cast against editors who did nothing to deserve such treatment except disagree with a very strong POV that favors censorship or extraordinary downplay of information in our articles. According to PAGs, our articles are supposed to include information that is compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. The constant bickering and aspersions by those who apparently want to censor general information under the guise of fringe are turning this into a behavioral issue, and appear to have made Petrarchan47, Prokaryotes and David Tornheim the targets of their misbehavior. I don't understand why because those 3 editors have presented excellent arguments without castigating anyone or using any unacceptable terminology except to condemn the bad behavior by others. I also researched how our PAGs support the fringe claims that have been thrown about, and used against the 3 named editors and quite frankly, our PAGs say quite the opposite and condemn such behavior - as did the recent ArbCom hearing on GMOs. As for the fringe/ps claims made against the 3 editors, our PAGs read:WP:FRINGE/PS

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Those editors who are aggressively asserting their POV with objections to different academic points of view and labeling it fringe/ps and casting aspersions against other editors as a result have already been advised by Drmies to stop that behavior, yet they appear to have ignored the warning and have chosen to continue as evidenced above. This thread is not progressing as a result, and while some interesting points have been made on both sides regarding the issues that plague this topic, it is actually information that belongs IN THE ARTICLE, not on this noticeboard. Just saying.....Atsme^📞📧 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot stop me from pointing out that people who are afraid of GMOs because they use genetic engineering are advocating for pseudoscientific claims. I will continue to make that point over and over and over and over and over again until we get the encyclopedia in a shape that makes this point abundantly clear. We're almost there, but it does help to be placed in the crucible once in a while in order so that we can make it clear. People who think that GMOs are dangerous because they are genetically engineered are arguing a basic pseudoscientific conceit of the GMO paranoiac group. See what I did there? I pointed it out again! Naughty! jps (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't me who will stop you. I'm quite happy to feed you as much rope as your little heart desires. Atsme^📞📧 07:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 3 sources Jps used in his failed attempts to prove a false claim, one of them was from the "Genetic Literacy Project", which our Jon Entine article calls "a pro-GMO biotechnology and genetics outreach organization"; Entine is the founder and executive director. Mother Jones calls him an "agribusiness apologist", and he was recently found via FOIA records to have received Monsanto funding, written pro-GM articles, and failed to disclose that funding.

Jps is arguing a claim that hasn't been made. He is arguing against the RS showing that questioning the safety of GMOs is far from "fringe" by lying about Domingo 2011, and claiming that over half of the EU suffers from "Europe's Frankenfood paranoia". These hollow arguments are being used to keep well sourced facts out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear this is rapidly becoming another GMO conspiracy theory for Petrarchan47. Do we have any benefit from keeping his crazed argumentation around? Wouldn't he feel better posting on a blog dedicated to conspiracy theories? It certainly doesn't fit here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing by Kingofaces

Kingofaces is now canvassing here. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single comment at the venue where the whole shitstorm appears to have started, is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You may want to read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, especially the parts about getting relevant noticeboards involved. This thread has devolved (or evolved) into a wide conversation of how we deal with discussing fringe topics. WP:FTN is more than appropriate when we need people familiar with how to deal with exactly this. It seems like we're reaching the point that accusations are just being thrown to see what sticks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is canvassing. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JzG - it is not canvassing. In fact, WP:Canvassing clearly states An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.

The verbiage probably needs to eliminate "uninvolved" because it is somewhat of a contradiction. Atsme^📞📧 07:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request close

This has gone on long enough. At the end of the day I made two comments[48][49] that were focusing on the fact that sources describe many of the arguments that there isn't a consensus on GMO safety as tactics similar to climate change, vaccine controversy, etc. with that direct comparison being made by sources. That was direct mention of content that conflicted in a WP:WEIGHT perspective with the content previously being mentioned at the board very similar to how many of those same editors bring up source conflict of interest in weight discussion.

Editors such as Prokaryotes, who were heavily involved in the ArbCom case and nearly sanctioned, have tried to twist that into saying I was commenting on editors. I made it repeatedly clear to those editors I was talking about the content aspect of opposition to the scientific consensus on GMOs, not editors both before and during this thread.[50][51][52] The only instances of me actually commenting on editors (appropriately) even loosely was: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN (more here).

Seeing as some editors are unwilling to drop the stick at this point in claiming I was commenting on editors in terms of climate-change denialism even after repeated clarification, they are either purposely misrepresenting my comments and ignoring clarification, or insinuating I'm lying. Both are direct violations of WP:NPA Repeating calls that I intended to direct the climate-change denial remark in any way towards editors either directly or by aspersion after this post will be taken up at WP:AE to impose sanctions where things belong for this topic. People who still try that can't claim they didn't get ample warning. The open case related to Prokaryotes behavior here and elsewhere will still be handled at AE, and there's nothing left to deal with here at ANI, especially since I've asked admins at AE that I'd even open a case on myself if they thought my actions legitimately needed a look. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support close with no action. It's time to wrap this up. Clearly, there is not going to be anything remotely close to a consensus for admin action here. Arguments about content belong elsewhere. And proposals about civility on related talk pages should probably either be made as formal RfCs or dropped. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose close - The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way, especially with SoftLavender's proposal above. Gee, what a surprise. I for one am utterly sick of this gaming the system. Jus da fax 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There being only two editors commenting before your comment, and with me being one of them, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to shut down discussion of anything, but rather asking that the discussion be done at the right place. This is ANI, and the issue of blocking anyone as a result of this discussion is clearly done with. Nor do I think that it's not going my way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While they have been interesting, meta discussions belong at their respective noticeboards or guideline talk pages. I'm all for addressing this in the proper forum if admins at AE think these specific claims actually need a look, but ANI was no longer the place to deal with this after the GMO case ended. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I purposefully did not involve myself in the GMO case because I have a dim view of arbitration, but it sure looks like it made things worse rather than better. The biggest problems I have is that the fundamental dispute has not been addressed. The pseudoscientific argumentation promoted by anti-GMO activists continues to infect the decisions relating to content and apparently the activists were under the impression that they could be insulated from such plain words about their positions. See below. jps (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Close -- at a minimum the discussion started by jps (aka I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) titled "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does" needs to be concluded and assessed. After a long diatribe, asserting the existence of group of editors who are "anti-GMO paranoiacs" (who jps compared to both "climate change deniers" -and- "holocaust deniers" (see Godwin's Law)), Jps went on to make some highly questionable factual assertions that have been challenged without an adequate response. Jps's behavior and credibility should be brought under scrutiny too. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Laughable. The lack of WP:COMPETENCE is strong with this one. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG, David Tornheim. jps (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The insults and threats just keep on comin', don't they? David's comment goes to the heart of the issue: the ongoing attempts to intimidate respected editors and equate them with mass murder apologists. This has gone too far and per David, I now call on an uninvolved admin to take prompt corrective action. Jus da fax 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't seem very intimidated. Whoever feels intimidated, raise their hands. And "murder apologists"? If I wasn't so amüsierten, I'd be verklemmt. jps (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a hostile work environment. I do not mean it in the legal sense, but just in terms of behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this means. jps (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count as an insult to say "The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, in the section above "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does", jps cited three journal articles as proof that the Domingo 2011 literature review was "much criticized". Because I (and others) did not have access to all the journal articles, I asked jps to provide quotes proving the point. None were provided, just further taunting. However, I was able to obtain all three full articles. He lied. None of the articles criticized Domingo 2011 as jps purported. Such lying about what is in the RS is a major waste of time for editors (or worse Wikipedia's readers) who wrongfully rely on such misinformation. Lying is properly designated as uncivil behavior under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY. The combination of the lengthy diatribes of ad hominem attacks and dishonesty about RS warrants a strong message and sanction to this editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You persist in parading your inability to comprehend a simple discussion and read the basic texts that criticize the particular claim in particular. Your tendentiousness is rather astounding, but entirely predictable. I used to accuse people of lying and people got mad at me. Here's one for you. You're not WP:COMPETENT enough to be editing and probably should be banned from Wikipedia for lacking basic reading skills. jps (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please do something. I can't even believe what I'm reading here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like admins to do? Indefinitely block David Tornheim for the reasons asserted by jps? Block jps for making those assertions? What if the assertions are correct—should admins care about that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Admins to check into the assertions, yes. Jps is lying about sources above, and this rant against David is pure projection of the highest order; it is Jps who has displayed tendentiousness and incompetency. Admins will have to get access to the papers her has cited to determine which assertions are correct. Beyond that, the way that this person talks about other editors is unacceptable, sophomoric, and completely disruptive to building an encyclopedia, and to the process at hand: KingofAces43. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^Of course you should find out if he is lying or not and make a decision on what to do based partially on that (please see my response to Bishonen below), but additionally consider his other incredibly uncivil behavior. If a decision about my claims that he is lying without out any investigation of the claims and only relying on my or jps (and others statements) about what is in the sources is about as useful as relying on heresay--a waste of our time and prejudicial. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the admins should also investigate whether jps is guilty of heresy, a much more serious crime that was overlooked by his good faith accusers. Also, I hear that aside from projection, he is also guilty of introjection, injection, reinjection, rejection, objection and perhaps even surjection. The bastard. I hate him! jps (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, jps needs to be warned that questioning editor competence as a rhetorical tactic in a thread of this nature is a blockable offense. However, the ugly nature of the continuing hostile badgering by jps, clearly observable just above, in my view calls for an immediate preventitave block, with unblock conditional on agreement to knock of the problematic comments. For crying out loud, this is the admin's noticeboard, and if there isn't one admin willing to stand up here and now, then we as a community are circling the drain towards all-out "Wild West" warfare. Please, administrators, let's enforce existing policy on your own turf. Jus da fax 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I block Johnuniq for implying jps's assertions may be true — will that do? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room! jps (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? All you have to do is find out if jps is lying or not. If you want me to email the PDFs of the sources to you I can. Once you have the sources, it is easy to see he is lying. Judging others' statements about the veracity of the claim who have not bothered to investigate the claim by editors who have not investigated the veracity of the claim is a waste of time. Having a grand jury indictment of such an editor is also a waste of time until the facts are checked. Just look and see if he is lying and we can move forward. We are here to write was is in RS, not speculate about it without even looking at it. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm in some parallel Idiocracy universe where the people present evidence that I am right and then triumphantly declare that I am wrong. Playing chess with a pigeon comes to mind. jps (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not have the time or motivation to look up such links, Playing chess with a pigeon is actually a redirect to Internet troll. It is widely regarded that referring to editors as trolls is incivil. I leave it up to Jps to clarify who the comment was directed at.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's worse, he made the redirect himself. For that horrible behavior, I vote that he be drawn and quartered and made a mockery of on the front page. Also, he should be indeterminately blocked for at least one second for accusing himself of bad behavior. And then you should annotate his block log with a clear reference to WP:TROUT. Yes. Yes. Excellent! jps (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to closer I have just noticed that another discussion (WP:ANI#Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page) with similar evidence of incivility has been closed by a non-admin with no action taken. I am not making any comment whatsoever on the closer of that discussion, but I suggest that this discussion should only be closed by a non-involved admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An inescapable fact

Last year's GMO case at ArbCom was intended, as all ArbCom cases are intended, to bring a difficult dispute to a resolution, for once and for all. Clearly, it did not accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. Despite the imposition of wide-ranging topic bans which should not have been administered but which have been adhered to, it has clearly failed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not failed. It is being constantly attemptedly-undermined by repeated WP:WIKILAWYERING by those who refuse to accept the fact that their editing has fallen under it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think there is very little doubt that the bans were amply justified. The remaining question is whether sitebans should have been used instead. You make a good case for sitebans being a better solution. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other question might be why DrChrissy and SageRad are here commenting on a thread entirely focused on GMOs in violation of their GMO topic bans even though there were directly told even standing on the sidelines of ANI discussions like this was a no-go. It might be slightly different if it was a tangent on a policy or guideline page. I'm not opening a case myself at AE though to avoid even the illusion that I'm going to mimic what Prokaryotes did in opening this thread with their AE case open. Broadly construed topic bans need to be respected though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the inescapable fact is that the subject of this thread is "Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions". The irony is obvious.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain we can't escape the fact? Seems like there are quite a few active here trying to escape facts. Maybe if we all try really, really hard.... jps (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akash3141

Akash3141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has dedicated several months to rendering The Undertaker a fan page, violating numerous policies including WP:RS, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. As can be seen from the edit history, numerous – more experienced – editors have chided User:Akash3141, but he instantly reverts their efforts to remove his fanclub-esque edits and makes shocking insults like these in his edit summaries: [53][54][55]. People seem to have given up trying to combat this truly relentless individual, who has seriously undermined the credibility of The Undertaker, and insulted many people in the process. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice complaint, but you are required to notify the person complained against on their talk page as the big yellow notice at the top of this page says. You have not done this. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know everything involving IPs is suspect, so let me just verify their claims. Akash3141 has repeatedly readded similar puffery material to The Undertaker. The user in question has also edit warred and has shown incivility, such as calling good faith editors trolls [56], dumb [57], dumbass, lousy scums, stuck up, etc. They had another account, Akash Bedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which was blocked and their user page was deleted for being an advertisement. Akash3141's userpage is identical to Akash Bedi's. Akash3141 borders on an WP:SPA as 90% of their edits either add bloat to The Undertaker or contribute to the advertisement on their userpage. Akash3141 previously contributed to Akash Bedi before it was deleted.LM2000 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that he was warned about edit warring on January 19 and asked to discuss changes on the talk page and to stop calling people names on January 22. A quick look at his contributions shows that he continued his bad behavior after these warnings. Nikki♥311 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations is thataway. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is less about the (obvious) sock puppetry and more about the uncivil edit warring, ownership issues and general non-collaborative behavior. The sock puppetry is just another reason to indeff them. Which is what I propose. Clearly acting in an utterly non-collaborative manner to force in OR, INUNIVERSE and other terrible edits. I believe they lack WP:COMPETENCE and have worn out their welcome here. oknazevad (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a sockpuppet investigation, Akash Bedi was already blocked for being Akash3141. That wasn't much of a sock case, they never tried to hide that they were the same person, Akash3141 just wanted to create a biography page on a userpage that had his real name on it. The larger issue is the The Undertaker fluff being added and the incivility we're having to deal with, the advertisement on his usepages is the icing o the cake.LM2000 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an edit where he called another editor "dumb" and "dumbass' in one summary: [58]. CrashUnderride 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cliff1911 refuses to add sources and refuses to communicate

User:Cliff1911 has nearly 50,000 edits in eight years as an editor. Every one of them is to mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever; He has zero edits on his own user talk page. On that talk page are hundreds of disambiguation warnings, none of which have been corrected. This may be the Wikipedia world's worst case of WP:IDHT / WP:NOTHERE.

We've been here before -- in May 2013, October 2013 and again in July 2015 -- and did nothing.

Adding content is great, but the refusal to add sources, especially about living people, and the refusal to communicate -- ever -- should ring alarm bells.

We can deal with this refusal to observe policy regarding sourcing through a block. Or we can have editors systematically revert every unsourced edit one at a time. Doing nothing will mean thousands more unsourced edits from an entirely uncooperative editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look at a sizeable sample of the more recent edits. Ignoring minor CE and adding wikilinks, most other edits are adding poeple to pre-existing lists. Yes: it is true that all the additions are unreferenced. The problem is: that the addition is being made to lists where most, if not all, of the other people on the list are equally unreferenced. It is difficult to censure an editor who is merely following the established format in an article that he edits.

A more relevant question might be: should the lists be allowed to stand with the almost lack of any referencing? 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a side issue, along with all unreferenced articles. The key point here is a user that never engages in discussions and edits are coming under question (and not for the first time). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course such additions are improper, and editors that continue to build such lists should be unwelcome at Wikipedia. It is, unfortunately, somewhat perilous to attempt to deal with the problem.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide recent WP:DIFFs of "refuses to communicate", and of your recent attempts to resolve this with him on his talk page? Otherwise, I think this fails ANI criteria, especially when, as the IP observes, most edits are adding people to pre-existing lists where all the people listed are equally unreferenced. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without any opinion on the merits of the edits (I haven't checked), "refuses to communicate" is self-evident just by a look at his talkpage. (Mainspace: 49,823, Category 5, User 2, Template 1, Talk 0, User talk 0, if you want raw stats.) ‑ Iridescent 23:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind that's only relevant if the OP has actually tried to communicate with him, which he hasn't since June 2015, just prior to the last ANI (which ANI was not acted upon). This ANI is therefore moot. It could have been otherwise had WP:DIFFs been provided of actual really problematic edits (which there aren't any, really, per above) and of recent attempts to communicate about such putative problematic edits. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be a prime example of unsourced WP:BLP, and be problematic? Scr★pIron^IV 14:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Would an admin like to enter the discussion now and make a decission? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, but unless somebody gives me a large amount of very recent diffs that are obvious disruption or BLP violations, I can't do anything. The diff ScrapIronIV supplied above shows Cliff removing a significant amount of unsourced content, so while the bland "they have since divorced" needs a source, it's at least heading in the right direction. The last person I remember blocking for a lack of communication (Ludwigpaisteman - who I will happily unblock the minute he says something) just disappeared and is probably just editing as an IP instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page

Editors dispute some changes that BushelCandle and EEng have made to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images guideline page about size and location, and there is currently a RfC going on about the size aspect of the guideline. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Permalinks here and here. EEng is steadily making significant changes to the guideline without consensus, and I feel that the page needs full protection to cease this disruption to the guideline page until the RfC is over and/or until other matters are worked out on the guideline talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want is page protection, you might get a better outcome at WP:RFPP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of that page, Tryptofish. Taken there. Sometimes requesting page protection works quicker at WP:AN or here at WP:ANI, but that's more so for vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for heaven's sake!

At Talk:MOS/Images I proposed a reorganization of the MOS/Images#Size section, intending only to improve the presentation without changing the substance. Another editor -- not I -- went ahead and installed it on the live page, calling it "magnificently superior"; [59] other editors immediately commented on what an improvement it is [60] [61].
- Flyer and other editors feel that certain language was better the old way, and opened an RfC on that. Depending on how that turned out we could have reinstalled the old language on that one point, or not, but either way leaving all the other new stuff (which no one objected to) in place.
So far so good, so I gave the same treatment to MOS/Images#Syntax [62]. No objections.
So I moved on to MOS/Images#Location. With no explanation other than, essentially, "I'm reverting because I can", Flyer reverted [63]. I un-reverted [64], with the edit summary Calm down. If you don't like a small part of a large, good-faith change which is obviously helpful overall, then just change the little bit you don't like, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of doing that, he's suddenly here crying "disruption". Blindly reverting the good-faith (and obviously useful) work of others, instead of modifying and building on it -- that's disruptive.

What a waste of time and effort. Pinging BushelCandle, Dennis Bratland, David Eppstein to back me up on this. E Eng 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion related to this issue has been going on for some six months now. Every time someone thinks things have died down and achieved something resembling consensus (or at least enough of one for a bold change) and tries to implement the changes that have been discussed, it gets reverted with a message that it can't be done until we reach a consensus. SlimVirgin is only the most recent to do this (and in general I agree with her that the discussion was still ongoing this time); before that, Sandstein reverted twice. It would be nice if we could get this guideline modernized but we seem to be stuck in a perennial filibuster by editors who are happy to take advantage of the rules under which no clear consensus equals sticking to the old version (rather than even recognizing the lack of consensus and ripping out the non-consensual parts of the guideline). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think EEng's points are wrong per se, but I really like and trust the principle WP:NOCONSENSUS which means that I favor reverting to the stable version while we hash it out. If one or more editors think we haven't reverted back far enough to the stable enough version, then we should revert to that until the discussion ends. At the same time, if the RfC or other discussion is WP:SNOW -- a waste of time, over trivial nits, or whatever -- then a closing admin should be proactive in declaring the discussion over and consensus achieved. On top of that, I think getting articles to look good in everything from a tiny iPhone 4S like late adopters like me stick with, all the way to those crazy super eight foot wide concave screens I read about somewhere -- it's impossible. No rule will ever cover all those, and if you could write hard rules that way, somebody would write a script called "make this Wikipedia article look great on every display." So what difference is there in going back to the old version until WP:Consensus is consensus? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may bear some responsibility for this perturbation and if I have done something wrong then I most humbly and earnestly apologise. I apologise in any case for diverting editors from the important task of building a better encyclopaedia.

I think the summary above is fair and accurate. I came to the Manual of Style page about images by accident and found it in what I thought was a quite outdated, unhelpful state with scope for improvement in the clarity of the advice it offered. After I checked its accompanying discussion page, I thought there were changes that could be implemented on a consensual basis after 6 months of discussion that had been followed by a comparatively lengthy hiatus. I made the relevant changes which were reverted. The reversions were discussed and the admin making the reversions excused himself from further reversions or discussion. Proposals were made that received no objections. Before those proposals could be implemented, EEng made his "magnificent" proposal which I then implemented using an edit summary of "Be very bold and attempt a great leap forwards: see discussion page for rationale". I expected to be immediately reverted if that leap was unpalatable, but no substantial reversion occurred until some 2 days later with User:Flyer22 Reborn's reversion of 20:37, 26 January 2016. Rather than throw away the progress made after nearly a year of exhaustive and exhausting discussions I suggest that we revert to Flyer22 Reborn's consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and allow discussion to continue. Vigorous discussion does indeed continue. I am somewhat surprised that the editor who has brought this matter here did not ask editors on the page's discussion page to stop improving a specific section or sections if he was so greatly concerned. If she does so now, I will certainly voluntarily abstain from editing the sections that she specifies, but to block all editors from editing a whole page seems both strange and unnecessary. The editor concerned has been asked to specify exactly what wording would placate ~~him~~ her and I await ~~their~~ her response with interest. BushelCandle (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we revert to Flyer22 Reborn's consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and allow discussion to continue -- fine with me. But can we stop talking about "consensual versions" -- it sounds like a college date-rape hearing. E Eng 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Resuming_discussion I've made a proposal for incorporating Flyer's desired wording. E Eng 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We (y'all) could use "consensus versions", which doesn't sound like a college date-rape hearing. I !vote for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my whoopsies. I didn't start to use English until I was 5 years old and first went to school and I still make some bad howlers. I'm also a bit mixed up in my colloquialisms because some colleagues speak Indian English, some South African, some Australian, some Canadian, some Filipino English but most Singlish. BushelCandle (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng can ping all the editors he wants for backup on this, and it won't make him any more right. Why I reverted EEng and requested page protection was made perfectly clear. And it is still perfectly clear judging by the current editing of that guideline page. The guideline has been a mess, for the reasons noted by GoneIn60. I requested that EEng stop via an edit summary. He often edit wars on guideline pages. Asking him to stop on the guideline talk page most likely would not have helped a bit. And, BushelCandle, I'm female, by the way. And what you call my consensus version clearly is not my consensus version. I reverted EEng on that section twice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That stated, EEng is currently trying to work things out with me on the talk page, and I have known him to make good proposals to our guideline or policy pages. It's just that I don't always agree with his methods, or proposals (obviously). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was always happy to work with you, but you would never say anything specific about what your objections were (other than the one phrase about which you opened the RfC). Thus I made one last entreaty for specifics, and went back to work. E Eng 02:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries

I should apologize that being new to things around here I posted this at the dispute resolutions center first.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Karait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

This is a conduct dispute arising from harassment on Talk pages. The discussion began on Talk:Karait but soon spread to other talk pages:

Talk:Keraites Talk:Turkic_Karaite Talk:Crimean_Karaites Talk:Karaite_Judaism#Russian_Empire_Karaites_.28Qaraylar.29 Talk:Karaylar#Delete_or_Keep?

It spread to these pages is because User:Неполканов brought my attention to the issue of potential confusion with Crimean Karaites and various other ambiguous words which could be used to refer to them.

However the Harassment has also appeared on User Talk pages: User_Talk:Toddy1 User_Talk:Warshy

It began with my reversion of what I thought was vandalism (I apologized later) of an article here [65]

I looked at User:Неполканов's edit histories to try and pinpoint exactly why they started to harrass me. I found this here [66] apparently canvassing support for against the author of the article, an IP address from the biggest ISP company in Israel whose only contributions were on that article [67] maybe the Wikimedia Administrative Offices can identify if that IP has ever been used consistently by another user before.

It turned out I was not the first person accused of being a sockpuppet for taking an interest tn this at that time foggy topic. The User WBM1058 had also been accused of being a sockpuppet here [68].

Looking through Неполканов's history he only ever seems to start editing wikipedia when Toddy1 needs assistance accusing sockpuppets. Toddy1's canvassed Warshy into this as you can see from that talk.

DBachmann said that we may have all been duped by a sockpuppet of another user but it did not stop the harassments which are too many to post here but an initial list was made here but they did not stop, and neither did my requests for them to stop.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to turn the other cheek, I have tried to be warm and welcoming, I have invited friendship, I have tried to reassure the users that I do not have any negative agenda and encourage the users to engage in discussion pages and bring their sources for un-sourced disputed content rather than talk about me as if I am a sockpuppet everywhere. Any content recommendations from the Users which have been made I have tried to include into the articles, I have taken advice etc..

How do you think we can help?

The Wikimedia officials can surely see the IP addresses which I am assigned by my IP service provider (a major company in my country). I always edit wikipedia from an IP address provided me by that provider. I believe if I can prove my true identity to one trusted Wikimedia Foundation Official that the Users can then be reassured that I am not the person they think I am and they may then join in discussing the facts about the articles rather than continue their current path of Harassment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by YuHuw (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2016‎

I'm not seeing harassment at the locations you've listed. Perhaps you can list the diff(s) that concern you. Tiderolls 20:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that if someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you. Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[69] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [70] and the fact (s)he signed later [71] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [72] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [73]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [74], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [75] [76] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

But at least Nepolkanov has engaged in (even if he is aggressive and belligerent editing) some useful discussion on the issues which need to be discussed, unlike user Toddy1 who does not really engage much at all. I don't want anything but to reassure them I am my own person and make sure they don't try such tactics again just because they don't like the challenge. I don't mind fierce debate, I believe thrashing out diametrically opposed views can lead to a clearer picture on foggy issues, but preferably without the insults to intelligence and without the horrendous and potentially damaging references. I didn't create an account to hide my light. I hope I have something that given time will shine here. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was drawn into this when I spotted technical issues. My first related edit was to the unrelated article about Bungarus venomous snakes, where I removed a hatnote because Karait did not redirect there anymore; but it seems that I stepped into topic areas where one needs to tread carefully, to avoid getting bitten by a Bungarus. I understand that there is no one correct way to spell "Karait"; that varies depending on what foreign language the word has been translated or transliterated from. I understand that peoples characterized as being "Karaits" may come from different geographic regions, far separated from each other, and I understand that some "Karaits" identify as members of the Jewish faith, or some variant of that, while others do not consider themselves to be Jewish. I've seen that Wikipedia has multiple articles covering various geographic, ethnic and religious variants of "Karaits", and that editors, some based in Israel and some based in Russia, cannot agree on how to disambiguate these topics. As an American who identifies as neither Russian nor Jewish, I have limited knowledge, and sorry, limited interest in, these topic areas. I believe that YuHuw is a good-faith new editor, and have no basis whatsoever on which to even remotely suspect them of "socking". Note that despite being an administrator, I don't have much experience at this venue. I hope my comments are helpful to those who edit here more often. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Thank you for that. @Tide rolls: As a follow up to this Nepolkanov albeit surrounded by a bit of endearing grumpiness and in the wrong place on my wall User_talk:YuHuw#Nepolkanov.27s_complaint seems to be attempting to make some sort of suggestion about something he would prefer. Perhaps if someone can help me understand his suggestion it this might help move things forward. YuHuw (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent personal attacks

I'm not pleased to be posting here again so soon. However, Travelmite (talk · contribs) has recently launched (out of nowhere, from my perspective) a series of personal attacks directed at me, accusing me without grounds of vandalism, whitewashing, editing in bad faith, causing damage, violating rules, making threats, and corruption. As well, there is what seems to be an attempt at outing me.

15:57, 27 January 2016: [Under the header 'Canadian Monarchists vandalising this article'] "There is a user called Miesianiacal who is a writer for the Canadian Monarchist League. I can see a long history of severe violations of Wikipedia rules. He is relentless in removing parts of the article, that show republicanism is valid. I've just fixed up the vandalism that I've seen, whole paragraphs haven been taken out. Even the way Australians discuss the issue has been replaced by the whitewashing terms of Canadian Monarchist League. How much damage has been done, is hard to say."
11:39, 28 January 2016: "The edits of user Miesianiacal represent the aims of the Canadian Monarchist League. I think it's irrelevant if it's a paid position. The objective is to whitewash. The activity is certainly supported by the membership dues. Wikipedia should not be a tool for any organisation. If anyone goes over the history, there are dozens of edit-wars, where he has deleted or changed material and they were restored, but occasionally, a deletion is missed by the editors. Threats are made I found and restored three paragraphs. Miesianiacal's action was to undo the changes, and delete the crucial comment that he is speaking on behalf of CML. Other editors should be aware that this is a serious situation (arguably corruption) and it may be justified to place Miesianiacal under an edit ban."

I removed the attacks three times ([77], [78], [79]), citing WP:TPO: "[Allowable is] removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." I left pertinent discussion about content: [80]. I also left a note at Travelmite's talk page, again outlining WP:TPO, as well as WP:NPA. S/he reverted the removals of the PAs from Talk:Republicanism in Australia ([81], [82], [83]) and reverted my comment at their talk page without remark.

I am genuinely baffled at this hostility from Travelmite; as far as I can recall, I've never interacted with the individual before. Further, I shouldn't be forced to say anything about what I do outside Wikipedia, but, I am not a spokesperson or any other authority with the Monarchist League of Canada, paid or otherwise. I am not even a member.

Assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Travelmite, you are too close to outing with your statements, and you are certainly making personal attacks/denying good faith. Do not restore that material. Discuss edits, not the editor, and please do so in a way that ... well, you should know. See previous sentences. Skyring, I trust you will, with your experience, function as a guide in case any of these editors are not aware of our policies and guidelines--on the one hand, OUTING and NPA and all that; on the other, RS, NPOV, and what not. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If Mies is acting as a spokesman for any monarchist organisation, he should declare it, given the vast number of pro-monarchist edits he has made over the years. However, I felt Travelmite was going a little bit too far, and I'm on Mies' side in the case of exposing personal identies - Wikipedia upholds the right of anonymous editing very strongly. I've just this moment wound back some very bold edits by Travelmite on an article that has been the focus of intense discussion over the years, suggesting he discuss his many controversial edits. Not sure what this editor's objective is, but they need to work with established editors. I just noticed this on WP:COIN. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is exposing any personal identity. There is no way a reader can work out the identity of user Miesianiacal from these comments. It's a matter of exposing a Conflict of Interest. I see that there is a bit of familiarly going on here to "Mies", even though Conflict of Interest is an serious matter. At least, it seems the Admins know what is an advocate for. Interestingly, there is a denial of involvement with the Canadian Monarchist League here. Travelmite (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are dangerously close to exposing personal identity and that's all there is to this. For clarity's sake: I am Dr. Mies, and in no way affiliated with the Person Called Miesianiacal Abbreviated (Erroneously?) As "Mies". It should be clear to you that Pete is playing on your abbreviation. For the record, I did see Her Royal Highness once, during my sensitive years, but only from a distance. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to start a discussion about her highness, you must notify them on their user talk page. Then we can see just how "distant" the relationship was.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear at all. I point out to you all, that I am making a claim of a serious violation. This is Wikipedia's problem, not my problem. He is violating your rules and of course, he has a right to deny it (which surprises me, but there it is). The rule says OUT-ing people is more forbidden than putting forward evidence for the COI. Why assume that I don't know something, simply because I am following the rule to not OUT people. Travelmite (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph of WP:OUTING, please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusations of harassment? ... so you're saying I've been personally attacked? No. I don't think so. If we tackle the COI issue, then different editors can over time will restore balance back into these articles. Travelmite (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have a perfect example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Drmies, but I wasn't trying to be clever when talking about (Mies)ianiacal. I usually address him as Mies, because I'm too lazy to spell out his entire user name, and I usually need a running start and two attempts to spell it correctly. As he has selected his name in apparent homage to the brilliant architect Mies van der Rohe, I see no problem with the abbreviation. Perhaps one or both of you would like to select another name to minimise confusion? --Pete (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for removing the PAs, Drmies. However, it seems Travelmite has only shifted his campaign against me to another forum. I suppose there he'll at least be asked to prove I am what he thinks I am...?

There's something fishy about this. An editor who's been active only intermittently over only the last year, focusing almost exclusively on Chinese Beijing-related topics and "white privilege", suddenly puts a laser focus on me, claiming to know who and what I am. It's very odd. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just figured out he's been editing more frequently as 62.189.73.197 (talk · contribs). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no knowledge of the subjects under 62.189.73.197, nor do I know the person. They a knowledge of Shanghai and perhaps a lawyer. I see 5 edits about Republicanism in November 2015, but I didn't make them. As I explained, I looked at the page on Australia Day, to find a Canadian monarchist in charge, and I followed the chequered history to the source. I think these admins know what's going on. But to recommend Skyring as a "guide" with his history of disputes and bans, that is fishy! Anyway. The proverbial ball is now in their court. Travelmite (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to ponder how it is you determined within less than the span of Australia Day that the page was under some kind of control by the Monarchist League of Canada; you make the assertion in the summary for your very first edit ever to the article. More interesting still is that you made that claim, plus the personal attacks and accusations against me, not after you "followed the chequered history to the source", but based on "evidence" that was, by your own admission, not on Wikipedia. And it took you only a max of 40 minutes to go through 10 years' worth of my edit history to apparently find some "proof"? It leads one to wonder who you are and possibly also who's been feeding you misinformation off-Wiki and why.

But, the COI question is moot now. So, it seems to not really matter anymore. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just closed the case at COIN. I tried to teach Travelmite how we deal with COI in WP at their Talk page, here, to no avail. If Travelmite persists with this behavior (and they just brought it up again on an article Talk page), I suggest a 48 hour block. Let's see what they do. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travelmite, unless you've got concrete evidence to back up your 'Monarchist League of Canada' accusations? then I highly recommend that you cease making them. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

evidence from within WIkipedia only! Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Randykitty has blocked Travelmite for 24 hours after giving a warning for the persistent COI accusations Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if 62.189.73.197 is Travelmite or not, however it is a | confirmed proxy, might either want to keep an eye on that or block it completely. KoshVorlon 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP alleging Jewish conspiracy, personal attacks, you know the usual

64.231.64.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Talk:R v Elliott

Anon editor insisting there must be a Jewish conspiracy and casting aspersions about several editors' and real-life persons' ethnicities. Requesting swift block. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit--that IP is on to me. I am in fact a Jewish feminist, intent on ... I forgot what. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On monarchism, of course![84] Bishonen | talk 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Glad I read it a second time. I thought you accused him of monorchism. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

74.216.198.142 - another. Why does it always have to be a Jewish conspiracy? Agnostics have conspiracies too, you know. We just don't care very much about them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostics might or might not have conspiracies — we just can't be sure! Carrite (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing nutjobs gunna be right-wing nutjobs.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the same old Jew-hating ref desk troll. And why a Jewish conspiracy? Well, if they started talking about a Sealandian conspiracy, who would notice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about us Illuminati? We never get any attention these days. GAB^Hello! 22:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nobody shines a light on them nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. The Illuminati are just a distraction so that the chemtrails can go unnoticed. GAB^Hello! 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they have long since been taken over by the Jews. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can editors at the ref desks offer legal and financial advice?

The Wikipedia:General disclaimer says, in part Not professional advice If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Yet we have a repeatedly posted/unblocked question by a single-purpose user asking whether someone offering to transfer him money out of the blue is a "scam".

By definition a scam is illegal. Our disclaimer, and the ref desk guidelines both make it quite explicit that we don't give legal or financial advice. Yet editors keep insisting on answering and reposting the question when it is posted. Do we, or do we not, by policy, offer advice about manners dealing with finances and possible money laundering schemes?

At this point we've got User:Reference Desk Fan, User:71.119.131.184, User:76.69.45.64, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Nil Einne, User:SteveBaker, User:ShakespeareFan00, User:Dbfirs, and User:StuRat entertaining this discussion that potentially deals with the felonies of fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering not to mention other crimes. I have closed the discussion repeatedly per the ref desk guidelines and the general disclaimer. Am I wrong to think that a single individual asking about $70,000 transfers to his bank account from a stranger is outside our purview as an encyclopedia based on referenced sources? If I am not wrong, will an admin please remove this item from the ref desks? Thank. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Medeis's hatting can become disruptive. The answer to the question posed is that editors are not supposed to offer such advice. However discussion of the hatting should take place at the reference desk talk page, and not here under WP:BRD. For the section that is being hatted, this cannot be really considered legal advice, as it is so obvious, and there is a fairly clear advice to contact police (not a lawyer). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My involvmennt here, was soley to post a reference link, to an official (in the instance FBI site) on the subject of Advance Fee Frauds, which given the original posters concerns was felt to be the most appropriate response. If there's going to be a 'Do Not Answer' policy, some guidance on when to apply it would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatantly clear the OP for that question (Reference Desk Fan) is one of our regular trolls trying to get someone to close down his breaching experiment and generate maximum drama. It worked. --Jayron 32 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not asking for legal advice, and suggesting someone contact the police is not offering legal advice, and I do not see how any normally competent person could, in good faith, say it was. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar behaviour from User:Medeis is found in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&curid=2535910&diff=702204069&oldid=702201315 where a troll like question and some answers were removed without an edit summary. I would expect at least an edit summary, and preferably if people ahve already answered the question should not be removed. Remove the question when not one has responded. This will upset less people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put an edit summary, given past discussions on the talk page that said we should try to keep comments to a minimum when dealing with trolling. In this case I did both comment inside the hat, and link to the disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're feeding a troll and stretching AGF to the breaking point. The ref desk, in entertaining such questions, has little to do with the encyclopedia's mission. I participate at the ref desk from time to time and it's interesting, but it's peripheral to the purpose of the encyclopedia and should not be a distraction from our mission, which is to write an encyclopedia, not to be an advice column. Given the extensive history of disruptive trolling at the ref desk, the name of the OP at the ref desk doesn't create confidence. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should also note that his signature violates WP:NLS in that it consists entirely of unreadable non latin characters. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violates? Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP is worried about signatures, he should check out this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The general disclaimer says what you claim (but see below). However, the reference desk guidelines (at the top of the page) do not. They state "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice" - no mention of finacial (which the subject question qualifies as). The linked guidelines like the general disclaimer page says "The reference desk does not provide answers where an opinion from a qualified professional is needed, such as advice of a medical, legal or financial nature ...". But for the subject question, the opinion of a qualified professional is not required. Any reasonable competent contributor can answer the question. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the reference desk.

Its original purpose was to help improve Wikipedia articles.

Over time, it has become more a place where people ask questions, maybe give answers, and have interesting discussions.

Trolling there is a perennial problem: just as Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can also troll, WP:RD is the Quora or Stack Exchange that anyone can troll.

There have been any of discussions at WT:RD about how to address that problem.

(Quite frankly, it would seem to me that the problem with ref desk trolling is that the ref desk regulars are quite happy to respond to the trolls.)

The best solution is for the ref desk regulars to simply ignore the trolling questions. This is not going to happen.

So maybe a least worst solution is to have each ref desk semi-protected or given pending changes protection, with a clerking system of community-nominated clerks with a sub-page where questions or pending edits are discussed and evaluated. Again, this is not going to happen.

Medeis has taken it upon herself to be a self-appointed WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner. And. that. is. fine. with. me. Who better to be a WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner? As a second least worst solution, accepting Medeis's hatting and just moving on seems to me a way to move forward, and get on with writing an encyclopedia.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It must be disruptive to repeatedly hat a discussion that multiple established editors are un-hatting in good faith. It's very presumptive, if nothing else, to assume that your judgement must be correct and theirs must be wrong. Also, so far as I can see, this was not taken to the reference desk talk page, which suggests μηδείς is not certain consensus there would go in his or her favor. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many of those so-called "good faith" editors don't like the rules against professional advice and will fight over anything that looks like a borderline case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something Caustic in Ohio

Should we be answering questions about drinking caustic acidic and basic solutions to see what they taste like? See the latest OP question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#If_I_drink_10_mL_of_HCl_.281M.29_and_drink_10_mL_of_NaOH.2C_would_it_just_taste_like_salty_water.3F. These questions are not requests for references, but for comments on personal risks. I think we really need serious oversight of this, as the regulars seem all too happy to speculate without sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Picture

I could be in the wrong here, but I'm led to wonder whether the Reference Desk is worth the trouble it causes, and if it really helps us build an encyclopedia. I admit I'm far from a regular, but every time I've ended up at the Reference Desk it looks like a toxic mix of (a.) trolling (b.) inappropriate requests for legal/medical help (c.) do-my-homework-for-me requests (d.) simple requests that could have been answered in a 10-second Google search. It all seems more like a waste of time than a useful or productive part of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find the reference desks an excellent source of information, when they are properly used. Ask evanh2008 whether or not he has found ref desk help helpful. That being said, I simply can't understand the "we...must...entertain...every...policy-violating...troll" attitude. For this reason I think we could do with stricter guidelines and oversight. But the last thing I would want to see is doing away with the ref desks. They are perhaps the best source on the internet to look for actual scholarly information, when they are not filled with scatological or racist questions about felonies, fraud, and BLP violations. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were possible to move to a question/answer format more closely modeled on StackExchange or one of its close relatives, I think quality would go up. That's a proven formula that pretty clearly works better than wiki talk page, which was never really designed for Q/A. (For example, on sites powered by StackExchange, both questions and answers can be voted up and down. If a post hits a certain negative threshold it is automatically hidden. No need to argue over which questions are unworthy trolls, or which answers are blatantly wrong, just cast your vote and don't worry about it. It eliminates a lot of drama and stress.) Sadly, I assume making that kind of change would probably require a lot of technical effort that just isn't worth it for what is basically a side mini-project of the encyclopedia. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the ref desks to nothing but external links to that site. Then the trolls would become their problem, and from what you're saying, they have low tolerance for trolls or flaming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this thing again. While I rarely use it now, I've found the reference desk extremely helpful in the past. I think it's not only a good thing (particularly given the abundance of Yahoo! Answers and similarly useless venues), but also a logical extension of the WMF's mission to "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Wikipedia is fairly unique in that it is a broadly respected outlet with contributors who are, to varying degrees, serious about being helpful and communicating knowledge. This is the fundamental problem with statements like "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library." There is irreplaceable value in "oral" (for lack of a better word) instruction: A static written text cannot be interrogated and cannot adapt itself to a given reader's needs or to an unforeseen context. The most fruitful ref desk questions are those that are (neologism alert) "unGoogleable." Wikipedia is not an educational institution in any traditional sense, but our mission is explicitly educational in nature.

As Medeis alludes to, I've actually made tangible academic use of sources I've been referred to by ref desk users (Medeis among them). There are a fair number of "Is battery acid really that bad for you?" questions, but analogies regarding babies and bathwater come to mind. I'm not familiar with StackExchange, but the idea of censoring comments on a popularity contest model seems counter to the open nature of this project. My basic perspective on this is all very idealistic and very forward-looking, perhaps naively so. I think the ref desk is a good example of what the Internet in general, and Wikipedia specifically, actually has to offer from a "knowledge-growing" point of view. I have access to Britannica and the OED and dozens of other resources that duplicate virtually all the WP article content I'm ever going to need to access, but the reference desk is the kind of thing that cannot be duplicated, specifically because it is available 24/7 and brings together people with different areas of interest with access to different sources. It's worth noting that I'm typically opposed to the kind of proposals that get branded with words like "open" and "free"—I still find it unconscionable that we allow unregistered edits. But the reference desk is a resource with real value to our readers. The idea of doing away with it is silly and short-sighted.

In con-freaking-conclusion, I'm short on time and am not familiar with the incident that precipitated this thread. But I am profoundly annoyed that this idea of blaming the ref desk for users' disruptive behavior is still being tossed around. It's the equivalent of dealing with an edit war by deleting the article. Hell, if people were as quick to jump to drastic solutions with article content as they are when the reference desk comes up, based on a dispute I was involved with a few years ago we might have banned the word "Tthe." Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Yes. Is the reference desk part of an encyclopedia? No. The solution is that there should be refdesk.wikimedia.org created, for Wikipedia and the Online Reference Desk to go their seperate ways, and then Wikipedia won't be saying the Ref Desk needs to go and the issues that the Ref Desk creates for the encylopedia won't be being created anymore. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't oppose that suggestion on principle, but I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea either. Without going into detail, I've seen problems at Wikimedia Commons languish for months without being resolved, mostly because, well, very few people are actually active at Commons. My worry is that if the Ref Desk were forked it would be forgotten and die of neglect. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked attempts to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina and removal of POV tag

I made the following edits to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina:

1 This edit was made to a statement that is not currently supported by the sources provided (in violation of the verifiability requirements of a WP:BLP).

2 Added well-sourced content.

3 The use of the term "wrongdoing" is not supported by the source.

4 This edit removed WP:WEASEL words: "Despite this.."

5 This edit also removed WP:WEASEL words: "...what she called..."

The edits were reverted en masse. I initiated discussion in Talk here where I made a number of good faith proposals to address the statement which is not currently supported by sources. Thus far, the BLP violation has not been addressed.

Also, I added a POV tag to the section with the content that is currently disputed. That tag was removed by one of the editors involved in the dispute.

At a minimum, the BLP violation needs to be addressed, and the tag should be restored until the dispute is resolved.CFredkin (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather obviously a content dispute and nothing more. The assertion of "BLP violation" in connection with #1 above is laughable -- go ahead and click, you'll see the core of a political dispute where the edit does nothing at all to "protect" a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the BLP violation. CFredln changed "Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for their involvement in fetal tissue donation" to "Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for its practice of selling fetal tissue."[85] Selling fetal tissue is an offense under federal law (42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue) punishable by a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.[86] The original allegations that Fiorina relied on identify living persons as having broken the law. Mainstream media reports that no tissues were sold.[87] A grand jury decided not to indict Planned Parenthood staff. (See "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales".)

I have explained all this to CFredkin, yet they continue to argue that tissues were sold. Could editors please explain to them that making this type of edit could result in Discretionary sanctions.

Otherwise there is only a content dispute, which is how it should be resolved.

TFD (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above statements are completely irrelevant. I'm not making a claim that the tissue was sold at this point. The sources provided in the article currently make no mention of the disputed statement. The editors involved the dispute (here and at the Talk page) have have been completely unwilling (or unable) to cite the specific content from the sources provided to support the statement. That's a BLP violation, plain and simple.CFredkin (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's been no effort at all thus far to justify removal of the POV tag that was applied for other edits which were removed without explanation.CFredkin (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is worthy of a WP:boomerang, seeing as Fred is obviously pushing his own POV. It's pretty well-known by now that the allegations against PP were bunk, yet he's adamantly pushing against that.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civility/Personal attacks

User:Dennis Bratland

Edit summary including "fuck off already" [[88]]

My request: "Dennis, let me ask you a favor. Please move the above comment to the discussion you previous started on this talk page."

His reply "Do me a favor: fuck off."[[89]]

Previous examples of personal attacks/civility issues to a different editor to show a continuing pattern

"you're a fucking liar" in the talk page message and the summary just because it needs to be said twice? [[90]]

"Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m********" (seems pretty clear which word is being implied with "m***********") [[91]]

I really don't care if someone uses profane language on wikipedia. If someone calls my edit "fucking wrong", I wouldn't care, especially if it was wrong. I don't however think there are any situations in which it is OK to tell a fellow wikipedian to "fuck off" it is most certainly a personal insult and an example of an extremely aggressive and confrontational attitude towards other wikipedians.

Unless there are any claims of being hacked or my diffs being incorrect, I see no need for continued discussion on this matter. Too many threads are highjacked and lost in a pile of diffs and counterclaims.

The statements are shown clearly. The context is obvious. The pattern has been shown with previous comments. Short block requested. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this juncture, I think a two-way interaction ban between Spacecowboy420 and Dennis Bratland is a good idea. Anyone else agree? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the civility issues are one way, and have been to multiple editors, I'm not sure that will solve the problem. Banning interaction between Dennis and myself, will not solve civility issues that Dennis has shown with other editors. I must admit though, it does sound interesting and might make for more constructive contributions...but still - his civility issues date back to before my interactions with him, so not a 100% solution, just passing the drama to another editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case indeed, he deserves a week-block at the very least. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your first diff, I think Dennis Bratland's behaviour was justified. Why are you copying and pasting his comments to other places without his permission? If I were him, I'd be expressing the same amount of concern. Ches (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had said that Skyring, Spacecowboy & crew should stop the redundant debate of w--------- at the XR-750 article and wait for the issue to be closed at the MOS talk page. I listed many other articles they could work on instead, including Harley-Davidson KR. They ignored me, and continued beating the dead horse at the XR-750 talk page. After a few days, I wanted to get away from all the drama, so I created Harley-Davidson KR myself. Spacecowboy420 immediately jumped on the article, and homed straight in on the sentence, "In 1970 it was replaced by the similarly low-tech but long-lived and US race-winning Harley-Davidson XR-750" changing it to "...went on to win the most races". Why? Because he is harassing me, and will not drop the w--------- stick. Drmies told Spacecowboy he would be blocked if he continued hounding me, and to cease even the appearance of hounding me. Did he quit? No. He came back to debate it more. To which my reply was "fuck off". And so here we are. I want to be left alone to create content. These guys create no content; they're only here for the battleground. Look at their paltry article expansions, their wholesale deletions of well-cited content, their pointless, provocative rewording, and endless, endless talk debates. One of them starts a noticeboard witch hunt nearly every day. I create articles, I upload photos, I create maps and graphs, I get articles promoted to GA. They carry on vendettas.
An interaction ban will put a stop to all this. Take away their ability to harass me, and there is no reason for any drama. Nine tenths of Spacecowboy's edits are about me. With Zachlita and 72bikers, it's nearly 100% Without me, their interest in Wikipedia will fade to nothing.
Skyring's wall of text below, desperately pleading for a green light to go on hounding me, is all the proof you need of how necessary this interaction ban is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "…a green light to go on hounding…" Funny, what was actually in my mind was the exact opposite. If I never have to deal with you again, brother Bratland, that will be just fine by me. I just don't want to hand you a shotgun wth four barrels, that's all. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your promises aren't worth much, are they? SQL blocked you because you don't keep your word. You brought on the need for a ban with teeth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe they all think we should waste time on them. AKA a pox on all of their houses

Proposal is successful; see summary below. Yes, this is a short time for such a discussion, but I'm closing it in the spirit of WP:SNOW. If you really want the discussion to continue longer, feel free to reopen it without notifying me (whether before or after reopening), but I don't imagine anything changing if we keep going. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since the five of them (User:Dennis Bratland, User:Skyring, User:Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers, and User:Zachlita) do not appear to have any respect for the disruption they're all causing (probably a dozen ANI/ANEW/other threads started in the last couple of weeks), I have no problem with making their lives more difficult than they would consider necessary, in order to reduce the disruption. No one here can be expected to look into the long, sad history, find out who started what, who is following who, who is right about the underlying content issue, who is incrementally more disruptive, whether rudeness is being provoked, etc. It's too big and too messy a battle. All of them have already poisoned the well on this, with their over-the-top behavior. Instead, I suggest:

Indefinite two-way interaction bans between Bratland, and each one of Skyring/Spacecowboy/72bikers/Zachlita (Group A). Group A can still interact, but they cannot - directly or indirectly - discuss Bratland. Bratland and Group A cannot revert each other's edits, no talk page requests that the other's edits be reverted... any disruption by any of the five on any other article becomes someone else's problem. Either an uninvolved editor will notice it, or nothing happens.
Indefinite topic ban for all 5 regarding "winningest" (or any potential replacement for that word), in general and in the specific articles in question. They've more than made their opinions known. Others will continue the discussion, others will change the article from whatever it says now, or decide to leave it as is.
If any of them report the others for violating this, they had better be scrupulous in adhering to CIV and NPA, because if the report contains anything that remotely approaches a comment on the other person's character, honor, intelligence, motivations, etc., the reporter will be blocked for a month.
We've all basically had enough, so next time this won't be allowed to spiral so far out of control as this dispute has. If any of you move on to other disputes and edit war, or are rude to other editors, then you will be given no slack, and will be blocked more harshly than someone else would be who did the same thing.

The alternative is to take a case to ArbCom, let the Arbs actually read the reams and reams and reams of blather, and actually find underlying fault. Before going that route, though, all five should be aware that historically, the result of an ArbCom case is, at best, what I've described above, and at worst, that plus mass site bannings for everyone. So you better be damn sure that ArbCom will end up thinking you are entirely blameless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object. I've had enough of this, it wastes my time. The one question I have is that how will this affect our ability to edit articles? We all have similar interests and generally bump into eachother. As long as we don't revert each other or talk to/about each other, we have no issues? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How it works is those who wish to bait the others makes sure they get in first into every new discussion that might attract one of the others and if they show up, then complain of a violation of the IBAN. If all editors are of good faith, it works fine. If just one thinks they can game the system, it turns into a never-ending series of trivial complaints, with points scored by blocks awarded. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Floquenbeam, I am concerned with the amount of common sense you appear to have demonstrated all over this encyclopedia. I fear it may be spreading. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of Drmies' sanity, I would support this. Otherwise, it's likely to go to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, spot on. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Demonstrated evidence of inability to work collaboratively and supportive of the mission of Wikipedia over personal gripes. End it immediately. --Jayron 32 15:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Floquenbeam. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm tired of reading, "the community has failed to solve this" at ArbCom. So, as the community, let's solve this. GAB^Hello! 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I whole-heartedly agree with Floquenbeam here. Enough is enough, and way too much of the community's time is being wasted on this rather trivial issue. Let's solve this and get back to writing articles and created an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, the winningest idea in all Wikipedia today. Scr★pIron^IV 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overly simplistic - No one here can be expected to look into the long, sad history…, you say, Floquenbeam. Once upon a time I would have seized upon your suggestion gratefully. A chance to get on with things without being subject to harassment, without having my talk page invaded – and edit-warred over! – by someone I've told repeatedly is not welcome. A chance to edit and discuss things I'm interested in without being distracted by crapulent slabs of evasion, repeated (and refuted) argument, and flat-out edit-warring. Not to mention the endless personal attacks. Spacecowboy420 has included a few of them above. I found the "Your mother should have taught you not to be a motherfucker" line to be particularly and deliberately offensive.

But for a certain type of person, that's not how it works. We all know them. They are NEVER wrong, they are always in the right, they never back off, and they have to have the last word. For them, Wikipedia is another kind of computer game. Build your kingdom, gather allies, attack your enemies and don't give an inch. Wikiprocess isn't a way of finding fairness and building an encyclopaedia; it's weaponry, smokescreen, and armour all in one, and the clever commander uses it to advantage, because Wikipedia is a combat zone and you don't never ever retreat.

I think for one of the five named above, an IBAN like that proposed would be seen as another weapon, one with four targets. Every day, there would be a look for a potential encounter, an article, a discussion, a noticeboard where he could get in first and then complain if one of his targets later showed up. "Oooh, look! He interacted me! I was here first!!!" Someone good at trolling would find tasty pieces of bait to lurk behind. I think whichever admin took carriage of the thing would get heartily sick of the distraction, and this noticeboard would get repeated doses of drama.

I've been cutting right back on my interactions with Bratland recently. Drmies gave me some good advice a while back, and I've been doing my best to follow it. Ignore the trolling, don't react, keep interaction polite and focussed on the content or the argument. I'm all too easily baited to respond to rubbish with a correction, so I stop, pull back from making a heated reply, and think about what I'm saying. Nine times out of ten, I don't need to say anything, so I don't. Because I know the response will be more rubbish, more evasion, more personal attacks. Occasionally I'll note policy, point out an obvious error, withdraw. But I don't follow anyone around and respond to every move they make. I'm quite happy to leave the topic of motorcycles alone, for example. I've never edited Harley-Davidson XR-750, the article that started all the fuss, and I never intend to.

So no, I'm not going to enter into such a deal. I can count to ten. I can avoid the trolling. And I don't care for the "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out." approach advocated by friend Floquenbeam. If there is misbehaviour on anyone's part, then it can be dealt with through the normal processes. Quote diffs, note the policy violations, use evidence and wikiprocess. Taking a shotgun approach to wikilaw enforcement isn't my idea of good management, attractive and simplistic though it might seem to some.

If others wish to enter into the complex IBAN proposed above, that's fine. For me, I'll keep on counting to ten, avoiding the trolling, leaving the motorcycle area alone. --Pete (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This remedy doesn't address the civility issues and personal attacks raised above.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The community solving more problems is great. This won't solve the problem(I agree with the text of Pete/User:Skyring). The approach is now "We don't want to deal with it, it is annoying, so let's ban everyone involved", without any diffs for some of them, targeting everyone with the same restriction despite probably not appropiate... eh, oppose. This might, if it passes, in my opinion, be one of these cases, which would mean that this might get to Arbcom anyways. As an appeal of this decision.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support interaction ban. Skyring's behaviour towards Dennis Bratland has been unacceptable, not to mention the other editors involved. 72bikers' comments to Mr Bratland, which are along the lines of "you are paranoid/on drugs" is most definitely a violation of WP:NPA. Ches (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ches! Good to see a sixteen year old with six weeks on Wikipedia venturing an opinion so confidently here, where you've been extremely active already. Most newbies take some time to learn how things go, but you found your way around pretty quick. --Pete (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring, 2 years actually. I'm sorry, but it's rather low that you're using my age against me... there are quite a few good young editors around here. Ches (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment about contributors, not content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) :::::Is that not just what your friend ches did? And talking like your some victim. 72bikers (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years. Of course. Eleven edits in a few days in January 2014, and then nothing until December 2015, when you began performing non-admin closures here. You were then accused of bias here. Just thinking we don't often see that sort of pattern, that's all. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a starting point, but I'm betting it ends up at ArbCom in the end. Sigh. Katie^talk 18:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to ArbCom 2015, pox and all. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supportingest - they're still warring about this? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support until a better alternative solution is proposed. This is a dramatic way to resolve this ongoing dispute but I don't think halfway measures will be successful. I was asked to close an ANEW complaint among these editors and I could not even process the history of this animosity, who is at fault, who, if anyone (or everyone), is being injured. I agree with Floq that the entire thing is a big, ugly mess that no one admin can sort out. As for Skyring, I don't know for sure whether your agreement is required to enact an I-ban including you, what is required is your compliance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to the 5 aforementioned editors by Floquenbeam. You do not want this case going before Arbcom. IMHO, you all should agree to merely walk away from the article-in-question & carry on as though the whole dispute never happened. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The article in question was discussed and consensus found in polite discussion. That's the way it should go. As for ArbCom, it might be good to get some level-headed admins looking at diffs rather than hyperbole. Civility is a recurrent theme, and you've got to admit that offensive line mentioned above was about as big a breach of incivility as I've ever seen here. How do people get away with that? --Pete (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOPUNISH, that's why. Spacecowboy and you keep coming back again and again with the same old diffs demanding punishment for old grudges. You keep forum shopping the same laundry list of complaints, and you keep being told it stale. Sanctions, whether blocks or WP:IBANs, are preventative, not punitive. The best way to prevent future disruption is to stop the hounding. I go back to creating content, you guys go back to doing whatever it is you do when you're not writing polemics against me. Just do it somewhere else. Do it to somebody else. If I'm really as bad as you think I am, an uninvolved editor is perfectly capable of dealing with it without your help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have to defend myself. I did not say it like that. what I said and still stand by was he was acting like someone on drugs with all of his paranoia. Relentless unsupported accusation of being a sock or meat or part of some made up conspiracy against him. And with every thing written seen by all I don't even see that as possible. And that statement pales in comparison of the things mr bratland said of me. And ches with your statement just another attack on others and to speak as if mr bratland never did anything wrong. It is obvious you are bias and hold a grudge towards me for bringing up your age and that you are not a admin. But you were closing notice board discussion as if you were. And with your statements there it was obvious you were bias towards mr bratland. And with mr bratlands interest as far as motorcycles the same as mine. I also do not feel it is fair first come first serve. And for how long? I live a active life and have limited time to come edit. Mr bratland appears to have no other commitments in his life as it seem he is here 24 7. I really feel as a new editor I am being pushed out. I would invite you to read this. 72bikers (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You folks who are under the radar here, aren't heeding my advice. Recommend ya'll stop bickering & move on. Trust me, I know what I'm posting about. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support pox Drama like this can not exist without help from all sides. If we cared enough about incivility to nip things like this in the bud, fine, but we do not - posibly for good reason. No editor is essential to Wikipedia, the disruption must stop, and the other option is to ban them all, which would be a loss just less of one than continuing disruption. It also has the benefit of 'reseting' all past matters - no need to dig into the past mess. If any of them can not abide by the IBAN, or try to game it, then long blocks would be in order. Jbh ^Talk 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I saw this thread opening last night and immediately suffered a Facepalm of the "oh Jimbo here we go again" variety. This keeps turning up like a bad penny and you'd think by this point somebody would have noticed it never gets anywhere, but apparently that hasn't sunk in, so it's time for that message to be applied with the Cluehammer 40K. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dennis Bratland, User:Skyring, User:Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers, and User:Zachlita, kindly refrain from discussing each other and each other's edits in this thread; I really don't mind getting an advance on friend Floquenbeam's proposal and block for interaction violations already. Y'all are at the point where every interaction between you is disruptive. Pete, I've known you long enough to know that you are reasonable enough to understand that something is going to happen, and that the best way forward is to not press the matter by making more counter charges. I hope the others have as much sense. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've known you long enough to appreciate your practical advice. Righto. I'll start now. *zips lip* --Pete (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Guy. BMK (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Floquenbeam's proposal. Group A should leave Dennis Bratland entirely alone (and vice versa), and all concerned should focus on improving the encyclopedia while studiously ignoring each other. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support' Anyone in doubt can witness the WP:BATTLEGROUND at the MOS thread on winningest. That Dennis Bratland himself is endorsing this is all that really needs to be said.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The nuke it from orbit approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as successful. From here on out, Dennis Bratland is interaction-banned from Skyring, Spacecowboy, 72bikers, and Zachlita, and vice versa, although none of those four are banned from interacting with each other. All five are topic-banned from "winningest". Per WP:BANEX, they're allowed to report ban violations, but uncivil or personal-attack-laden reports (remember that WP:WIAPA includes unsubstantiated accusations as personal attacks) will result in a block instead, or as well, for the reporter. And finally, you're reminded that further conflict with other editors will probably result in swift sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again

For the past couple of days editor Second Skin has repeatedly removed valid well sourced genres from the Babymetal article (here, here, here and here). Apparently he doesn't agree with Babymetal being part of the "metal" and "idol" genres. He then proceeds to add his own personal unsourced idea of what the genre should be (here). He offers no explanation for his removal, neither does he present any references to back up his edits. It must be noted that before editor Second Skin changed the genres, there were two IP editors who changed the genre with the exact edits as Second Skin (here, here, here and here). Editor Second Skin doesn't discuss this issue on the talk page of the said article, he seems content with repeatedly removing the "metal" and "idol" genres from the Babymetal article.
Please note that this is not a content dispute. This is an issue of a genre warrior removing well sourced genres from a musical band article, and adding his own preferred unsourced genres into the band article. Taking a brief look at editor Second Skins recent and past contributions, it is clear that his main mission on Wikipedia is to push his preferred genre versions into band and artist articles. The majority of all of his edits are about adding or removing genres.
Additional info: The majority of reliable sources place the group Babymetal into the "metal", "jpop" and "idol" genres, and these sources are placed into the article via inline citations (see here for more info). Repeated removal of these genres and the sources and replacing them with new unsourced genres constitutes vandalism. Could an admin please take a look at this issue? Thank you. 93.133.44.143 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A band with one album has a 50k article, and a template with dozens of somehow related articles. Can someone spell J-POP? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sourcing, as in all those J-pop related articles, is atrocious. Second Skin's edits don't strike me as very unproblematic given the mixture of fan sites and portals and commercial sites masquerading as journalism which is so typical of the industry. One wonders who IP 93.133.44.143 is, and what their relation is to the plenitude of one-off accounts and IPs found in that article's history. They sure are capable for someone who just walked in today. For the specifics of this genre discussion, which is incredibly exciting of course, I'll just ping NinjaRobotPirate and my old friend Moscow Connection, who have alrady weighed in on the talk page. Mind you, this discussion here is about the editor, not about the genre. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, some of the sourcing is a bit weak, and the article isn't that great... but when I find a band article that isn't sourced to Discogs and Encyclopaedia Metallum, I often consider that good enough nowadays. Second Skin's behavior influenced me to be a bit biased toward the IP editor's POV. This includes dismissive edit summaries ("lol how is that a 'genre'?", "LOLOLOLOL NO", "Lol. Try again") and apparent ownership issues ("leave this alone or your edit will be reverted"). Apparently, SS does provide a source when forced, but I think the IP editor has a point. "How is that a genre?" strikes me as enforcing his own opinions on the article. I don't know for sure if "idol" is a genre. And, honestly, I don't think I care enough to do more than post a message to the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point about the edit summaries, NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first off I don't understand what the hell labeling myself a "genre warrior" has anything even slight concerning the edits I was making to the article. Removing Japanese idol (something not even clearly perpetuated as a "music genre" reading the page) is not vandalizing the article and DEFINITELY not a representation of me "not agreeing that they're 'not a part of idol'" or whatever. The amount of hostility I'm receiving from just removing things like that and the fact that you've even chose to take it to administrator's noticeboard (something I doubt they'd even care for) if beyond absurd. The group seems more recognized as a pop group after what I've seen in the sources (although I couldn't care less what you call them. I don't listen to the group and don't care either). Not seeing how this pertains to being a "genre warrior" but ok. My acts of editing is more to the liking of changing them to a pop group (which in my opinion is way more accurate than a metal band) is not the act of a "genre warrior" butrather not giving a fuck especially after examining what the press and other observing reports has called the group. In the grand scheme of things though, I honestly just don't care enough and it's ridiculous that it was even taken this far. Have your stupid article for your stupid J-pop group. It doesn't concern me. And to the IP address that wants to talk trash on my edits trying to say that "all I do is edit to change genres", how about taking a look at the Decomposing Normality article I practically put together earlier this week - or perhaps taking a peep at the article for Visceral Disgorge I put heavy work into as well not too long ago either? Here's a grand idea I have for the IP address that wanted to cause all this drama because of his favorite pop band: Stop talking shit and stop leaving bullshit templates on my talk page. See ya 🖕🏻Second Skin (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of vulgarities and expletives is not a good idea not only here in Wikipedia but in life in general. By the way, am I the only one who notices that editor Second Skin used a highly unacceptable vulgar expression in this edit summary after Administrator Drmies issued out an admonition on Second Skin's talk page? 77.4.144.255 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt give a fuck less what is a "good idea" or not honestly. And also that wasn't to Drmies who I was telling to fuck off but rather the IP address who constantly is leaving me these "please stop your vandalism" templates which should be justified for an obvious reason by me or anyone else who has been a user for a couple years on this site would be annoyed by. - Second Skin (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Drmies admonished you, Second Skin, about your unacceptable edit summaries. You were informed that such edit summaries will get you blocked. You responded by using an unacceptable vulgar insult in your edit summary. Your insults and vulgarities are in violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct behavioral guideline. It does not matter whether you directed your unacceptable vulgar insult against an administrator or against an editor. Bottom line is that you have done it after an administrator warned you against exactly such behaviour. You can try to talk your way out of it as much as you want, you have nonetheless created the impression that you probably told a Wikipedia administrator to "f** off". You might want to kindly take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's principles of etiquette. Thank you. 77.4.144.255 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off - Second Skin (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPs, please don't cite me by name unless your name is known as well, and please don't adopt this patronizing tone with someone who had the courtesy of signing in; we do observe some rules of decorum here. Second Skin, on this beautiful collaborative project, you really need to observe the rules of decorum. No one is going to block you for saying "fuck off", though some of that remark flew in my direction. You have a point to make, make it without insulting editors even if they are wrong or tirritating. I have no beef with you or anyone else over this metal/idol thing, but you need to argue your point in an adult manner, on the talk page. Or you can just walk away from the article, either way. I'd rather have you in and on the article, personally. Finally, IP, I'm not much of a prescriptive grammarian and I will not criticize you for what some call "splitting the infinitive", but in some circles it is frowned upon. This is just FYI; I want to see you succeed. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of your respect, I'll follow that. You're the only one here showing any clear amount of respect for me rather these unnamed IP editors are just pointing fingers of shame at me for any sort of contribution I have made to this website and all of my favorite bands that have articles on it (Babymetal definitely is not one of them). Second Skin (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. But, I have to say, I have not looked into the matter of sourcing, of what genres are verified and etc. I think I said before that in this field the sourcing is usually terrible anyway, and usually echoes what SM Entertainment or whoever runs the artist says. And have you checked out Ladybaby? Much better, and they can dance like nobody's business. I think Keilana or Kelapstick turned me on to them. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor uses foul and vulgar language in his edit summaries and in an Administrator's board and no action is taken against it by an administrator? So, according to Admin Drmies, noone is going to block an editor who repeatedly writes vulgarities not only in his edit summaries but also here in an Admininistrator's board after an administrator warned the same editor not to repeat such behavior? Do other administrators agree with this? According to WP:ACCOUNT, Wikipedia is for both IP editors and registered editors. I do not need an account in order to participate in Wikipedia. It appears as if IP editors are being discriminated against, e.g. if the vulgar language was thrown at a registered account, the offending editor would be blocked, but since it's just an IP editor no action will be taken? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Wikipedia there is no single policy or guideline that requires anyone to have a registered Wikiepdia account in order to participate in Wikipedia. The issue here is not me as an IP editor, it is editor Second Skin who repeatedly has used unacceptable foul language in his edit summaries and also right here in this discussion. Since no action is taken against editor Second Skin, I have no other option than to bring this issue to the attention of other administators. Why do we have WP:CIVIL if its guidelines are not enforced? 77.4.144.255 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this report about genre warring or is it about civility? SS was warned about their language and said they'll stop, so that should be enough. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that input, Clpo13. Since 2 admins have now agreed on this issue, that's good enough for me. 77.4.144.255 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher1988

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Thrasher1988 – On User talk:Myxomatosis57:. User harassment. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a content dispute. This page (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism) is for vandalism. You are looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Curro2 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: @Curro2: I would personally block the user. There have been many genre trolls on Wikipedia that abuse the articles/pages. Also this user used profane language that was durrogative towards another editor/user. That should not need a previous warning in the first place... Astral Heat (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His/her edits, while egregiously uncivil, are not vandalism and therefore should not be reported here. This entire conversation should be moved to WP:ANI. Curro2 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Also, this. GAB^Hello! 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Thrasher1998 was not notified of this disucssion as the big orange box at the top of the edit window instructs; I have done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat by IP

See this edit. Leaving ANI notice now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They used that word, I do not think it means what they think it means. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I think I've cleaned up everything. I blocked the IP, two sock accounts, deleted the bad-faith and malformed AFD page, and semiprotected the target article for a week. I'm off to bed, if anything else turns up, let us know here, and hopefully, another admin will take care of it. --Jayron 32 07:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron32, and goodnight. Sweet dreams. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't have pinged you--did I wake you up? I didn't mean to... Drmies (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same person tried this back in 2013. Also see User:ACE1234. Someone really wants to make sure we use a very specific title for a local politician who died in 1950. The Moose is loose! 10:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC) _{"Intellectual property" also definitely doesn't mean what they think it means, Bushranger.} The Moose is loose! 10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this person wants to use the pagename Edward Jeffries for the actor [92], and thinks that the best approach is to move the current occupant to a different page. The approach adopted is clumsy and foolish, but not incomprehensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of this ANI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red~Adman happened. User:ACE1234 was blocked for socks back in 2013, along with a few Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ACE1234. Should they go into the Red~Adman SPI, and it be renamed for ACS1234 as the master? Should the IP whose action led to this ANI be added there as well? DMacks (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

79.78.168.63

The IP 79.78.168.63 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account, who keeps edit warring and endlessly arguing about a cause which two experienced editors disagree with him about. Pages he visits: only Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays and Hebrew calendar. Unsubstantiated concern has been voiced that he is a sock.[93] I would like to ask for recommendations or help in dealing with this editor. Simply blocking him is the easy way out, but I am not sure if we can take that way, since his behavior is annoying, but not a violation of any strict policy, because he edit wars without violating 3RR. Unless he would be a sock, of which I am not sure. I have warned him in the past,[94] but apparently to no effect. Your ideas, please. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have left an edit warring note on the users page. Note that one can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't break 3RR. HighInBC 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UAE troll is back again, new range block and page-protections needed

The troll operating from dynamic IPs in the UAE and who repeatedly targets both myself and other users is back again. For previous discussions leading to extensive range blocks, see ANI discussion in January ANI discussion in November]. The same trade marks, using different UAE IPs and going after my edits, calling me a troll etc. [95], [96], [97], [98]. As we've seen both in November and January, the only thing that works tends to be semi-protection of the articles this troll targets and range blocks of the ranges he uses. @Diannaa:, it appears that his preferred range this time is 5.107.XXX. Would be good if somebody could semi-protect Punjab, Pakistan as well. The troll has been duplication a section that already exists in the article, severely misrepresented sources and messed with tags, all of it pretty "standard" vandalism. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, has an SPI been created for this editor? I'm not sure which IP they used the most, so I can't search their archives. There should be a page somewhere where the relevant IP numbers are kept track of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 5.107.13.237 and 5.107.7.39. (The range seemed a bit too big and busy to block.) The way these IPs have edited User talk:Gerua18, removing warnings and attacking you, Jeppiz, is interesting.[99] I'm thinking of blocking Gerua18 per WP:DUCK, especially considering they're disruptive anyway. Do you think it's all the same person, Jeppiz? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I don't think it's Gerua18. My impression is that Gerua18 is a new and infrequent user with an interest in the Punjab region. Perhaps with a bit of a POV, but no other problem. The IP in the UAE is more a typical troll. He (trolls are usually males) does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great) but several users already in November pointed out that this seems more done to troll, not any genuine Muslim conviction. It could be somebody genuinely hating "Christianity" (broadly construed) but it could just as likely be a troll trying to give Muslims a bad name. The very repeated attacks on DeCausa ([100]), myself ([101]) and others seem more indicative of a troll, perhaps a blocked user with whom we interacted some time in the past. If we could do something more than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks, it would of course be good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, indeed it would be good, but Wikipedia is not set up to stop trolls. That's putting it mildly. I hope @Diannaa: takes a look, she's better with ranges and similar. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I did have a quick look when I was pinged, but since there's been no activity on Punjab, Pakistan since 16:09, I did not see the matter as urgent (and he likely has already left this range). The range is 5.107.0.0/17, which is busy, with 80 edits in the last 10 days, most of which are not from this guy. But I see this is the same range as was harrassing a user at Talk:Mia Khalifa yesterday. We don't actually have any weapons other than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Liz, Bishonen and Diannaa. I originally had no idea who the sockmaster is, but Diannaa's comment above makes it almost a WP:DUCK that it is Xtremedood. What do we know about the troll in the UAE? That he is harassing users at Mia Khalifa, at articles related to Punjab, at articles related to Christianity and at articles related to Islam, as can be seen from this and previous ANI discussions about the troll. And what do know of Xtremedood? That he's an active puppet master [102] with an interest in Mia Khalifa [103], [104], in Punjab [105], [106], in Christianity [107], [108] and in Islam [109], [110]. We know the UAE troll goes after me, and I've disagreed with Xtremedood about Islam. Diannaa tells us the troll goes after Jobas and Jobas has disagreed with Xtremedood after Mia Khalifa. So we have a know sock-master, Xtremedood, with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me, and we have an active IP troll with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me. I don't think WP:DUCK gets any duckier than that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in the UAE used to edit and to have account's in Arabic wikipedia and Wikimedia commons, (where he used to upload Anti christian files as here). He as user Jeppiz said does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great). He used to targeting articles related to Christianity in the Arabic Wikipdia (as insulting, trying to force false information, comments hostile to Christians) where he was blocked for vandalism the Christian articles and and having more than 53 sockpuppeteers, After blcoking him in the Arabic Wikipida he began to targeting our personal talk pages (From his UAE IP) - This was in 2014-. So we had in Arabic Wikipedia trageting form the UAE IP toll.

He also was editing befor blocking him for vandalim and sock puppet in these acount or what used to called anti cross 25 and here, as we found in the arabic wikipeida was related to the UAE IP.

I feel uncertain about the relation between this IP and user:Xtremedood, for his sudden appearance and for his strong defense to the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood and had after i had disagreed with him in Mia Kahlifa artcile, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, which is the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood and torolling after me after having issue with user.--Jobas (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A list of the UAE troll's IPs during the last months

@Liz, Bishonen, Diannaa, Jobas, Bbb23, Ponyo, Cliftonian, Harrias, Elockid, Drmies and DeCausa, I ping you as you've been involved in this matter either as victims or admins during the past months. Liz, I'm not very good at SPIs but I put together this list of IPs Xtremedood has used to troll Wikipedia in the last nine months. I'm sure there are others, but these are all obvious ones. After Diannaa's post, I don't think anyone doubts it's Xtremedood who's the puppet master behind all these troll IPs. Jobas already told us about Xtremedood's similar behavior at Arabic Wikipedia. Then we have the trolls' and Xtremedood's shared interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity (to insult), Islam (to extoll) (see diffs in the post above). Four topics so random that the combination can hardly be a coincidence. If further evidence was still needed, these IP trolls have targeted in particular DeCausa, Jobas and myself (and perhaps others I don't know of), and if the shared interests between Xtremedood and the troll IPs weren't enough, then there's the fact that Xtremedood is probably the only user who has locked horns with all main "victims" of the troll IPs not only at articles but at our talk pages as well. Here's is a non-exhaustive list of the troll IPs, I hope someone can move this matter forward.

List of IPs

103.10.199.149
103.9.77.106
104.236.132.30
129.232.129.157
153.207.109.188
176.204.171.201
176.204.179.35
176.204.181.45
176.204.186.17
176.204.25.226
176.204.27.80
176.204.38.78
176.204.42.122
176.204.44.189
176.204.45.69
176.204.48.40
176.204.60.56
176.204.60.82
178.159.10.78
178.73.210.178
185.65.206.157
189.196.129.102
192.71.213.26
2.48.131.211
2.48.32.105
2.48.45.231
2.48.52.205
2.48.58.235
200.122.128.152
200.73.20.100
200.80.48.34
206.191.148.66
2606:2E00:0:50:EC4:7AFF:FE55:69DE
2A00:1D70:ED15:151:236:23:165:1
2A03:F80:44:37:235:55:44:1
2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:161:1
2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:75:1
31.218.179.2
31.218.181.117
31.219.124.159
31.219.97.154
45.56.155.8
5.107.112.47
5.107.13.237
5.107.7.39
5.107.72.200
69.65.15.114
77.247.180.147
85.9.20.155
86.96.39.39
91.233.116.79
94.58.137.75
95.153.32.3

Jeppiz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia, this IP creates hundreds of IP and account's. Is there a solution to stop this toll, Because the solution to blocking him, according to my opinion it is useless. He will come back and continue to the same vandalism.--Jobas (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: Just a passing not. I realized this IP was cursing in Arabic in the Arabic Levantine dialect (Specifically syrian), abd the IP or the blocked who used to tragic christian article in Arabic Wikipeida, through what we have know in Arabic Wikipedia (through the dialect) is from Syria, but he lives in the United Arab Emirates. I am currently unsure of conclusively link that the UAE IP here and the UAE IP who used to edit in the Arabic Wikipeida and who has hostile ideasto Christianity, and who has always sabotaging these christian articles and harassment the users who have been in trouble or disagree with him.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobas: Is there anything we can make an edit filter for? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure the UAE IP was cursing the user Jeppiz in sickening way, through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia has always used the classic insults as he it here, So @Discuss-Dubious: we can edit filter here.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we have some good strings. You should email the mailing list with this. I'm thinking we should send them a list of his favorite articles as well.@Jobas: Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now edit warring and trolling at WP:SPI

For your informartion, I filed an SPI here The UAE troll has now moved on to the SPI with the usual edit warring and personal insults [111], [112], [113], [114]. Rather tellingly, the UAE troll IP almost verbatim repeated the phrases Bbb23 used when blocking Xtremedood a week ago [115]. Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An edit filter might be very effect in reducing the personal insults. Right now, the SPI is in the hands of the CUers who have put it on hold while they decide what might be done against the persistent troll. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's Church, Haddenham - copy/paste from ext website

Two editors have been repeatedly adding copy/pasted material from an external website. The website has an "All rights reserved" notice, but the book itself is apparently public domain. I am adding this here as I do not know whether it belongs on 3RR, or due to possible copyvio, here, or somewhere else.

Apparent source: William Henry Page (1 January 1902). A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, Parishes: Haddenham. pp. 281–286. ASIN B00MG5KYIK. Retrieved January 2016. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
80.177.210.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dog7005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dog7005 Has restored content once, but not since an EW notice was left on talk page.
80.177.210.212 Has added / restored content five times or more. Once since a EW notice was added to 80.177.210.212's talk page.

Dog7005's account was created about when 80.177.210.212 reached uw-delete4. Page's book was cited by Dog7005, but then the cite was removed by 90.17.210.212 Much, if not all, of both editors' edits appear to be copy/pasted from Page's book. I have left a number of messages and suggestions on the editors' talk pages w/o a reply. Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one to take to WP:SPI I'd say. Mike1901 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text is the public domain and available here, so it's not a copyvio. It is however, disruptive to copy/paste the entire text into the article, and he's edit warring to keep it in. I've semi-protected the page for a week to stop that disruption; perhaps in the meantime someone can take this PD source, distill it into some cited references, and remove those maintenance tags. Katie^talk 12:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article

(non-admin closure) Being handled at WP:REFUND, which is the proper venue. BMK (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

RGloucester removed a perfectly valid “InformNapalm” page I’ve created.

Ignored the discussion.

By the way, some archives say he was blocked indefinitely. What happened, and why is he still a moderator?

Const.me (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester was unblocked earlier this month, you can peruse their block log if you like, but they did not delete your page. Your page was deleted by RHaworth for being an "article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". That is one of our criteria for speedy deletion. You can take it up with RHaworth if you like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You ought to learn to read deletion logs, block logs, and rights logs. I see that you have raised the point at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#InformNapalm, and you need to read the preamble to that page. You also need to read the definition of vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page did not meet the criteria for WP:WEB notability, and hence I tagged it for speedy deletion. That's all that I've done here. You must remember that Wikipedia has policies, and that we are not an advertisement for certain blogs. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it does meet WP:WEB.

It’s not a blog, it’s a well-known web site translated in 20 languages.

“This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles” — aren’t articles published by BBC and The Guardian reliable?

Const.me (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Reliable, yes, but that's not the full criterion for notability under WP:GNG. We need reliably published sources that are independent of the subject and provide in-depth coverage of it. The Guardian article only has one sentence mentioning your web site, and the BBC one doesn't mention it at all. That's not in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-free image

Akhila3151996 just made this edit to Millennials which added a photo. The photo was uploaded by Akhila3151996 who claims to have the copyright. The problem is I can find the identical image here so this can't be true. How do I propose the deletion of a non-free image? Emotionalllama (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already tagged for speedy deletion at Commons. Nthep (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akhila3151996 also uploaded another non-free image but I tagged that one in commons now that I know how to. Emotionalllama (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, there's a gadget on Commons called QuickDelete that can assist in nominating images for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even forgetting possible copyright violation, what encyclopedic value does the picture have? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovannigiulio continues to block evade using IPs - rangeblock needed

I have been banreverting numerous IPs beginning with 5.90... for about a year now ever since Giovannigiulio was indeffed for abusing multiple accounts. While he has used some registered accounts to block evade, the vast majority of his block evasion came from these IP addresses, which he usually uses to make a few edits, then stops using, only to use another IP address afterwards, thus making these IP socks harder to block. Worst of all, this user typically flies under the radar of admins, leaving me to report and/or tag these socks.

So, I personally think we should calculate a rangeblock for all IPs in the 5.90... range, so that this user can no longer use these IPs to block evade. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be 65534 hosts blocked if my calculations are correct (they may not be at this time of day). No idea what the collateral on that would be but I suspect it may be high. Amortias (T)(C) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it may be high ... Someone just got their Masters Degree in Understatement.^[FBDB] It likely would be, but would it be balanced with the removal of a SockMaster? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I remember correctly, I've run into this sockmaster before. He was annoying but not so bad that I'd do a massive rangeblock. Maybe I didn't get the worst of it. As I recall, it was mostly nationalistic, Italian POV-pushing on film articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BushelCandle

This user continues to violate WP:NFCC#9 on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy by re-adding File:SGD 10000 Paper f.jpg after multiple removals. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prefixing "File" with a colon is the right way to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was an exemption for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, Stefan ?

~~In any case, isn't this a free, copyrighted image within our peculiar meaning of the word?~~

If you approach the Monetary Authority of Singapore (which has responsibility for both Singapore and Brunei banknotes) they will confirm that their 'Licensing Scheme for Currency Reproduction' that was introduced with effect from 1 October 2000 was initially relaxed with effect from 11 August 2006 and again recently. The rules on reproducing the Singapore currency for advertisements and publications were relaxed to grant permission to any person "to import, manufacture, sell, circulate or otherwise distribute any specified merchandise or product containing any photograph of or any drawing or design resembling any currency note or coin or part thereof." where 'specified merchandise or product' stated above means "any publication in which the reproduction of currency notes or coins is used for educational purposes, or in connection with any news or factual article or report, not being an advertisement for any merchandise product, or service."

There are remaining restrictions, but I believe we can comply with all of them:

1) The use of the reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall maintain, and not detract from, the dignity, integrity and image of the currency note or coin; and
ii) shall not have any risk of confusion with genuine currency note or coin.

2) The reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall not distort images of the President or any national symbol;
ii) shall not show the currency note or coin in a manner that is offensive or against public interest; and
iii) shall be on a material which can unambiguously and easily be distinguished from coins, paper notes or polymer notes.

3) The reproduction of any currency note:
i) shall, unless the reproduction is in an electronic form, be at least 150% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is enlarged or be not more than 60% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is reduced in size;
ii) shall, when the reproduction is enlarged, reduced in size or to be viewed at an angle, be depicted proportionally;
iii) may be depicted at various angles, except that, where the whole currency note is depicted flat to camera, the reproduction shall contain the word "SPECIMEN" in black and bold lettering diagonally across the reproduction and which shall not cover any part of the portrait; and
iv) shall not be by way of duplex printing (that is, nothing shall appear on the reverse of the reproduction that may give the impression that it is a genuine currency note.

BushelCandle (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's limited to educational use, making the file unfree. And the exemption for certain administrative pages only means that there's about half a dozen of categories which do not need __NOGALLERY__. Other pages may not include non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay as a link, as I had it. Commenting it out is not necessary, and posting it as a picture on that page is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BushelCandle's wrong about this -- though you have to click through about three links from NFCC to find out exactly what the exceptions are -- but for fuck's sake, can we please have some perspective about what's an ANI-worthy incident? This isn't all that important and it's certainly not urgent. I've dealt with Stefan2 before and to be blunt -- since this is the page where we let it all hang out -- while his dedication to keeping WP and Commons license-compliant is admirable, his communication skills ain't so good (see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg). My suggestion is that he find a NFCC-knowledgeable admin who he can call on in future to explain things to newbies he's having trouble getting through to, instead of wasting the eyeballs of 100s of stalkers here at ANI. E Eng 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Account - Highly POV Slanted edits on Israel / Palestine

Fgz1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

[116],[117],[118]

Newly registered account, making a lot of POV edits on articles likely to have little oversight. All uncited and definitely POV, does this come under sanctions related to this topic? W C M_email 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might fall under WP:ARBPIA3, especially since they're a new account. clpo13_(talk) 01:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Legacypac's persistent bullying

WV conduct

Continued discussion

Proposal for Resolution

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Boomerang?

Questions

Related problems

Continued

Proposal

Proposal 2

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

Concerning the user who just reported me

Concerning the user who just reported me

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions

Suggestion

Several problems, but one simple solution

Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does

Canvassing by Kingofaces

Request close

An inescapable fact

User:Akash3141

User:Cliff1911 refuses to add sources and refuses to communicate

Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page

Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries

Persistent personal attacks

IP alleging Jewish conspiracy, personal attacks, you know the usual

Can editors at the ref desks offer legal and financial advice?

Something Caustic in Ohio

Bigger Picture

Blocked attempts to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina and removal of POV tag

Civility/Personal attacks

Hard to believe they all think we should waste time on them. AKA a pox on all of their houses

Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again

Other biographical articles covered by GMO sanctions?

Thrasher1988

Legal threat by IP

79.78.168.63

The UAE troll is back again, new range block and page-protections needed

A list of the UAE troll's IPs during the last months

Now edit warring and trolling at WP:SPI

St Mary's Church, Haddenham - copy/paste from ext website

Deletion of article

non-free image

User:Giovannigiulio continues to block evade using IPs - rangeblock needed

User:BushelCandle

SPA Account - Highly POV Slanted edits on Israel / Palestine