Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) has been going around blanking articles. And not just huge chunks of articles...but entire articles. This is against the WP:Preserve policy and other rules that are in place for dealing with unsourced material. Furthermore, we do not blank entire articles unless it's a serious WP:BLP or WP:Copyvio issue. If the article really needs deleting, we take the matter to WP:AfD; we do not simply blank the article and then go about our merrily way. I first warned Spacecowboy420 about inappropriate removals when he removed easily verifiable content from Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) solely because it was unsourced and incorrectly cited the material as possible WP:Original research. He did not do a check to see if the material was original research; he simply removed it based on a guess. This sparked a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 64#Preserving a burden), and the most current discussion going on there. It also led to the current debating going on at Wikipedia talk: Editing policy. While some might be able to excuse his behavior in the Child grooming case, I do not see how this, this and this type of blanking is acceptable. Neither did Piotrus and Materialscientist, who reverted him at two of the articles. And in this case, he failed to do his WP:Before job before proposing that the article be deleted. As seen here and here, Arxiloxos came in to save the day in that case. As seen with this edit, Spacecowboy420 is also mistaken about WP:Primary sources, assuming that they are inherently bad.

I took the matter to S Marshall's talk page since he was as alarmed as I was about Spacecowboy420's behavior in the Child grooming case and his nonchalant, dimissive attitude regarding removing material. While S Marshall declined to get involved on his talk page, Piotrus stated, "I concur that blanking is not a good approach. There are deletion processes for that. Spacecowboy420, those three diffs above are basically stealthy deletion, and that is not far from the v-word. Please do not blank articles in such fashion. If you want them gone, Template:Prod is not difficult to use." Spacecowboy420's response was, "I'm merely deleting unsourced content. If someone wants to add content to an article, they should provide sources. If they are too lazy to provide sources, it gets removed. I guess I dislike poorly sourced content, unsourced content and lazy editors, as much as some others dislike content being removed. If an article ends up blank because none of it was sourced, the blame lies with the lazy editor who didn't provide a source. I would like to add, that if the content is notable and someone restores it, with suitable sources, I would not go back and remove it again." He soon made edits like this and this.

Some intervention is needed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing this, this, this, and maybe particularly this are some of the edits being questioned here? John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, that's part of it. When it comes to blanking the entire article, or essentially the entire article, this, this and this is also a part of it. Spacecowboy420 has been clear that he believes this type of blanking is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how anyone can believe that blanking of an entire article put together by others is "fine". Opening deletion discussion, maybe, but not blanking an entire article. If his beliefs do permit that, then it is definitely time for him to be advised to the contrary. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. Surely the way to go about dealing with completely unsourced articles with no notability is to stub them down to the basics, and then PROD them. Stuff like this is basically vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Laura Jamieson, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were "completely unsourced articles with no notability"; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect this type of edit to stop until Spacecowboy420 comes here and engages in discussion. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I got tagged to this conversation, and will weigh in that I don't think the content being removed from Cebu Pacific falls so obviously short of sourcing requirements as to justify these removals. Specifically, while I share much of his objections to the use of primary sources, material sourced to primary sources is sufficiently acceptable as to require discussion. For Dasmariñas Village, though, the problem is more that he doesn't delete cleanly: replacing it with a redirect to Makati City would have been quite justifiable. Leaving the article as it was, after being tagged as unsourced for seven years, would have been completely irresponsible. It's an example of exactly how useless the "citation needed" tags are.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that at least some of the material removed from the Cebu Pacific article, particularly including its having merged with other airlines, probably merits inclusion, and, I assume, could probably have sources found if in fact the editor who removed it were more interested in improving the article than in, basically, unilaterally removing everything with sometimes questionably phrased edit summaries. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the behavior of Spacecowboy420 as very concerning. This editor does not understand sourcing guidelines or policy at all. We all know that material needs to be "challenged" and may be removed, but the mere existence of a refimprove or noref tag is not, per se, a challenge of contentious material. Absent a BLP violation or blatent copyvio, the standard procedure is to initiate discussion. My take:

1. WP:PRIMARY is widely misunderstood; it does not prohibit use of primary sources, it simply explains where they are and are not appropriate. In the case of the Cebu Pacific article, it was filled with a lot of cruft, but some of the material removed was fine, and taking out something apt to be verified simply due to a cn tag is a lack of due diligence.
2. this was just inappropriate content removal without discussion.
3. this was a completely inappropriate edit summary
4. this had no justification for blanking. and properly reverted. Unsourced, yes, but blanking was overkill$.
5. prodding and deleting content of an article in this fashion was completely inappropriate.
6. this was at least in response to a discussion, so OK in style, I make no coment as to the validity of the content or arguments advanced.
7. completely inappropriate edit summary. Also inappropriate blanking.

• That's all for now from me. I'd say a restriction may be in order that in the future Spacecowboy420 cannot blank or prod tag any article, if he has issues, he can either file a proper AfD, or if there is a prod concern, ask someone else to do it for him. Spacecowboy420 should be required to make blanking requests via either the BLP noticeboard or Copyvio noticeboards. If he chooses not to respond here, I'd suggest a one-week block might get his attention. Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a prod restriction, but I do support a restriction on blanking articles, per mine and other arguments above and elsewhere. Ha, I'll even ping User:Kvng with whom I am having a disagreement on some prods - see, there are people who go far, far further then me... Perhaps instead of deprodding my prods you could see if there are improperly blanked Spacecowboy's articles out there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take aboard the constructive criticism and advice given here and accept that when I removed unsourced content on some articles, it might have been a good idea to consider 1. checking that I didn't remove valid content. 2. contacting the editors who inserted the content in the first place and asking them to provide sources. 3. redirects instead of virtually empty topics. If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This might just have been a case of an editor with a previous negative interaction with me, getting a little too overzealous with ANI reports. I'd rather say "yeah, ok, I'll be careful" than get involved in another prolonged dramafest, over a really simple issue. C'est la vie. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, as made clear before and then again, we both know that I've had many previous negative interactions with you, not just the Child grooming case. But, as is clear by others expressing the same concerns about your editing, that is not why I reported you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, like you I love lyric poetry more than drama, but this was not a dramafest over a simple issue. I mean, it was a simple issue, but repeated frequently and zealously. Few people like trimming articles more than I do, but wholesale blanking is quite another, and as such this is a matter for ANI. Had you not responded, and continued with the simple issue, there is little doubt you would have been blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmies My reaction was probably more to do with the source of the complaint, than the content. Rather than insult the source of the complaint, or comment on their motivation, it would be more constructive of me to pay attention to you, as you've always spoken total sense. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, if I could get that last bit in an affidavit, I'd be mighty grateful. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: I find it curious that you "banned" Flyer22 Reborn and Montanabw from your talk page over this. Are you trying to make it harder for them to resolve issues with you in the future? Rebbing 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rebb - No, I'm trying to get a little peace and quiet in my editing life. A quick "ping" gets my attention to any post, if required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I must comment that Spacecowboy420 needs to be explicitly warned that blanking material simply for being uncited or for having an old {{cn}} tag is an improper response per WP:PRESERVE. If an article is overly promotional or COI in tone, appropriate tags should be placed and the editors in question be properly informed. Most of all, it is completely inappropriate to use language in edit summaries such as these (all in his last 500 edits) no matter what the provocation—or even accuracy of the sentiment:

1. "buying planes and having routes is not fucking notable"
2. "shit article. POV/OR/NO sources."
3. "Do I want an ignorant template on my pretty talk page? Nope. It can fuck off." (in response to a warning, no less)
4. "fuck this article sucks...."
5. "not a collection of fucking pictures"
6. "This article sucks. ..."
7. "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?"
8. "promotional crap..."
9. "Promotional crap."
10. "more crap removed"
11. "lots of crap removed, for numerous awesome reasons..."

• Spacecowboy420 appears to be an erudite individual and perfectly capable of using a thesaurus to find synonyms for these assorted four-letter expletives. (I did not note uses where the individual used said words to describe his own actions, which is acceptable as it is either self-deprecating humor or commentary on one's own actions) My suggestion is that any further behavior such as these examples above result in an immediate 24-48 hour block for each occurrence. Inappropriate blanking or inappropriate prod-tagging may need to be addressed on a case by case basis, but Spacecowboy420 needs to be strongly admonished that this is not appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's not spend time on trying to figure out what kind of individual Spacecowboy420 is and focus on addressing the behavior. I think the whole matter of blanking material has been settled, and I expect not to see it come up again. Spacecowboy420, the swearing in edit summaries is needlessly provocative and adds no value to the work you are doing, so please drop it. This summary is not an acceptable way to talk to other editors. There are other ways to explain the removal of material you think is problematic. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The thing is that a literal reading of WP:BURDEN does support Spacecowboy420's behaviour. As written, editors can remove content if they don't like the sourcing, and there aren't any limits or qualifiers on that power. WP:PRESERVE suggests otherwise but we have a number of editors who are seriously arguing that BURDEN trumps PRESERVE. It's not proportionate or reasonable to warn editors for doing what our policies specifically say they can do. In my view the correct response to this isn't to impose sanctions on Spacecowboy420. It's to clarify WP:BURDEN by explaining how far it goes.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Another option might be to either place the removed material on the article talk page, allowing people to still have access to it for the purposes of finding sources for what it says, or alternately adding a wikilink of the edit history of the article showing the material removed. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I would prefer not to visit your talk page. Indeed, my visiting that talk page has been a rare occasion. I prefer not to visit the talk pages of those I have a tempestuous history with. But Wikipedia requires that I notify you of a WP:ANI report I've started on you, regardless of already having pinged you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank S Marshall for presenting the devil's advocate position, above, since he's firmly in the opposite camp; it was a very classy thing to do. I'm one of the people who are arguing, as he says, "BURDEN trumps PRESERVE". However, even those of us who believe that make a couple of possible exceptions to the removal rights given by BURDEN. First, most of us concede that it is likely a sanctionable practice to make a regular or habitual practice of removing material merely because it is unsourced without making a good faith effort to find a source for the material, especially if it appears that doing so is pursuant to a topical agenda or POV (it being somewhat unclear whether or not it is sanctionable without that factor being present; most cases which have come here to ANI without it that I've seen or been involved in — which may be simply luck of the draw — have ended with considerable criticism of the practice, but no sanctions). Second, and much less certain, is the idea that even a single removal of a large amount — blanking — of material from a single article may be sanctionable. (And, of course, even if neither of those exceptions is present, edit warring over a removal is not permitted.) I have not looked and do not know whether Spacecowboy420 has engaged in either of those practices, but I do find the edit comments quoted by the good Montanabw, above, to be disturbing, especially if it is combined with one of those practices, and I wanted to add this additional information for what it's worth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN redirect to policies, and both state pretty clearly that editors should "consider" fixing problems rather than just blanking things. Use of the {{cn}} tag is encouraged. My own position is that tagging is superior to blanking, as it gives the article editors an opportunity to fix problems. At the very least, going around and declaring that articles "suck" or are "shit" is WP:BITEY at its worst, highly incivil and does not contribute to the good of the encyclopedia. It's one thing to become irate at a well-established editor or a true vandal, but where we have these low-quality-but-good-faith articles, it is more appropriate to use tags or at least a more educational edit summary. The idea of moving large swaths of blanked material to the talk page is also a good one. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the totality of the editors blanking career, but just looking at his edits to Child grooming in particular, since that's part of my long-term area of watching. Edits such as this and this... twice removing the blue-sky statement Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being... is an action that makes me quite nervous about that editor. I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it would be consistent with a highly problematic editor. It's a red flag to me. However, based on the above, it seems highly likely that this editor just likes to delete material generally for some unclear reason, and happened to pick that passage more or less at random. I guess. It's still not something I like to see. Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"...just likes to delete unsourced material" would have expressed the apparent situation as it stands rather more precisely, I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• That paragraph was unsourced but extremely easy to source. When I got tagged on the talk page I was able to find a source within minutes of seeing it. For the reasons Herostratus gives, it's the single most problematic one of Spacecowboy420's recent edits and it spawned a colossal discussion on WT:V and WT:EP. WP:BURDEN does allow editors to remove paragraphs in this way, and in my view the problem is with the policy rather than with the editor ---- barring a little salty language in the edit summaries. (The edit summary part of this AN/I is clearly going nowhere except for a mild warning. This is a first offence and we don't need long AN/I discussions to deal with a little bad language. The difficult part of this AN/I is about policy.)—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I do offline things at the weekend, so I wasn't aware of the drama unfolding here, until I got back online.

Seeing the amount of time people have put into discusing things here, I guess it would be polite of me to comment on a few points.

1. Burden vs Preserve. I've had this discussion with some of the editors here, in the past, on other discussion pages, and I still stand by my comments that WP:BURDEN does allow us to remove content that is lacking a source. To me this is so important, because it encourages editors to add sources, rather than just add content and rely on other editors to find the sources. If it becomes standard that editors are reported for removing unsourced content, then we might as well remove the need for sources on anything other than BLP related content. The editor that adds content should provide a source. The editor that restores unsourced content should provide a source. The editor removing the content, may choose to be kind and provide a source, but that's their option, removing the content should be just as valid an option.

2. I was willing to accept some of the valid points made that criticized me, because it helps to be open minded, and I just want to get on with editing articles. I could have spend days debating burden VS preserve, but to be honest, I wasted enough time the last time it was discussed and we got nowhere, so I chose the easy option and stated that I would look at other options, that certainly does not mean that I accept unsourced content should not be removed. Removal is one valid option, my error was that I didn't consider the other options enough.

3. I used profanity in my edit summaries. I have major issues with this complaint for a number of reasons...

Firstly, I was being reporting for removal of content/blanking - an editor who I have had previous issues with, Montanabw, decided to get involved, hoping (or to be more accurate, requesting) that I should receive a block and/or be subject to editing restrictions. When I decided to be tactful and open minded about the criticism, accepting that I could have performed my edits in a number of different ways, rather than jumping into a big fight in ANI, it seemed as if this would all be resolved without any sanctions against me. So, seeing this situation not resulting in sanctions, Montana decided she had better find something else to complain about, in an attempt to get my account blocked for something...anything... This is not what ANI is about, this is just vindictive. ANI is not here to gain revenge on editors that you have had an edit related conflict with. Actually, this is not what Wikipedia is for, not just ANI>

Secondly, I swear. I swear in real life. I am aware of civility rules in Wikipedia, and specifically in regards to edit summaries. I would never use profanity or anything else offensive to attack an editor. Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. Using words like nigger, fag or whore are offensive towards a group of people, without the need to actually direct them at anyone - I have never used that sort of language in my edit summaries, or on wikipedia (AFAIK). I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend. The same as someone might be offended with my views on homosexuality, race, religion, etc - my use of profanity is something that I guess people should learn to either accept or ignore, because we can't all have the same moral feelings on everything.

Finally, when I initially saw the report about my profanity, I actually stopped and thought for a moment. Maybe Montana actually had a point? Maybe, if I ignore the fact that we had a dispute in the past, perhaps she has different standards to me, and is genuinely offended by my profanity in my edit summaries?

Then I saw the following in her edit summaries:

crap

crap

shit

unsourced bullshit, stop adding it back in.

I would suggest that editors can draw their own conclusions about the whole situation. A complaint was made against me, for using profanity in edit summaries, by an editor who has used very similar profanity in their edit summaries. (note: the above are all from May 1st 2016 onwards) - the only difference is that I am not requesting an editing block, a threat of a block, or other sanctions against that editor, I just want them to stop bugging me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, perfect examples, the first two were my own comments about my own edits to an article I started, made while it was still sandboxed (while it was, frankly, still crap quality and not yet in mainspace)...I excluded similar of your edits where you swore at yourself, as we can all criticize ourselves… The third example was after multiple times a now-blocked vandal had added disruptive content. The fourth was something I should not have said, even though the same unsourced and inaccurate content was being edit-warred in over and over. If you cannot see the difference between those examples and your drive-by comments to, basically, "first offenders", then this is part of the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below about his profanity and civility issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Stuff like this or this is IMHO openly disruptive. Cleaning up articles is one things, leaving the articles destroyed and without any meaningful content, not even caring about generating code errors and leaving random sentences with no context in the actual articles, is just WP:DISRUPTPOINT and goes against WP:COMMONSENSE. Let alone that bold removal of primary sourced contents just because they are primary sourced contents underlines serious competence issues. Also, apparent refusal of collaboration and aggressive edit summaries are also a problem, as well as signs of batteground behaviour (eg. see point 3 in the message above).Frankly, I think he is blockable, I don't see here a serious editor who cares of the encyclopedia. He says in the response above he'll change his attitude, but the response itself does not show he understood he was wrong and that there is a difference between "removing unsourced content" and leaving blanked or semi-blanked articles with nonsense contents. For the record, I have had zero interaction with this editor nor I have apparently ever edited any article he "cleaned up" [2]. Cavarrone 08:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that calling something a "shit article" has exactly the same meaning as calling it a "poor article" - it's just a choice of words that some people have decided to have a little drama over. (while using the same language themselves)

In regards to removing content, as I have already stated "...If I feel the need to remove content from an article (due to lack of sources/primary sources/etc) I will take more care and consider if removal actually benefits the article, or if there is a better way to deal with it." - I don't see what the problem is. Wikipedia:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE seems highly relevant, for an editor who has 1. agreed to look at better ways to deal with an issue. 2. made no further edits that have the issues that were pointed out in the report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comments like "that some people have decided to have a little drama over" show further lack of understanding regarding what is a helpful attitude for a collaborative community. No one cares what Spacecowboy42 does in real life, but editing Wikipedia requires competence and collaboration. There is no problem with the occasional expletive, but anyone who is generally unable to avoid profane edit summaries probably does not have the right temperament for Wikipedia. I encountered Spacecowboy42 here and that experience confirms this report. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Noting the irony that Johnuniq's example shows Spacecowboy420 actually opposing the removal of material... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So, you're basing your comments here on a pre-existing bias you had against me. If you're you're going to complain just because I said "fuck" then you and I have different opinions about what is acceptable re. civility guidelines. Personally, I'd rather focus on content, than care about who used profanity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to focus on content and not care about the use of profanity then go ahead, just remember not to use profanity yourself. That way you can ignore it when others use it. Personally I try to think of edit summaries as direct and public communication with the people whose words I'm changing. Some of my edit summaries can be terse, especially "not curly" for people who have spelled public without the l, and "secularisation in action" for sportsfans who believe their team would play better if there was a hay filled cradle on the touchline instead of a shouty sweary guy disrupting the flow of instructions from the fans to the players. So apologies if I have a mote in my eye. But I'd like all involved to think through how their edit summaries might appear to the person they are talking to. To me describing someone's work as shit or crap is unhelpfully unspecific and rather more serious than calling it poor. Poor quality work is goodfaith but error laden, biased and unreferenced. Crap or shit work would be work of negative value such as unfunny hoaxes and perhaps the most blatant advertising. Writing "that would need an independent source", or "enemy is a non neutral term" takes longer than most expletives, but is more likely to change others behaviour. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The user's heard the community's view about that; hasn't quite fully accepted it but this is a first offence. Wikipedians constantly surprise me but I don't currently see how anyone could close this AN/I with anything more than --- or less than --- a warning or mile rebuke about bad language in edit summaries. The content removal is another matter but policy does say the user can do this. We can argue about whether it should say that ---- whether there's a case for putting some kind of limit on how much content you can remove under WP:BURDEN all at once ---- but at the moment policy does say he can do it and the place to change that is WT:V. I hope this AN/I can be closed shortly as there doesn't seem to be much else to it.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with a wrist slap, particularly with the edit-warring at the Child grooming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The problem is a combination of inappropriate blanking, the incivil edit summaries are a clear WP:BITE on top of the blanking. And it is not a first offense: This editor has a block log, (including this one where both I and RexxS were dragged in) is subject to an IBAN (and his language and that of others was among the issues there). Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, I don't think that the WP:Burden policy says that editors can blank articles the way that Spacecowboy420 has been blanking them. You talked to him before about his understanding of the WP:Burden policy being misguided. I have only ever seen disruptive editors or otherwise very misguided editors interpret WP:Burden to that extreme. And as you, I and others keep reminding editors, WP:Preserve is also policy.

As for Spacecowboy420's profanity and civility issues, above he stated, "Telling someone to fuck off, or telling someone that they are a dumbass are personal attacks. Something that (AFAIK) has never been in my edit summaries. [...] I am sorry if someone doesn't like my colorful language, but the intent is not to offend." But edits like "STOP ADDING BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES" and "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?" tell a different story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure?, the first diff attacks the content, quite clearly. The second diff could be construed as a PA but also as attacking the content. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How I do I figure? Well, let's see: Spacecowboy420 claimed "the intent is not to offend." Exactly how is the intent not to offend when one is stating "STOP ADDING BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES" and similar to an editor? While what Spacecowboy420 stated to that editor may not technically be a WP:Personal attack, it does fall under a WP:Civility issue. The rest of what took place in that section can be seen here. And, yes, we all know that WP:Civility is a widely ignored policy. I am not too concerned about Spacecowboy420's civility issues anyway. But if he is going to claim "the intent is not to offend" and similar, I am going to point to evidence that indicates otherwise. And as for the "no shit, sherlock. Next thing you will be informing us that water is wet?", that is attacking the editor who added that content; plain and simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that its not civil, however what's the context? is the editor being called out for bulsshit after repeated poor edits or what. As for the second diff, I see how it can be seen as a PA and I would not like my contributions to be categorized in that manner either. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw how do you explain your comment "incivil edit summaries are a clear WP:BITE" when the following edit summaries of yours seems to be very similar in content and tone? Is there some important difference that I'm failing to notice, between your use of profanity in edit summaries and mine?

crap

crap

shit

bullshit

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, I do actually agree that blanking articles that were lacking sources was not the best option. I never actually considered that if an article was entirely/mainly based on badly sourced/unsourced content, that the best option would be for me to use PROD if the content needed to be removed, rather than blank it. Now that I'm aware that PRODing an article is better than blanking it, I will take that option if the need arises. Obviously, it would be better if sources were provided for the content, either by myself, or the initial editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I stated to Laura Jamieson above, "I wouldn't have much of a problem with the hacking and blanking if the articles were 'completely unsourced articles with no notability'; I mean, I would still think the matter should be handled like you stated, but Spacecowboy420 is often removing easily verifiable content, paying WP:Preserve no mind. He's not checking for verifiability or notability; that's why I pointed to the Child grooming case and cases like this one, where he prodded the article for deletion and another editor had to come in and fix the mess."

In other words, you shouldn't be prodding anything unless the prod is reasonable. You should not be prodding WP:Notable articles for deletion, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As much as I hate to analyze myself, I guess I was giving priority to removing something just because it was unsourced, rather than taking the time to consider what would improve the article. Sometimes removing is the right choice, just as sometimes a PROD, hunting down a source, or discussion is the right choice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:KatrinaMcCaffery has requested admin intervention

KatrinaMcCaffery has requested admin intervention at User talk:KatrinaMcCaffery#Nomination of Oliver Trevena for deletion. I understand she is unhappy that a number of her articles have been nominated for deletion and is alleging WP:HOUNDING. I'm involved in recent actions w.r.t. Ms. McCaffery at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:KatrinaMcCaffery_.26_User:Kittymccaffery and in subsequent AfDs, and so will not venture an opinion here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This user seems to have multiple cases of WP:COI and also WP:MULTIPLE. I do not think it's hounding when you point out issues. Coderzombie (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Siuenti

For the past day, Siuenti (talk · contribs) has been involving himself in edit wars on various film articles, insisting that the plot summaries should include the cast members. I have told him numerous times to read WP:FilmPlot, but he has ignored my advice and claims that I am "inconveniencing readers solely to decrease the work count". - Areaseven (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you may have forgotten to notify the editor, so I've done that for you :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask that Areaseven refrains from editing in this area until s/he at least realizes that their is a downside to his/her edits? Siuenti (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe there has been previous consensus at WT:FILM that it is unnecessary to include actor names in Plot summaries if they are provided elsewhere, though I'm admittedly having some trouble finding a specific link. I believe editors would generally agree that in such cases, removing actor names to comply with WP:FILMPLOT is appropriate. A relevant discussion from six months ago can be reviewed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Cast names in plot summaries. My reading of that is that the editors who participated in the conversation felt that when there is a Cast section, including actor names in the Plot section is redundant.

In any case, edit-warring over such is highly inappropriate. WP:BRD would obviously seem the reasonable path to follow in such cases. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would note that WP:FILMPLOT does say specifically, "(Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)". So, if discussion is not occurring, that's a problem, and the guideline as written appears to favor summaries that are within compliance. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So let's have a discussion maybe at WP:FILM and then you can go back to reducing the work word count if you still think it's justified. Siuenti (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to start one. In fact, you probably should have started one before matters escalated to this point. I see no reason to start one myself as I'm satisfied with the existing guidelines. I'd go so far as to say that if you're willing to cease your current editing pattern for now, initiate a discussion on this matter, and then abide by whatever consensus emerges, that there's no need to pursue this further. DonIago (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not too sure that discussion you linked to shows consensus but I'll take your word for it. I'd still like to ask people who think there is no downside to their actions not to engage in edit wars until they have listened to the other side. Siuenti (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A large number of possible CSD U2s from semiautomation

Hi, I noticed that many of these pages here would qualify for CSD U2:

• Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User:
• Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User talk:  Done

Some of these are sockpuppet notices by other users (who must have mistyped in Twinkle), or misled moves. I believe they should be deleted, but it would take me a while to CSD tag them. Did not want to spam MfD either... unless you think that really is the appropriate venue. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just moved one which was moved to the wrong location while attempting to archive. So some additional manual review should be done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If you use link classifier, it's easy to pick out the redirects, which can just be deleted, vs. the ones which actually should be moved. I am looking at user talk at the moment. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: Thanks. I have this bookmarked for now, probably won't be able to get to more of this until tomorrow. But yeah, tons of U2s. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think stuff like User talk:User:figure8state should just be deleted; twinkle created page that doesn't have any use since the account is blocked. Maybe this should be one of the checks enforced on Twinkle -- preventing "User:" from being added to the username field at ARV - sockpuppet or ignoring it if it is added. One option is to add verified links over to something like Wikipedia:User or user talk pages of non-existent users for deletion. Any admin can then delete the whole list using Twinkle batch delete, this won't bloat up CAT:CSD or MfD. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the user talks are archiving errors, I am almost done fixing them. Haven't looked at the user ones though. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of these pages came from Twinkle sockpuppet notices and welcomes. Also, a non-trivial number of these pages came from October 2014, which leads me to believe there was a Twinkle or MediaWiki bug around that time. A couple are automated bot postings or message services delivered to incorrect pages due to setup error. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just brought a good number of these to MfD to clarify why they should be deleted, although, truly, they all satisfy WP:U2 as they currently stand without moving. I'm wondering if, after this is cleaned, it's reasonable to add these prefixes to the title blacklist? (Possibly including "Wikipedia:User:" and "Wikipedia:User talk:" as well?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted that batch as uncontroversial housekeeping because they were obviously created in error, are mostly no longer relevant and the probability of the user reading the messages is extremely small. MER-C 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C, Kelapstick, and SpacemanSpiff: As of this post, there are about 5-6 pages left under "User talk:User:". They've been CSD tagged, or the owner notified. The others have been MfDd or moved. I think this is essentially done. :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair bit of similarly weird stuff in other namespaces apparently too. SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

30/500 in response to Никита-Родин-2002

For the background on this, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. Since mid-April, this sockmaster has had 36 usernames and 22 IPs reported at SPI. These are by no means the only IPs he's used; there's probably at least another 50 in that time period, but it's often not useful to report them since he changes IPs frequently.

The modus operandi of this sockmaster is to introduce false information relating to the chart rankings and certifications of Green Day songs and albums. He occasionally also introduces similar false information to Kelly Clarkson, The Who, and Fall Out Boy related articles, mostly as part of a pattern of edits across multiple articles that reinforce his edits related to Green Day. For example, he might edit a Kelly Clarkson article to say one of her songs never topped the charts and also edit a Green Day article to say their song topped the charts during that same period. This often also extends to articles such as List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Here are some example diffs: [3] [4]

This vandalism is sneaky and often goes undetected by recent changes patrollers, who assume the change is in good-faith. Semi-protection has recently proved ineffective, as the master has adopted a new strategy to get around it without detection. As seen with Ohlava, he registers an account weeks in advance, rapidly makes 10 edits in userspace, and then jumps right into semi-protected articles making disruptive edits for hours until blocked. When he decides to activate his "sleeper" accounts, he uses multiple accounts at once to maximize disruption and make it more difficult to effectively respond to the sockpuppetry. See the most recent report at the SPI link above for an example of two sleeper accounts being activated at the same time immediately after a non-sleeper vandalized articles that were not semi-protected.

I requested full protection in the midst of this most recent spree, but it was denied by MusikAnimal as too severe a response. A WP:30/500 restriction on these articles is the ideal solution. Kelapstick, a sitting arbitrator, recently commented at User talk:Opabinia regalis indicating that the Arbitration Committee does not have full control over the 30/500 protection level, and the community has discretion to support its use on any articles.

Should the community authorize administrators to apply 30/500 protection at their discretion to any articles where confirmed socks of Никита-Родин-2002 have continued their long-term pattern of vandalism despite semi-protection? ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: is it possible to have some manner of edit notice for recent changes patrollers to see to alert them to specific page issues, in this case to be wary of sneaky changes to rankings or anything Green Day related? If not, 30/500 makes sense. I've encountered this user before and their persistence and perseveration is remarkable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I could create an edit notice, but that doesn't pop up on Huggle or similar anti-vandalism tools. Most anti-vandalism tools won't even flag this in the first place and an edit notice can't change their algorithms unfortunately. An edit notice would only be shown once an editor clicked the edit tab, which I doubt many RC patrollers do. ~ Rob^Talk 05:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of pending changes level 2 as an option, the only alternative for persistent subtly vandalizing sockpuppetry that semi-protection fails to stop is full protection. 30/500 raises the bar but still allows editing. Fences&Windows 11:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until a more specific list of pages is given. I am worried about the potential for collateral damage: we have to recognize that pop music articles have high traffic counts and are more likely to be edited by "casual" editors. For example, a good-faith music fan who is only interested in a few artists may only edit sporadically, perhaps only when newsworthy events occur that involve their artist. It is easy to see why casual editors would accumulate enough edits to be autoconfirmed, but not extendedconfirmed. This is exactly the kind of editor that the broad use of 30/500 protection would drive away. With a more specific list of pages, at least the community could read through the page histories and examine the potential for collateral damage. Altamel (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but I'm confused. BU Rob13, when I saw your request for page protection for Wake Me Up When September Ends, I decided to apply 30/500 for a couple of weeks in preference to full protection for a few days. Then I saw your comment that 30/500 doesn't have community consensus. But it's in the drop-down menu of protection options, and the ArbCom hasn't said that it can't be used. Is there a community discussion somewhere saying it shouldn't be used outside certain areas? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Having looked around, I assume people are relying on this January 2016 RfC – New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection – where there was agreement to introduce the new usergroup. Robert McClenon closed it and added:

"Consensus is in favor of implementing this feature, with the noted reservation that it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason."

I've only glanced at the RfC responses, but it's not clear that those restrictions gained consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Meh I don't particularly care for the precedent, and I was someone who dealt with Nikita way back when he was primarily doing Rainbow Fish and Ice Age vandalism (tbh I've always questioned the relationship between that Nikita and the current Nikita, but that's neither here nor there; both are sufficiently disruptive). My worry is that allowing 30/500 for articles targeted by persistent sockpuppeteers will create a situation where the exception—and 30/500 is clearly intended to be an exception—will swallow the rule, that we're an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 30/500 was crafted to deal with mass disruption from a variety of unconnected or unconnectable accounts—where no conspiracy between individuals could possibly be proven. Have edit filters been tried? PC for specific affected articles? In any event, I concur with Altamel that even if we consider this appropriate, we need an indication that there's a limited number of articles, or that we can describe them with specificity. In general I just think the administrative practices involving the application and administration of 30/500 is not sufficiently sussed out that we should be considering an expansion of the mandate merely for convenience. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a broad deployment of ECP to a large category (music album related articles?). However I would likely support a definite length PC2 after the targets were better identified. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until more clear general guidelines for 30/500 are created. This rollout doesn't need any further complication. Re-examining PC2 is a good idea. BethNaught (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Having further reviewed the evidence, that the current situation is being allowed to continue is absurd. PC2 would be bad because someone would still have to verify changes, with outsiders to the situation possibly being duped, and someone who knows about it having to fix it anyway.
  • This would be a provisional measure until the community decides clear guidelines in the RFC which appears to be upcoming. BethNaught (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per above. I'm concerned that these folks will then be aware of the 30/500 requirements, make 500 dummy edits, wait a month, and start vandalizing. We really need a guideline for WP:EC-P set up soon. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Andy M. Wang: By that logic, shouldn't we get rid of semi-protection? Achieving extended confirmed status takes substantially more time and effort. That translates into less socks and less vandalism. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ... Yeah I'd agree. I think semi-protection is effective for cases where folks don't want to wait. EC-P might be fine for one or two cases then. If EC-P is rolled out in a big way, the amount of dummy/useless edits from new users might see increase, which is probably detrimental to the encyclopedia. This was a weak oppose for this one case, and don't feel very strongly, and would go with consensus on this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some pages that are particularly in need of this restriction at the moment include Wake Me Up When September Ends, Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song), List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 number-one songs of 2005, and List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005. Take a look through those edit histories, which are typical of the Nikita-hit articles. It's almost exclusively socks and editors reverting those socks. Very few people edit song articles from over a decade ago which have already been expanded to include most information on the subject. We have two options here, really; either accept the fact that newer editors won't be able to edit these articles or accept the fact that they will remain in a near-constant state of factual inaccuracy. Both options suck, but one provides an accurate encyclopedia to our readers. I'm a strong supporter of the "anyone can edit" philosophy, but this is a situation where that philosophy is stopping us from providing factual content on an entire topic area. I should also mention that if the community fails to grant 50/300 here on procedural grounds, I plan to file a full ArbCom case relating to the topic area of Green Day, broadly construed. We need some solution here, because failing to implement a protection level that can effectively stop this sockmaster is implicitly volunteering dozens of hours of editors, SPI clerks, and CheckUsers who have been trying (and failing, really) to keep these articles factually correct. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  For that list, I'd consider a short term (say 60 day) IAR PC2 level to see if it is effective over ec2 - for immediate relief you can just go full protection while this is worked out. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  There isn't even consensus for PC2 to exist as a protection level, though. Full protection was declined at RFPP with the rationale that it should be handled at SPI (which has never been used as a venue to protect articles, as far as I'm aware). ~ Rob^Talk 21:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  No comment on the merits of this use of ECP for obvious reasons (but see also this thread on my talkpage about procedural matters). But I was surprised to see the suggestion for IAR PC2 over (sort-of) IAR ECP for this. @Xaosflux:, why would PC2 be better? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Opabinia regalis: - here is my IAR reasoning for this specific case: while not heavily edited, these articles are more likely to have casual readers hit them then many other random articles (as they concern popular music) - PC2 presents more of a "encyclopedia anyone can edit" interface than ECP does that could possibly convert a reader to an editor. If these articles were on more "controversial" topics, I'd be more in favor of ECP. FWIW, I'm still in favor of the community guidelines for ECP being completed so that people can either stop asking for this, or point to the standard conditions for use. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Thanks. Looking at the example articles, it seems like Rob is right that there's little to no editing going on other than reverting socks. So ECP vs PC2 doesn't matter much, probably, except that PC2 requires a little more work from admins (not sure if that's a feature or a bug). I agree entirely on your last point :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless I missed the link to the discussion where Arbcom authorized the use of 30/500 in this case, as is currently required for any new deployment of 30/500. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Arbcom provided some guidance for how to use it in the context of AE and DS. What to do outside of that context is up to the community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Pinging just so you see the above. Multiple ArbCom members have explicitly stated their guidance was not intended to be a list of exclusive uses of 30/500 and that they consider community application of this protection level to be valid. @Opabinia regalis: An interesting thought to ponder: If enough editors mistakenly think that the community is unable to handle 30/500 protection, does it de facto become true? ~ Rob^Talk 22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that interpretation. Arbcom authorized 30/500 for use in areas which it authorizes, and it has not authorized it for use here: this is neither discretionary sanction nor arbitration enforcement. The question of whether or not the community supports its use outside of those deliberately restrictive criteria has not been asked, and as I'm sure you know questions on changes to protection policies traditionally attract very long and heated discussions. We're talking about applying a very high level of protection to a large range of frequently edited articles here. I sympathize with the situation, but this is not the way to develop a solution. A very good way is the draft RfC advertised below, and a very bad thing to do would be to start applying it in advance of that discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  If your view of this is what's maintained by the community, then fine, but this will probably become a full ArbCom case against an already indefinitely blocked editor, which is fairly absurd. ~ Rob^Talk 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. We have an unusual vandalism case that our usual tools are inadequate to deal with, but we have a new tool that may solve the problem, and there's nothing stopping us implementing that tool except beauracracy. Well, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Yes, we do need a broader discussion to delineate exactly when using this new tool is appropriate, but that's no reason not to use it in a case as clear-cut as this. Plus, this first use of 30/500 as a countervandalism measure will provide useful data to inform that discussion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Since this community clearly isn't ready for elimination of IP editing and a one-person/one-account and sign-in-to-edit policy that would make this sort of unbannable sneaky vandalism difficult to cause and easy to correct, this sort of restriction is the best available tool... Carrite (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Extended confirmed protection policy

Before I went to GLAM-Wiki Boot Camp, I started a discussion to gather ideas, but we need more voices. Mz7 has a draft of an RFC here. If you haven't done so already, please comment or edit the draft, because we need to move forward with this. I'd like to take the RFC live in the next week or so and we need input. Katie^talk 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Closure of move request for Sport Aerobics

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

---

I'm asking if someone could close the move request of Sport aerobics to Aerobic gymnastics. If this can not be done or I have not done the proper steps may I please get the instructions on what else I need to do. I appreciate it. :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOP.[5] Doc talk 08:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Doc I was not aware of that rule but I admit I broke it and apologize. Would you like me to remove it from one board? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My statement on that board has been archived and I cannot edit it. I followed the instructions on that page and am now trying to get the page moved. Will you help me?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think that this is really a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Rainbowofpeace asked at AN on 10 June for the page to be moved and was directed to WP:RM. They started a requested move discussion and now they are asking for it to be closed. Nothing wrong with that other than this is not the usual place to ask for a requested move discussion to be closed. These are simply the actions of an inexperienced editor. Rainbowofpeace: there are a number of people who work at WP:RM on closing discussions listed there and they will no doubt get round to reviewing your request today or tomorrow. If you want to raise this anywhere, Wikipedia talk:Requested moves would be a better place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm I'm sorry for not following the procedures correctly I haven't edited wiki for a while and have gotten rusty on the different noticeboards. I appreciate you assuming good faith. I will wait a couple of days. What steps should I take after that? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that it has now been reviewed and relisted, that will be because there has been no participation in the discussion. I'm afraid that will mean waiting another week or so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Ad hominem attack to shut down discussion about Omar Mateen's foreign travel

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

---

On the Talk Page for the Pulse night club shooting, a discussion about the foreign travel made by Omar Mateen was shut down after an editor used an ad hominem attack against other editors, who supported including the foreign travel information in the article. The editor said that others were engaging in "racial paranoia" for supporting factual inclusion of the foreign travel information, and the editor removed cited references to Mateen's foreign travel from the article. Despite requests that the travel be factually described, the edits were not reverted. This issue could not be resolved on the Talk Page for the Pulse night club shooting, where material or well-sourced information was provided by others. An effort to discuss this with the editor, who is gate-keeping the Pulse night club shooting article, on the editor's Talk Page proved unsuccessful. Is there a protocol to follow when ad hominem attacks are used to shut down discussion about edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowsneeds (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see no personal attacks in that edit summary or on the talk page. I'll ping InedibleHulk since the plaintiff didn't notify them. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maslowsneeds: Are you talking about InedibleHulk? If so, you did not notify him of this discussion; I have done so for you. Where is this ad hominem attack? I read the talk page and I did not find any ad hominem attacks about anyone in the section to which you linked. Katie^talk 23:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And what discussion was shut down after said ad hominem? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor accused people, who were requesting the inclusion of factual descriptions of travel, of racial paranoia ("it would seem less like racist paranoia"). As noted, references to the travel were removed by the editor, and appeals by people requesting the inclusion of material and cited facts about the travel went unheard, indicating that the requests were not going to be acted upon, despite their merit, revealing that obviously one editor is gate-keeping the article according to one editor's beliefs. I'm not interested in anymore ad hominem attacks from the editor merely by having made this request for protocol. My request here was for protocol for when ad hominem attacks occur as a way to block edits. Maslowsneeds (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

In case my ping somehow got lost, here is something I said to you 12 hours ago: [6]. Perhaps it's worth saying that I have a lot of experience working with InedibleHulk and, while we sometimes strongly disagree, I have never known him to exhibit WP:OWN behavior. Past experience does inform our judgment on these things, and it should. Further, I've been at that same article almost since its inception and haven't noticed any WP:OWN from him there, either. It seems you're the sole beneficiary of his gate-keeping, for some reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maslowsneeds, you haven't pointed at any ad hominems. The "it" in the quote refers to the language in the article, not to ... well, "it" wouldn't really refer to an editor anyway. When attacks occur, one can warn the editor via the usual templates; see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. But, again, there were no personal attacks here, no matter if you may feel that way. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor can be referred to as "it" for three reasons, with different degrees of acceptability. First, the editor is a bot. That is an acceptable use of pronoun gender in English. Second, the editor is suspected of being a bot. That is an aspersion. Third, the editor either is or is said to be LGBTQ. The use of the neuter pronoun for humans is insulting, even if we don't know their gender, and even if they don't want to specify their gender in the usual way. However, "it" did apply to the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The language being invoked here is that advocating for the inclusion of travel information is tantamount to engaging in racist paranoia. How is that not an ad hominem attack on people suggesting the inclusion of factual information about the travel ? This isn't about feelings, and I don't get where you are coming from about that, except that by hiding behind the semantics of "it" is pretty weak. Nobody was requesting that travel information be included with any opinion or editorial connotation, malevolent or otherwise. The requests being made was for inclusion of factual description of the travel. The fact is that the spectre of racist paranoia was invoked by the editor. Nobody discussing edits chose to invoke inflammatory language, except the editor, who removed the cited travel information and who is apparently gate-keeping the article.Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If that relatively innocuous comment were grounds for an ANI complaint, none of us would spend much time anywhere else. Also, I now gather that "the discussion was shut down" meant something other than the common interpretation, which is that the discussion was closed by an uninvolved editor due to the ad hominem you asserted. That was misleading, if unintentionally so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not relatively innocuous to accuse those suggesting for the inclusion of factual information about the foreign travel to be inciting racist paranoia. That would be equivalent to me saying that, because the subject matter relates to a hate crime against the LGBT community that, by blocking accurate information about the circumstances of the attack, it would be homophobic of editors to be engaging in the blocking. How would that not be considered an attack ? There is now a supposition on the talk page for the Pulse night club mass shooting attack that it is baiting to be suggesting edits that reflect the foreign travel. If somebody could cite what was inflammatory or objectionable about the original factual inclusion of the travel information that was removed by the editor, I would of course understand that there would be a sensitivity to wording that was objectionable, but nobody is asking for objectional content be included in the article. The suggestion I made was for inclusion of factual information. The gate-keeping editor, who invoked racist paranoia as a reason to remove and not include this information, perhaps that gate-keeping editor can suggest wording to factually describe the travel that is acceptable, so that the wording doesn't trigger any concerns ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add in my own defense. What they said, pretty much. The racist paranoia is in the news, and we can use news sources, but we should just relay their facts, not the angles they take. All basic WP:NPOV stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, June 19, 2016 (UTC)

What does racist paranoia being in the news have anything to do with requests to factually describe the foreign travel ? What kind of (poor) logic is this ? What is in the news is not the cause of the requests for factually describing the foreign travel. Lots of other issues are in the news, like denialism over global warming. Denialism over global warming has nothing to do with requests to describe the factual circumstances of the foreign travel. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Sanity check, please

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

---

I asked مجتبیٰ (talk · contribs) why they had made a certain, now deleted, edit, and got the reply "Bishonen, hello. I think someone is using my account. I have to change my password as fast as i can. Thanks". So I blocked them, with a note encouraging them to create a new account and take good care of their new password. They're sad now. Was I too strict, or is that what we do? Bishonen | talk 08:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC). PS, they have now requested unblock. If it's considered acceptable to unblock them, I'd be happy to, of course. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

No, you did the right thing, blocking a compromised account. They can say they've regained control of it now and changed the password, but there is no way to know it's really them or the person who took over the account. So unless someone can confirm their identity, I would keep them blocked.--Atlan (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I don't think that the account was compromised. More likely an edit conflict occurred and the user didn't understand that he was over-writing someone else. When confronted with this, he still didn't understand what had happened, and thought something along the lines of "well, i didn't do that, so someone else must have". IMHO, I think this is just a misunderstanding. Rami R 09:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's the right call. Unless they had an SHA security key, or some other way of proving their identity, we really have no way of knowing who is talking to us now. I have declined an unblock request, though anyone else is free to unblock if they feel sufficiently assured by what the editor is saying. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A thought... This user has a curious history of deleted edits, which only admins can now see. If they can identify something from that list from memory, that could be enough evidence of identity - all the deleted edits are from the past 10 days, so they should be able to remember at least one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They've made another unblock request, so I've asked if they can tell us anything about their deleted edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They've convinced me they know enough about their deleted contributions, so I've unblocked - but it's now over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mujtaba! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I declined this unblock request after seeing it on IRC. I have no objection if any admins finds a reason to decide differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They offered more information about their deleted edits after that, which I'm pretty sure only the original owner of the account (or an admin) could have known. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's all moot. They have been blocked by a checkuser, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

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

Knanaya

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

---

This ANI is about the article Knanaya, multiple times this has been removed citing defunct accounts and linking them with anything asking a change from the article current libelous point of view. I thought of leaving it, but as a community member I find it hard.

From careful review Editor Cuchullain, has been long disrupting this article with a distorted version he have provided and continuously try to prove his point, WP:POVPUSH as the truth since 2012 to see evidnece: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Cuchullain&page=Knanaya&server=enwiki&max=

In case of any alternative evidence or reference provided he re-butts it with wrong interpretation of policies or blocks. If the talk page history checked long list of community members disagreeing with his "swiderski" source as credible is an evidence if we can accept everyone included. A recent edit made to solve this issue by me was thwarted with 1 year block and revert, this seems unethical and inability to accept incremental changes. The editor continuously plays WP:NOTGETTINGIT, applies for block, then reverts to his edits and later acts all clean, this is part of his MO. This user also canvass' selected admins or tag-teams with selected editors for his means.

To see newer revision of the article with identifiable sources(all can be cross checked using google books): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191

The users common target is editors who hold grudges and uses their user-rights as WP:GOLDENTICKET(editors who gets their way within the community project) like using edit filters to block any communication, reverting talk page conversation, looking for cornering and visibly rendering other editors voiceless in a manner that fits Wikipedia:Competence is required. I doubt their actions are always valid and acceptable, at-least it isn't with the Knanaya article. SpacemanSpiff is such an editor who have performed and further roped in Drimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=724726554 using some previous grudges with some editors. The article first was blocked by the editor, then when any communications made they were childishly removed without proper explanation and blocked reporting to ANI or talk page conversations using user-rights to discuss in between them to state their actions as correct. A crude method used is citing block evasion as a means for circumvention. SpacemanSpiffs actions were lowly to be considered as an admin, lacked basic etiquette, lacked judgement to review the edit of actions of editor Cuchullain to see she or he was promoting his private interest over the project rather than its expansion. SpacemanSpiff exercised his or hers user-rights to further Cuchullain's private interest. I strongly feel these actions of the admin should be answered.

I also suspect that these defunct or banned editors they talk about are made by themselves to use at situations like this, if so this should be checked by competitive users. Otherwise, there is nothing that explains with this warring reverts and wrongful blocks if it was anything concerning the article.

• If swiderski's material reviewed it can be identified that he himself is unsure of most of what he postulates here and there for taking a safe ground. There are newly published material that openly discredits swiderski's multiple origin story and this is equivalent to calling a child, a bastard, this seems to be a fact the editor secretly enjoys. The southerner reference is also widely misused. Accepting other sources of information and Removing swiderski's material entirely to not invite any future disputes is the only solution. But the active editor Cuchullain in the article continuously holds onto these Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

I strongly hope Cuchullain's massive WP:NOTGETTINGIT of Wikipedia:Fringe theories from 2012 will be popped by removing the article block and reverting the edit to : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191 if asked he might even come up with dodging answers, his experience might help him to do this or to twist the policies. But this wouldn't fare well for the article or Wikipedia's thesis statement collaborative edit by the people who use it.

Note1: This ANI mentions editors with long-term experience and it is only natural to show herd mentality, but let them be all civil and well explained within wiki rules and regulations.

Note2:I may or may not be able to further provide responses, but I urge to check the issue and get answers and make changes to the article in question. Even stripping the article from swiderski to a basic article with minimum info is an option rather than filled with nonsense.117.248.60.163 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Gibberish, wikilayering, and accusations of sockpuppetry. Suggest this be closed before the complainer digs himself an even deeper hole.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything you cant understand isn't gibberish. This is just a complaint, not a hole.

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

This is the latest IP sock of Psthomas (talk · contribs) who was trying to post this last week. IP blocked, expect more. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You may use any accounts to satisfy your needs, this doesn't solve the issue. First of all acknowledge the issue, before getting all high and mighty and taunts like expect more, what do you mean by expect more complaints....other than to complain and expect a resolution or edit out the wrong details what can a person do in wikipedia. A method to solve this is to declare by the article handling editor that these pages are privately handled blogospheres and doesn't reflect the entire truth, otherwise none of this actions seems to be logical.117.215.194.175 (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive edits by dynamic ip

On the advice of User:Yaris678 I come here to have your advice about a months-lasting problem on articles dealing with 16-17th centuries Ottoman harem articles, i.e. sultans' children and concubines. These are repeatedly edited by an user using dynamic ip, who insists on the addition of unsourced content and often simply replaces sourced content with his own while keeping the source or adds a new unsourced content just before the footnote, thus making his unsourced statements appear sourced. Some pages have been protected some months ago, but the disruptive editing resumed as soon as the protection was lifted. The user doesn't answer when contacted, doesn't want or isn't able to go to talkpage. This article's history is symptomatic of the problem that goes on and on on several articles ([7], [8], [9] [10] [11] [12] etc etc) What do you suggest?--Phso2 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2:More than one IP range is being used so the only option seems to be requests for semi protection on articles being hit frequently. Doug Weller talk 05:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Irene.emerita

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

---

User:Irene.emerita has been clearly violating WP:NOTWEBHOST, as all of her contributions have been to her user page. She is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This confirms it. She only wanted to use Wiki as a web host. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User page has been been speedy deleted, and I don't see any other admin action needed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

EllenCT continues to disrupt Economic stagnation

EllenCT is once again performing disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. She is POV pushing by trying to insert something marginally related into a prominent position following the lede. All of this has been discussed on Talk Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular theory position in article Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation term used for recent economy "non neutrality" tag and Talk:Economic stagnation#Internationally. EllenCT never gained a consensus for her edits. She has a history of misrepresenting facts and arguing relentlessly on Talk and administrators noticeboards. She was reported here recently for edits to this article. She has a long history as a problem editor: [[13]].Phmoreno (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno is unwilling to discuss his specific objections on the article talk page, was unable to support his complaints here recently at [14] and [15], and has proven time and again that he is unwilling or unable to support his accusations with specific diffs, reliable sources, and cogent prose. I deny the allegations and repeat my request that WP:BOOMERANG again[16] be applied to restrict Phmoreno from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not believe this BS from her. This has been discussed extensively on talk and on this notice board. She makes misleading claims about sources and post marginally relevant information pushing her income inequality POV. She is unable to formulate a logical and truthful argument to justify her edits. This whole discussion took place here a couple of weeks ago but she waited until the discussion was archived. [[17]] She is the one who needs to be permanently banned from economics topics for her misrepresenting sources and POV pushing or she'll just be on this notice board again in a few weeks.Phmoreno (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is VictorD7's comment from EllnCT's above diff:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior.

I am in total agreement with VictorD7. applying the Pareto principle: 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the editors, but this is an understatement. I waste more time with EllenCT's disruptive and untruthful edits than problems with all other editors combined.Phmoreno (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Phmoreno says that EllenCT "has a long history as a problem editor" and gives a link (here) to a previous ANI report ... which was also started by him, and which ended up with a general agreement that he and VictorD7 were at least equally, if not more, problematic editors. Any admin reading this probably needs to look at this exchange between VictorD7 and Phmoreno in which the latter states " I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked". Looks like he's trying again, doesn't it? Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)OK, I'm more convinced now. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be duped. You need to focus on EllenCT's actions in the diffs. She has gotten a lot more aggressive in misrepresenting sources and POV pushing, as can bee seen in the talk pages. Most of EllenCT's edits are pure distortions and cannot be justified.Phmoreno (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question: About economics I know from nothing. However, when I Google "Ludwig von Mises" and "economic stagnation" I get multiple hits, the first of them from the Von Mises Institute, which seems to have a lot to say on the subject. Does this mean that the article "Economic stagnation" should be considered to be under the Austrian economics/Ludwig von Mises Institute discretionary sanctions, and, if so, should not all the participants be notified of such? If it is under that DS regime, perhaps that might calm down what appears to be continuing problems there, specifically between EllenCt and Phmoreno? BMK (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not know if Economic stagnation has any content directly related to Austrian economics/Ludwig von Mises Institute but that is not the issue here. The issue is that EllenCT refuses refuses to play by Wikipedia rules and aggressively pushes her POV and makes false claims about sources to do so. The talk pages of Talk: Economic stagnation and Talk: Economic growth are filled with problems she's caused and her misrepresentations. Anyone who gets drawn into her argument without reading the background information is making a big mistake.Phmoreno (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is that if economic stagnation does fall within the penumbra of the von Mises/Austrian economics discretionary sanction, it gives admins much more leeway to regulate disruptive behavior, whomever is responsible for it. BMK (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd generally say no. Basically *anything* to do with economics *can* have something to do with Austrian economics. But unless the user in question is actively engaged in either promoting or demoting Austrian economics in particular - which isn't the case here - I don't think the vM/AE discretionary sanctions apply. But EllenCT's behavior is disruptive regardless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, VM. BMK (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been active on the articles Economic growth and Economic stagnation for a long time. And yes, Phmoreno is basically correct. EllenCT is engaged in classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. She has some... peculiar, ideas about what constitutes a secondary source (ok, not that peculiar, to her "if it agrees with my POV, it's a reliable secondary source, if it doesn't, it's not", the justifications and logic pretzels for this stance she provides are peculiar). Her views on the subject are at odds with the mainstream academic scholarly literature on the subject (the tl;dr version is that EllenCT thinks one factor, economic inequality, is central to the subject matter, the literature says that at best it's one of many diverse factors whose actual effects are difficult to estimate). She derails any discussion of sources with irrelevancies or incomprehensible demands. She either lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to understand the literature on the subject or pretends to misunderstand it in a way which supports her POV. And she continually tries to edit war to get her way. It's not a break-3RR kind of edit warring, rather it's the long-drawn-out-edit-war spanning months, even years kind of edit warring. Where every few weeks she'll come back to the article(s) and try to change them back to her preferred versions. I think a topic ban from Economic growth, Economic stagnation and probably Economic inequality (that last one is a bit borderline because in that article, her idiosyncratic fixations are actually relevant to some extent) is in order.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: which specific sources are you referring to when you accuse me of, "if it agrees with my POV, it's a reliable secondary source, if it doesn't, it's not"? Our primary disagreement has been whether the literature survey sections of your favored primary research sources qualify as secondary when they disagree with bona fide WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature reviews published in reputable academic journals. You have on multiple occasions at Talk:Economic growth tried to pretend that a near-unanimity in the bona fide WP:SECONDARY sources are less reliable than literature review sections in primary sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Problems involving EllenCT and economics articles have been going on for, literally, as long as I have been actively editing Wikipedia. When this was discussed at AE [18] the general consensus seemed to be the situation was intractable. Possibly it is time for ArbCom although, as I noted in the linked AE request, I believe her long term disruption is ripe for a topic ban from economics, tax policy, wealth inequality etc. Jbh^Talk 19:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also propose a ban United States for EllenCT for POV pushing there.Phmoreno (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask why not a more specific ban on "economics", broadly construed? Why "United States"? (Sorry, but unlike some other editors, I think the use of "broadly construed" is a good thing.) BMK (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about EllenCT's other editing, just that a topic ban from anything to do with economic growth or economic inequality is well deserved. So yeah, I don't see a need to make it "United States". "Economics" would probably be sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless Volunteer Marek is able to substantiate his accusations as I have requested above, I ask that the sanctions he requests be applied to himself. He is an experienced editor who knows better than to try to misrepresent the reliable source criteria as he has done here. Please see this Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion and Marek's refusal to answer questions at several places on Talk:Economic growth. EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellen. You claim that I "refused" to "answer questions". This is completely and total falsehood. You. Are. Lying. The RSN discussion I wasn't even aware of, as can be easily verified. It's just another of one of your instances of WP:FORUMSHOPPING where you repeat the same stuff over again, where you misrepresent and fail to understand sources again etc. etc. And you didn't even BOTHER to notify me of that discussion despite the fact the issue involved me. Like I said, classic FORUMSHOPPING where you don't even notify concerned parties. Also, a quick glance at the talk page makes it painfully obvious that I have more than humored your persistent demands for discussion EVEN THOUGH you have failed to engage in these discussions in good faith yourself. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a tee. You need to disengage from these articles. Seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: why did you remove the dispute tag at [19]? Why did you revert without answering the questions at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality? You also refused to answer questions at Talk:Economic growth#Section break, Talk:Economic growth#Contemporary empirical econometric measurements, Talk:Economic growth#Long term growth versus short term growth, and Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? before reverting. Why? Why did you remove the dispute tag at [20]? EllenCT (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have received a response if you had followed the basic formatting criteria for that noticeboard. I wouldn't really call it a discussion either since it started nowhere and finished about halfway through basic formatting (also known as nowhere). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that I followed the instructions from the RSN discussion by My very best wishes at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality where Marek currently has at least four questions about the reliability of sources awaiting his answers. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No Ellen, you did NOT "follow the instructions from RSN by My very best wishes". My very best wishes suggested that you 1) decide what the actual issue is and 2) file an RfC. You did NOT define the issue. You did NOT file an RfC. All you did was post a whole bunch of leading questions, then quickly ran over here and claimed that "Marek currently has at least four questions...awaiting his answers". Well, no kidding, since you posted those questions only an hour before posting your comment above. So please stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is continuing to edit war on Economic stagnation and Economic growth with the usual false claims, misrepresentation of sources and making false accusations against Volunteer Marek with her usual lies about lack of secondary peer reviewed literature, which has all been covered on the Talk page. EllenCT is clearly in the wrong as there are numerous reliable secondary sources. I would like to post some important content supported by journal articles but am unable to do so because of the edit war.Phmoreno (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the article on Economic growth has been lucky enough to receive attention and comments from several high profile experts in the field, such as Lant Pritchett [21] (my understanding is that this is part of some effort [22] designed to get experts in particular fields to comment on (not edit) topics they do research on - which I think is a worthwhile endeavor). These researchers have made several constructive suggestions on the talk page about how the article can be improved. Unfortunately, this whole thing with EllenCT completely derails any efforts to actually implement these suggestions because it is such a time sink. In that sense EllenCT's obstructionist and obsessive behavior is quite disruptive. In fact, it's a dictionary definition of "disruptive" - her actions on that article have "disrupted" meaningful work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would urge anyone who feels that Phmoreno or Marek's accusations may have merit please read User:Wnt's comments at Talk:Economic growth, where he correctly points out that their deletions amount to POV-pushing. EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It may be some time until I can dig into this article, which I haven't been watching. I just finished writing up a paragraph that I shall not post because I noticed it was a near exact duplicate of User:LauraJamieson's comment above: complaining about someone to ANI and being dismissed does not give them a 'problematic history'. And while I don't doubt User:Phmoreno's promise that there will be a thread about her back on ANI in a few weeks, I don't think that makes her the problem editor. But the extra aspersions he's casting now like "gotten a lot more aggressive in misrepresenting sources and POV pushing" demand some serious evidence or a serious retraction. Which is it? Wnt (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

My guess is the immediate issue involves some repeated removals by Volunteer Marek (3) and Phmoreno (1) [23][24][25][26]. The section at issue is:

Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world. While improvements in technology can prevent stagnation, more frequently aggregate demand determines which industries grow and shrink.

So it may help to take a look at this specifically, since both sides have committed to it... OK, on the first point, I think User:EllenCT has some explaining to do. Her general point that people in this income bracket have lost would seem to be backed up by the graph on Page 13 (page 15 of the pdf). However, I don't see any particular emphasis on developed countries in this report - indeed, it doesn't use the word "developed", and AFAICT it only references World War II in terms of a hypothetical calculation that inequality would remain constant then decrease which they say is wrong. I don't see evidence of outright misrepresentation, but this is much too much processing of the data to do when you're in a contentious area like this. I would rather steal the data from that graph and make a free image to illustrate the article. NOTE, however, that I cannot generally do that if someone comes along and deletes the source entirely, instead of altering the specific text referring to it! (to be continued) Wnt (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On the second point, I think that the second half of the sentence refers to this quote:

"Notarangelo (1999) shows that this model can be viewed as a special case of the pure-labor model analyzed in Pasinetti (1993). The modifications amount to the introduction of explicit functions for sectoral demand with differing income and price elasticities. Given a constant output ratio of the two sectors, the transition to the stagnant service sector is associated with a transition period in which the aggregate growth rate of productivity is larger than the aggregate growth rate of consumption, leading to increasing unemployment."

But again, I think this is too much handling of the data. Sectoral demand, aggregate growth rate of consumption, I'm sure all these terms have very specific meaning to economists, but for me, I can't actually equate it directly with aggregate demand, so EllenCT probably should avoid doing so and stick closer to the source phrasing. I don't think it's misrepresenting what is said, but ... I've repeatedly said I think of Wikipedia as a project where we pick oranges and put them in a truck. These are ripe oranges, not apples, but they're getting bruised. But again, deleting the source is not the answer! Wnt (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, this isn't the venue to discuss content. That'd be the article talk page, where it has in fact been discussed [27] [28]. The tl;dr version is that the text EllenCT is trying to insert is not actually supported by the sources, it's off topic, and EllenCT either doesn't understand what the sources (particularly the second one) are about or is pretending not to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(in particular, that second sentence is pulled out of thin air, it has nothing to do with the source. She. Just. Made. It. Up. And then tacked on a irrelevant source at the end to pretend that the claim was actually sourced).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I see administrative drama on article talk pages all the time. I feel like they've pissed in our ashtrays often enough that we're entitled to toss a cigarette butt in their urinal. I edit conflicted with you above but as you see now I would certainly disagree that it was pulled "from thin air". I recognize the use for talk page discussion but frankly I just wanted to take a virgin crack at it before I looked, and when I looked, I didn't see anything as substantive as what I say above. And since if I recall correctly you actually *know* economics, unlike me, that is a significant failure on your part. Now what I want everyone on that article to do is to stop deleting sources of any kind as long as they are reliable sources, and limit the battle to just what the text derived from them is. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt. I'm close to losing my patience with you (you have a way of doing that to people). If you don't understand the issue, then the intelligent thing is to stay out of it. I will "delete sources" because - and this part is not that hard to understand - the text based on them does not correspond to what the sources actually say. Yes sources must be reliable. But it must also be the case that they say the freakin' thing an editor claims they say. Again, not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. Wnt isn't trying to say don't remove the poorly sourced or unsourced content. They're saying don't remove the reference source, use it to improve the article. However, if the source is irrelevant to the article then why exactly are we keeping it? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On consideration, it's not that easy for me to assess relevance with some of these cases - most notably, whether a source about economic growth is relevant to economic stagnation, since stagnation is a function of growth. I think that a powerful good will gesture in some of these cases would be to transfer the source to the article you think is more relevant, together with text accurately summarizing its main point. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

This is never going to be resolved at AN/I or dispute resolution, so I suggest that one of the editors involved bring the issue to ArbCom. BMK (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and the only behavioral problems concern failure to abide by the reliable source criteria. Why would arbitration be preferable to mediation? I have requested mediation and stated that I would gladly agree to it in the past, but my opponents never agree to it, because, I suspect, they know very well that their positions won't withstand anything more than superficial scrutiny. EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Not because I'm making a judgment about who in this dispute is right and who is wrong, but because I do not see any other way of solving the problem except an ArbCom case. Without that, this issue is going to keep popping up on the noticebaords. BMK (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• I can't remember, can't we just impose a community topic-ban on EllenCT for these articles and be done with it? Or is that something that can only be done by ArbCom? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The community can certainly do that, if it wants to. My proposal comes from my observation that previous reports about this dispute have ended without any sanction being applied to any editors. My feeling is that no AN/I discussion is going to end up in a sanction, but if someone wishes to suggest a counter-proposal to sanction EllenCT, they can certainly do that. However, my observation is that the more the proposals proliferate, the less it's likely that any one of them will receive enough support to be put into effect. That's why I believe ArbCom. a more neutral venue, is more likely to come to an viable conclusion. BMK (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support per my diff of AE discussion above. Although I would support a broadly construed topic ban from economics for EllenCT should someone put together the evidence and propose one. An ArbCom case on this would be a nightmare and EllenCT has, from my observations, been the central actor in economics drama over time although a rotation of others have been nearly as bad but that could very well be a reaction to EllenCT's behavior... or not. Jbh^Talk 12:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your opinion of Laura Jamieson's assessment above? EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that irrespective of other editors I have witnessed you carry on what I can only describe as a bludgeoning crusade on those economic topics near and dear to you. I have, over that time, come to the conclusion that you provide way more heat than light to any economic topic or discussion I have seen you participate in - including using UT:Jimbo as a soapbox.

I have commented on other editor's behavior in relation to you/their conflicts with you and recommended a time out for them as well. You can see the conversation I had with VictorD7 at User talk:Jbhunley#Curious. I do not have a dog in this fight. I am simply basing my recommendations on the long term behavior I have seen and while I have seen others behaving badly it always seems to be in relation to you and you seem to always be engaged in IDHT, bludgeoning and general battleground behavior. I can go dig up diffs as examples but I am trying to simply explain why I have the opinion I do not build a case against you. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to make personal attacks like saying you have witnessed a "bludgeoning crusade" then I would ask that you do provide diffs of such behavior or strike your accusations, please. EllenCT (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done [29]. Jbh^Talk 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per BMK. This may be the only way to settle this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should demand that Phmoreno put up or shut up on his accusations right here, right now, and go through them, and see if they have merit. If they have merit, ANI can act directly, and if they don't, ANI can act directly. This is very clearly a partisan issue and what we actually need are more people genuinely interested in economics at a technical rather than a political level to go in and do some neutral editing. I mistrust getting into the habit of kicking every major decision about political POV to ArbCom, because it puts too much pressure on the political parties to take them over. Wnt (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno HAS "put up" and he has done this "right here, right now", as well as previously. He has provided evidence. You just didn't bother to read it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Both sides have put up lots of 'evidence' but nobody has the time to sort through it and develop a complete picture (it ends up quite distorted). It's easy to take the evidence and spin it however way you want. So while I find myself agreeing with the above, I also see the problems with it as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This discussion has been held on AN/I more than once and hasn't managed to improve the situation at all, if anything it devolves into a massive arguments thread that just goes in circles with 5 different proposals of which none pass. Perhaps taking this to ArbCom will improve things. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Arbcom is last resort not first. A topic ban as per below should suffice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, numerous AN/I threads haven't lead to any solutions - they generally just peter out into nothing, so going to ArbCom in that situation is hardly a "first resort." The problem with going to ArbCom is that someone has to prepare and file a request against somebody, and neither side appears to be willing to do that. The "sanction EllenCT" side appears to believe that their proposal below will be accepted by an admin, but it doesn't look to me that it has the volume of support that admins generally look for before imposing a serious sanction such as banning someone from their primary subject area. Could be I'm wrong, it's been known to happen, but that's how I see it. EllenCT, on the other hand, seems to be relying on a "if I keep pelting my opponents with questions, maybe they'll go away" strategy, so much so that I am tempted myself to support the topic ban request simply based on her behavior in this discussion, which is a kind of passive-aggresive battleground behavior. BMK (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just took another look at the support/opposes for the topic ban proposal, and I'm no longer confident in the statement I made above, so I'm striking it out. BMK (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for EllenCT

Rather than immediately running to ArbCom and throwing this to them, I think a simpler solution is simply to impose a topic ban for EllenCT on the subject of "Economics, broadly construed". Personally I would be fine with a narrower ban on just "economic growth" and "economic stagnation", and even just those articles in particular, but comments above from other users indicate that they've had problems with the user in a broader area.

• Support as proposer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Based on long term observation of EllenCT's behavior here, at AE (linked above) and her multiple JimboTalk threads on 'trickle down' etc. (I know we do not ban people for expressing views on JT. The threads just support a pattern of "crusading" behavior) I feel she contributes way more heat than light to the economics areas she participates in. She seems completely unable to separate her views from her editing or accept other editors may have a valid POV. Jbh^Talk 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 14:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you see that User:Volunteer Marek has for years openly admitted using literature review sections of WP:PRIMARY research papers to support his personal POV because the actual comprehensive literature review articles disagree with his opinion, at Talk:Economic growth#Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources? That is directly contravening the WP:PSTS criteria, and it has literally been going on for years. Marek openly admits doing this. I ask that the sanction he requests be applied to himself. EllenCT (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have admitted no such thing. Please stop making stuff up. THIS RIGHT HERE is exactly the problem with your approach to editinG. THIS RIGHT HERE is why it's impossible to have a constructive conversation with you about anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can read the talk page section and see for themselves, especially your behavior after the section break when you refuse to engage further after being called on your violation of the reliable source criteria. EllenCT (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have briefly read through some of your sourcing complaints and once even considered addressing one but I found that I disagree with your interpretations and assignment of weight. Whether that has changed in the last year and a half is not something which I have any desire to engage with you here. The behavior I have witnessed over time indicates to me any discussion with you which did not strictly agree with you would be fruitless. Jbh^Talk 15:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Some examples of EllenCT's total inability to let things go:

Train wreck AE thread on taxation,Is supply side trickle down any more reputable than homeopathy, Seriously renouncing Ayn_Rands misogyny and trickle down, Okun and Rand: error dispassionate and impassioned, Even in a freaking Kitten for you thread

There are more but the JT threads show a for want of a better word, obsessive, engagement with her particular economic views. The AE thread contains, in my mind, more than sufficient evidence to show this attitude extends into encyclopedia disruption as opposed to simple pontification. Jbh^Talk 15:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that in the last link, Jimbo goes from saying he doesn't want to talk about the issue to saying he does't mind my continuing to raise it. The WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues are explained well in all those links. EllenCT (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Struck the last diff. The others are still more than sufficient to illustrate the point. Jbh^Talk 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is not well evidenced. Linking to a couple of talk page threads doesn't cut it. Please provide diffs with an explanation of what you think is wrong with those diffs. I've spent about an hour trying to get my head around this dispute and have got basically nowhere because it inevitably ends with me trying to digest longish articles that are well outside my area of expertise to try to understand whether sources actually make the claims editors are attributing to them. Usually the answer is, "maybe," which hasn't got me far. Without this type of evidence, it's unlikely anyone here is going to take the time to understand the complaint or do anything about it. My hour reading hasn't really given me a view on the rights and wrongs of this. It's entirely possible that a well-presented complaint would demonstrate the need for action, and, as far as I can tell, equally possible that EllenCT has a point. The fairly dreadful state of the Economic stagnation article itself doesn't help as it provides a newcomer to the subject very little in the way of an overview of the subject.

If those bringing this complaint don't evidence it better then one of two things will happen: Either nothing, or it will end up at arbcom, where they will certainly demand detailed evidence. Might as well give it here. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If you give me a little bit of time I can provide numerous diffs illustrating EllenCT engaging in a long-drawn out edit war to insert text into articles that is not actually supported by the sources (i.e. misrepresenting sources) and another long-drawn out edit war to force through her "preferred" version over talk page consensus. The third issue is her completely inability to engage people constructively on talk but for that you really do just have to read the talk pages. I'd like to note that long time ago, I actually *defended* EllenCT when she was up for sanctions because I thought she was a well intentioned user (she probably is) and that she'd get better with time. The opposite has happened and now I got regrets about standing up for her once.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that'll be best. At the moment we're !voting on proposals without any very clear idea of what the basis for them is. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok here's one, very quickly, just cuz I got to go to actual work. I'll be adding more over time:

Here EllenCT adds the sentence "When income equality rises, gross domestic product grows" and cites it to this source. The text is simply not supported by the source. The source itself is about the impact of income inequality on health, not GDP growth. Second, the source doesn't even say that. EllenCT just made it up and then added the source to pretend that the claim is well sourced. This is actually a typical edit of hers and it illustrates exactly what the problem is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"when inequality was rising, economic growth was related to only a modest improvement in health, whereas during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product," page 324 319 (PDF page 4.)EllenCT (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to see the problems here, and how annoyingly time-consuming they could be. @EllenCT: there are two problems with the sentence you quote. Firstly, it is not on page 324. In this particular case, thankfully, the PDF is searchable. I've seen a couple of other cases where you reference a PDF that is bitmap scan (ie non-searchable) to support a single sentence; this kind of imprecise or inaccurate referencing makes checking anything you say rather difficult. Secondly, it doesn't mean what you say it does. The paper is about health effects of inequality and the sentence you cite is saying that, when inequality rises, increases in GDP don't have a large positive effect on health but when inequality falls, increases in GDP have a large positive effect on health. This is clear if you follow through to the paper referenced by Pickett and Wilkinson, Biggs et al (2013). To quote from their abstract: "during times of decreasing or constant poverty and inequality, there was a very strong relationship between increasing GDP and higher life expectancy and lower TB and infant mortality rates." Neither paper makes any point about the relationship between inequality and rates of GDP growth. I'm still not sure whether this misunderstanding is deliberate or not, but can certainly see how it would be frustrating. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Full text of Biggs et al 2013 is here BTW. GoldenRing (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is deliberate or not, it is very very frequent. Basically most of the disputes on these articles are about stuff like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both GoldenRing and Volunteer Marek prove here that they have not read the text at [30] which contains dozens of references to GDP. EllenCT (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I regard that as a personal attack. Please reconsider it. Of course it contains dozens of references to GDP. It refers to inequality many times too. Just because it happens to contain those two words doesn't mean that it comes to the conclusion that you say it does. So let's restate it: Pickett & Wilkinson, in the paper you cited, argued that there is a substantial relationship between income inequality, life expectancy, infant mortality and tuberculosis mortality rates; they also reported that when inequality was rising, economic growth was related to only a modest improvement in health, whereas during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product. That says exactly zero about the relationship between inequality and growth; it is only concerned with their combined effect on health. Regarding your query about the remaining ten papers used to establish the point, "Other studies have shown an association between income inequality and health across states/regions within nations," is it my job to go fishing through sources to establish your point, when the one you've cited is about something completely different? No, no it isn't. But what the hell, I've got a build running and if I didn't do it I'd only go and practice the piano or something else that would actually improve my life. To answer your question: funnily enough, no, none of them are about the relationship between inequality and GDP, they're all about the relationship between inequality and health. Here they are:

• De Maio et al 2012 - Extending the income inequality hypothesis: Ecological results from the 2005 and 2009 Argentine National Risk Factor Surveys - main conclusion: Our cross-sectional results indicate a significant relationship between inequality (Gini) and poor health
• Daly et al 2001 - Income inequality and homicide rates in Canada and the United States - main conclusion: we find that the positive relationship between the Gini and the homicide rate is undiminished - although they also note that their data shows that inequality leads to increased mean income (ie per capita GDP) - have you read it? — GoldenRing — continues after insertion below

I would point out that mean income is skewed by outliers at the top, and so is not used for population statistics distributed with top-heavy outliers when the median is available. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Rasella et al 2013 - Impact of income inequality on life expectancy in a highly unequal developing country: the case of Brazil - main conclusion: The Gini index, as the other measure of income inequality, was negatively associated with life expectancy
• Subramanian et al 2003 - Income inequality and health: multilevel analysis of Chilean communities - main conclusion: a significant gradient was observed between income and poor self rated health
• Pei & Rodriguez 2006 - Provincial income inequality and self-reported health status in China during 1991–7 - main conclusion: The results show that there is an increased risk of about 10–15% on average for fair or poor health for people living in provinces with greater income inequalities compared with provinces with modest income inequalities.
• Larrea & Kawachi 2005 - Does economic inequality affect child malnutrition? The case of Ecuador - main conclusion: economic inequality at the provincial scale had a statistically significant deleterious effect on stunting
• Rajan et al 2013 - Is wealthier always healthier in poor countries? The health implications of income, inequality, poverty, and literacy in India - main conclusion: Our analysis suggests that wealthier is indeed healthier in India – but only to the extent that high average incomes reflect low poverty and high literacy. Furthermore, inequality has a strong effect on self-reported health.
• De Vogli et al 2005 - Has the relation between income inequality and life expectancy disappeared? Evidence from Italy and top industrialised countries - main conclusion: income inequality had an independent and more powerful effect on life expectancy at birth than did per capita income and educational attainment
• Kondo et al 2008 - Do social comparisons explain the association between income inequality and health?: Relative deprivation and perceived health among male and female Japanese individuals - main conclusion: relative income deprivation is associated with poor self-rated health independently of absolute income
• Walberg et al 1998 - Economic change, crime, and mortality crisis in Russia: regional analysis - main conclusion: The decline in life expectancy in Russia in the 1990s cannot be attributed simply to impoverishment. Instead, the impact of social and economic transition, exacerbated by a lack of social cohesion, seems to have played a major part. The evidence that alcohol is an important proximate cause of premature death in Russia is strengthened.

Funnily enough, all of the papers advanced to support a point made about health effects of inequality and GDP are papers about health effects of inequality and GDP. Can I have an hour of my life back now, please? GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: why do you think that they are about inequality and GDP is funny, whether they are about health or not? The correlation you are looking for in Biggs et al (2013) is given on Table 2, page 269, but you might find Table 4 at the bottom of page 270 even more pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, go to the RfC or even to your own talk pages for content discussion. I'll summarize just very quickly, nope the correlation does not exist on either of the two tables you mentioned. If you wish to discuss why, I can leave a message on your talk page or you can leave one on mine, either way is fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: the correlation between GDP and income inequality is plainly given as -0.19, significant at p<0.01. I have every right to defend myself against false accusations of misrepresenting sources here. The factors required for causal relationship analysis are in Table 4. EllenCT (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT:So in other words, not significant... because -0.19 is less than 0.01. As a serious question, what precisely does that mean? the correlation what does it mean? Also you agreed not to continue content discussion on this page, to quote you "this is not what AN/I is for". Direct comments on content on my talk page, if you want to discuss them. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the usual measure of statistical significance is p<0.05, and p<0.01 is more significant, not less. I appreciate the offer to communicate with you directly, but feel it might be more appropriate to thoroughly defend myself against false accusations, so I will point out that we have articles on statistical correlation and p-value measures of statistical significance. Further content discussion should take place on the growth RFC. EllenCT (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Page 319 (PDF page 4, sorry.) Do the remaining 10 sources cited in the literature review later in the same paragraph support the same statement? EllenCT (talk)

@GoldenRing: Would you please answer the question? EllenCT (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: See my detailed answer above. No, none of the remaining ten sources support the statement that inequality reduces GDP growth. They are all about the health effects of inequality. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, all of the other ten sources agree with the MEDRS causal review. And all of the peer reviewed secondary literature which has reached a conclusion on the question has agreed since the 1990s. EllenCT (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I read the Pickett study and agree that EllenCT fundamentally misunderstood the point in the paper. Like GoldenRing, I did not know whether this was deliberate or not, but I am stunned after having it pointed out, that EllenCT could ask this question. Has it not sunk in that this is a paper about the relationship between income inequality and health, not a paper about the relationship between income inequality and GDP growth? I don't need to review the other ten sources cited, as they are about an association between income inequality and health. Is that not yet understood?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pickett and Wilkinson causal review is the most recent MEDRS-class WP:SECONDARY source in agreement with all of the peer reviewed literature reviews which reach conclusions on the relationship between inequality and growth, some of which were discussed recently at RSN. EllenCT (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is simply not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Those who doubt it can easily click through to see for themselves. How long do you think you can hold your unsupported position? EllenCT (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The title is a give-away:

Income inequality and health: A causal review

It is a study about the relationship between income inequality and health, not a study about the relationship between income inequality and growth.

If the title is too terse, the opening sentence is relevant:

There is a very large literature examining income inequality in relation to health

This isn't a minor point, it is the entire point of the article, and presumably the supporting references. The article does make a tangential comment about growth, but not the one you took away.

Either you honestly think that the article is about the relationship between inequality and growth, in which case Wp:competence is an issue, or you know better, and the problem is more serious. I don't think there is a third option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On page 319, "during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product," is not a tangential comment because the same paragraph of the causal review goes on to site ten additional references in support. The causal review agrees in that respect with all the other peer reviewed literature reviews which reach conclusions on the matter. The failed hypothesis that inequality promotes growth, which is so beloved by supply side trickle down proponents, Marek, and Pheremo, is given zero support in the causal review. EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Here is another example which is exactly of the same nature. Here (and a whole bunch of other reverts) EllenCT keeps trying to add the sentence: "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world". NONE of this is actually in the source provided (this one). The source does NOT say "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally". The source does NOT say that "international differences in the rates of growth" have been "caused by income inequality". The source does NOT say that these "international differences in the rates of growth ... have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes". The sources does NOT say that this stagnation occured "in the post-World War II (period in the) developed world".

All of this is just made up. By EllenCT. And then she tucks on a citation to a source at the end to pretend that the material is well sourced. It's not. The sentence doesn't even make sense for the most part. How in the world would "international differences in rates of growth" between countries "lead to" "stagnation among the lower and middle classes" within developed countries. What's that basically claiming - again, completely NOT based on the source - is that because Fiji had different growth than Germany, the incomes of the middle class in the United States stagnated! It's just nonsense. Falsely-cited nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The statistics in the source, "Global income inequality in numbers: In history and now." Global policy 4(2):198-208, most certainly do support the included statement, as does this graph the author drew to support his popular treatment, which was also included in the source reference which Marek and Pheremo have continually reverted. The graph more clearly supports the statement which measures growth from a per-capita instead of per-country perspective. EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What "statement"? There are like five different claims in that sentence, all of them wrong, all of them NOT supported by the source. And NO! That graph DOES NOT support ANYTHING in that claim. I really don't know if you're just being very very very disingenuous or you are simply not capable of reading a graph.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: This is the same example I discussed above, and as I said there I think it's wrong to say that nothing is related. As I'm reading through the discussion I think the problem with EllenCT's edits that have come up is that she's starting with a statement that she knows to be true - and I know I've seen some of these statements in news reports and the like - and then she's going out and trying to find "high quality sources" to back it up. Unfortunately at times she is just settling on what she can find, even if it is not enough. I would bet this is a pathological effect of the griefing people have been giving each other over sources to these articles in the past - excluding even high quality sources over imagined flaws. True, she joined in that as much as anyone, but I feel that the toxic climate extends well beyond her. Wnt (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: if you think the references or text can improved, do you think improving them or accusing others of creating a toxic climate because they were sub-optimal is superior editing behavior?

You literally just attacked the only person who has taken your side in the debates. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I don't feel attacked here; this is thought provoking, actually. She correctly points out that I was using a somewhat asymmetric standard about these things. If an editor provides a good source and badly summarizes it, another editor should summarize it more accurately; but if the editor provides a correct text but badly sources it, that too is fixable. But both, obviously, are trouble in proportion to how bad the fit really is. Where it gets asymmetrical is I feel like it's easier to take a source and see what it says than to take a statement and find a source for it, which is why it bothers me more to see a good reliable source taken out than to see an unsupported statement taken out. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see her as being worse than people on the other side of the issue, and probably better. Everyone is at fault for failing to better consider and discuss the specific issues, but most at fault are the people who just hit the Revert button, sources and all, rather than looking either to extract fair value from them for the article at hand or at least to transfer them and their content to some more relevant article. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is not a"well intentioned" user. She' only editing to push her POV which is to highlight income inequality. Most of her edits are misrepresentations of the sources with cherry picked sentences she uses to justify them. Although some of her sources are good, when they do not support the text and are subsequently deleted, the references make no sense as stand alones. To make the references useful someone would have to read the source and write something constructive. That is not the job of the person doing the clean up, but should have been done by EllenCT in the first place. "Everyone is at fault for failing to better consider and discuss the specific issues.." Plainly false. Try having an intelligent discussion with EllenCT. If you carefully read what she says on Talk you will see that she hardly ever makes a truthful, factual, well thought out and intelligent statement related to the subject she is discussing. She turns the discussion around by calling for "peer reviewed secondary sources" for the other person's argument to deflect attention away from her not being able to support her claims.Phmoreno (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone caring to review my edit history can see that the of the thousands of sources I have added to hundreds of articles over the years, only a dozen or so have been controversial but the same topics affected by WP:SYSTEMICBIAS continue to cause complaints here at ANI from editors such as Phmoreno who are unable to find support for their positions in the secondary literature, so they are upset that when I add them. I note that nobody has provided an example of sources being misrepresented. Note that Marek is reduced to arguing with all caps and strings of single words punctuated by periods. EllenCT (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, because you are incapable of listening - WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And I have no idea what "systemicbias" has to do with any of this, that's a new one, it's basically you being just desperate to provide some excuse, no matter how flimsy, for your disruptive behavior and the fact that you regularly misrepresent sources in your edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks aren't a cogent argument, but by all means, please continue to show everyone the actual extent of your reasoning. EllenCT (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not "personal attacks". These are criticisms of your editing behavior. Which is very deserving of criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Writing this kind of generalization without citing a set of diffs (and about more than one thing) is just trouble. Frankly, I'm just not going to believe you. Because I think on average, most of the policy accusations people make on Wikipedia are bull, and I don't feel like you're the rare exception to the rule. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Diffs have been provided. You can believe whatever you wish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Arbcom' This, like the other threads will not go anywhere because the principal disputants are simply overpowering the thread. Structured evidence is needed. Jbh^Talk 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised this has not happened already. My experience with EllenCT has been similar to those described by Phmoreno. I've been on Wikipedia for 11 years and she's the only editor that I actively avoid because she's so difficult and frustrating to work with. Soapboxing on income inequality, misrepresenting what is supported by sources, dishonesty, OR, battleground, IDHT, etc. A lot more would get done by just working with Wnt, Lawrencekhoo, et al. Morphh ^(talk) 18:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Morphh: A lot more won't get done working with me, because I basically only looked in one time after there was a ruckus on Jimbo's page, and then maybe once or twice more in response to having my name called. Generally, the best person for writing an article is the person who does it. Generalists like me can talk about something now and then but we're not going to get the job done. I don't see enough wrong here to justify a ban, especially considering that the result of such a ban is likely going to facilitate bias by editors on the other side who haven't been called out as vigorously. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been thinking of another editor. Bias is not the issue - we all have bias and I can work with bias. Running people in circles, misrepresenting sources, tendentious editing, soapboxing - that's different. Don't oppose simply to provide editors with differing viewpoints a wall upon which to bash their head. Morphh ^(talk) 22:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Since specific examples help, I recalled a very detailed paragraph Morphh wrote after EllenCT dragged him and me in a dispute that we had nothing to do relating to Austrian Economics. To avoid cluttering this page, see Morphh's comments here with ample diffs.Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - been there with EllenCT on more than one occasion. Here's a choice sample: [31] Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It does look like she did some synth there, but bear in mind that the point is pretty obvious. College education does correlate with a much higher salary, hence much higher taxes. And the sources shed light on that point. Ideally we should have a source make that statement, or barring that, lay out the argument step by step in a more carefully worded background section. After all, a country might tax the poor more than the rich and then raising wages would decrease revenues. But you can't seriously be arguing that overall the statement is a lie, can you? Or that her source is completely irrelevant? It's just too oversimplified. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not use the term "lie" which was not asserted. That's beside the point, which is whether the claim was supported by the sources. And the claim was not that college education results in higher taxes, the statement removed was Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue. That's a strong statement, which I do not believe is true, but is not supported by any of the references I have yet examined (and I've reviewed several purportedly in support of the claim). It seems plausible that subsidies will result in increased tax revenues, but "increased" and "pay for themselves many times over" are two very different statements. I haven't yet found anything that remotely supports the claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, Mattnad, and Wnt: "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[32] "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[33] EllenCT (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As User:Only in death suggested, this is not the place for additional content debate. Yes, I have been guilty of it, in the naive belief that a clear explanation of the problem will sink in, but enough is enough. I'll be happy to engage in the content dispute elsewhere.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick and Only in death: I don't think anything Ellen or anyone else here has been doing in terms of content debate here is inappropriate; I think it has generally been very helpful for getting to the bottom of this. You can't study waves if you don't have any water! Wnt (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: There is a point where the waves serve to disrupt the study. There's too many waves and too much data, and it's beginning to disrupt communication. Besides, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It is true that, whether I like it or not, this discussion is moving toward an end; but I don't think that fresh content arguments are worse than fresh policy arguments at this point. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with you on this point if only there was a hint of change or at least acknowledgement of the problem. There's nothing wrong with studying the waves so long as 1. it's not the same waves and 2. the waves from earlier have been resolved in such a way that the lessons that could be taken from them have been taken from them. Arguably requirement 1. has been met but requirement 2. most definitely hasn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Well, this is where you're right and where you're wrong. The Huffington Post does make that argument, but that's not what you cited. There are two ways to write Wikipedia, comparable to reverse genetics and forward genetics - we can take a source and see what we can observe from it, or take an observation and see what we can source for it. The second type is more difficult, especially if you're worried about sources being challenged, but you still have to come back with the right thing. Or, as sometimes happens with forward genetics, modify what you say you found to match what you actually did find. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Thank you for your observation. My point on EllenCT stands, because at the time of her disruptive activities, she did not cite the Huffinton Post article because it hadn't been written yet (we can ignore the treasury report which doesn't address the contentious item). What she doesn't acknowledge is her blatant refusal to provide a relevant source two years ago, while still persisting in editing as if she had. Her comments today are indicative of how she just doesn't get it.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mattnad: back then I thought the multiplier was closer to 6 (hence my use of "several" to mean 4.5) but I now agree with the Treasury figures, and the epsilon-delta observations that can be made with the data in the Treasury report. Let's move this content discussion back to where it arose. EllenCT (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Unfortunately, based on this reply by EllenCT to this comment and after looking at her other comments, I think she indeed misrepresent sources. In this example, she introduced a strong, general and questionable claim to the page that apparently was not in the source. Her response ("The statistics in the sources [that one and another one] most certainly do support the included statement" does not look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at the graph that the author prepared for the popular treatment of his report? It's perfectly legitimate to describe international growth from the perspective of per-capita real and purchasing power adjusted incomes instead of from the perspective of different states with different levels of development. EllenCT (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the conclusion that "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world" was based on your interpretation of this graph? And things like that led to protracted disputes and discussions on various talk pages and noticeboards? My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes; do you believe the graph or data in the report does not support that statement? EllenCT (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not mind when people interpret simple graphs and summarize their own understanding of sourced content. However, if you make general conclusions that are not in the sources [34] based on your own interpretation of graphs and other primary sources, this qualify as WP:OR. If it leads to prolonged disputes and disruption, this may be a reason for the topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It does not support the statement.

The statement talks about generally increasing growth rates. The graph is about relative income growth by income cohort, and says nothing about whether the rates are increasing, decreasing or flat. The statement implies globalization is a driver, while the graph says nothing of the kind. The statement is about post-World War II, and the graph starts in 1988, not the usual starting point for a claim about Post-WWII. The statement implies income inequality causes differences in the rate of growth and the graph does nothing of that sort. If you take out the phrases that are not supported by the graph, I believe you are left with an observation that some income cohorts in the developed world have stagnated incomes. An interesting observation, to be sure, but not close to the contested statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You are claiming that an aggregate change in income per person (y-axis) across individuals organized by wealth percentile instead of countries, is not proportional to the rate of growth as experienced by the people whose income has changed or remained stagnant, as the case may be? How can income per person have increased without growing? It is common practice for economists and economics commentary to measure per-capita growth in terms of change in income per person.[35][36][37] EllenCT (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In math terms, growth is the first derivative of income (wrt time) while increasing growth rates are a comment about the second derivative. You are conflating the first and second derivatives. That's like confusing acceleration with speed. (Many people do that, by the way.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Growth rates in the developing world have increased and for the middle class in the developed world they have decreased. That is exactly what the statistics in the cited source say. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we're talking about a change in growth rates or the actual growth rates (and yes, Sphilbrick is right - you appear not to understand the difference) the key thing is that there's NOTHING in either the article or the chart that says that any of this was caused by inequality. Nor is there ANYTHING in the article which says that the reason why the incomes of those at the 80th percentile of world income distribution have stagnated is because of "international differences in growth rates" (whatever the hey that is suppose to mean). And there's NOTHING in there about a "post-World War II period", it's about the 1988-2008 period (in fact, the trends highlighted in the graphic are of interest *precisely* because they are a reversal of general "post World War II" trends. You are simply wrong and you are making stuff up which is not based on the source. And persist in doing so, in a very obstinate way, even as your error is pointed out again and again by multiple editors. It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a Tee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an economics person but, the statistics if I understood them say that growth (not growth rate) in the developing world is greater than in a stagnating or poor economy. This has nothing to do with rates, you are literally conflating velocity with acceleration. The velocity is high in the developing world, there could be no acceleration or even deceleration. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Both positive acceleration and positive velocity result in relatively positive increases in displacement. The quantification in the underlying sources is described well by the graph. EllenCT (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot in good conscience !vote either for or against this proposal because the subject is not one I'm familiar with, and, frankly, I don't have the time to come up with an informed opinion by reading the volumes of material it seems would be necessary. That, I think, is probably also the case for many other editors, which is why this dispute never gets settled at AN/I, and why I think it should go to ArbCom, who earn their considerable salary by adjudicating just such disputes. Unfortunately, if one side wants a topic ban, and the other side is asking for mediation, there's no one left to request a case. Now, just as a matter of tactics, I would have thought that one side or the other would have recognized by now that they're not going to get what they want at this venue, and would therefore want to steal a march on the other side by filing a case - but apparently that's not happening, much to my surprise. BMK (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The relentless uncollegial approach is one of the things that has made me walk away from wikipedia these last 5-6 months. Creates an atmosphere that is ... difficult to endure. I find The tendency to insert an opinion into multiple marginally-related articles across the project maddening. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that most of the supporters here are my usual tag team who never constructively engage with me except to show up to vote against me at ANI and vote against my RFCs, but rarely answer specific questions about their particular reasons for opposition. EllenCT (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Honestly if the comment/exchange with Sphilbrick above doesnt convince you of EllenCTs ineptness in the area, nothing will. She is either unable to understand, or willfully misunderstands in order to further her own aims. Despite being repeatedly corrected by numerous people. Either way, it has gone on long enough. Arbcom is a last resort. The first resort for someone being disruptive on a topic is to stop them editing on that topic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Only in death: I don't see an exchange with Sphilbrick above. Did I miss it or did you mean to say some other editor? BMK (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, found it, searched on the wrong string. BMK (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Innepness? Which one of us is aware that per-capita GDP is stated as real (inflation-) and purchasing power parity-adjusted income per person when making comparisons across countries? EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The exchange above in which EllenCT continues to misread a source on inequality and health after the mistake was clearly pointed out, and instead insists that her misreading was correct, makes clear that there is a competence issue here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement cited clearly relates inequality to "Gross Domestic Product," does it not? That the article is about inequality and health simply means that it is an MEDRS-class review, which is why I selected it. EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Have you not understood this yet? The statement you quote above is about health effects of rising GDP. A plain reading of the text clearly says so. Following the study cited for the claim clearly says so. That you claim here again that it does make this relationship is wearing good faith thin to the point of breaking. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, "We analyzed the relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power parity, extreme poverty rates, the gini coefficient for personal income and three common measures of public health" is from the abstract at [38]. Putting obvious falsehoods in boldface without having read the underlying material forms as strong a basis as any of the support votes in this section. EllenCT (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It combines GDP and inequality to derive an influence on health. High inequality and high GDP has modest effects on health, low inequality and high GDP has high effects on health. This does not necessarily meant inequality affects GDP, only that inequality and GDP affect health. You are taking statement A and statement B to derive a statement C that is not supported by the source. That statement here is that low inequality improves GDP. There is no such relation in the abstract of the source. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the concluding sentences on page 272? "It is often said that wealth is the most powerful determinant of a society’s health, especially in resource-poor settings. Here, we find that greater wealth does not guarantee health. If policymakers wish to improve health, they should consider seeking equitable ways to achieve rises in living standards so as to address underlying challenges of poverty and inequality." [emphasis added] EllenCT (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: 1. No, of course not, I am not going through your entire source to find something like that. 2. I specifically went through the abstract as per your comment above and 3. That quote Does not say that GDP is affected by inequality. I'm sorry but you are showing an astounding level of either not getting it or not listening. For the last time, that sentence that you have quoted at me says and I paraphrase, if you want to improve health then address poverty and inequality. Where in that sentence are you reading that GDP is being affected by inequality and how are you managing to do it when GDP is not even mentioned. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The correlation is given on Table 2, page 269, but you might find Table 4 at the bottom of page 270 even more pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's save any further discussion of content for the RfC as that's where content disputes belong. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I came to this thread with an open mind either way and am walking away thoroughly convinced that a topic ban is entirely merited. If a topic ban is not appropriate, then an indef CIR block is. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What does CIR mean? EllenCT (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellen, they are referring to this: WP:CIR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC)WP:CIR Competence Is Required. Sadly only an essay. The relevant parts for you would be: Factual & Bias-based. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: do you believe I am biased towards the idea that income inequality inhibits economic growth? I would admit to that in almost the same way that I am biased towards the statement that 1+1=2. Do you think my bias or that of others is the root of the problem? EllenCT (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You assume your bias is giving you the correct conclusion. A better analogy would be to compare your bias to 1+1 = window. Bias is not the root of the problem here though. The root of the problem is that 1.you are not listening and 2.you refuse to accept that you have misinterpreted the source. Even though several, several editors have repeated it to you ad nauseum. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think 1+1=window is a better example? A window is not a number. Why do you think I am not listening? You are correct, I believe I am interpreting all 11 of the sources provided in the peer reviewed causal review correctly and in the same way the authors plainly state my interpretation. Why do you believe that the peer reviewers might have missed the hypothesized error? EllenCT (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I would generally suggest at this point people stop responding to EllenCT as their above posts are pretty much the entire problem. Evidence has been presented by numerous people regarding either deliberate or incompetant source misrepresentation, IDHT and other issues. This board is not to resolve content discussions so arguing the *same* content discussion over and over again is a waste of everyone's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I will not be engaging in any further long drawn out discussions over content. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: I think we've reached that point, yes, and I'll stop now. However, I think the above discussion has been pretty useful as a direct demonstration of the problems; it's certainly convinced me. GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, editors with opinions on the content disputes should be commenting at Talk:Economic growth#RFC on relation of inequality to growth and Talk:Economic stagnation#RFC on international and secular theory sections, not here at ANI. EllenCT (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it is very telling that there's like four or five editors above (GoldenRing, Sphilbrick, JBhunley, probably a few others) who came here either thinking "EllenCT didn't do anything wrong" or with a blank slate and no prior involvement and then EllenCT has quickly managed to alienate and frustrate every single one of them. Yes guys, it's THAT insane to try and deal with her. She'll insist on her "2+2=5" and then even give you sources which clearly state that 2+2=4 and still insist that no, the sources say it's 5. Like the rest of you, I have no idea if this is simple incompetence or a purposeful tactic used to obfuscate and derail discussions when they don't go her way. What I do know is that this is the kind of behavior that people have had to deal with on these articles for the past two or three years. She has managed to escape sanction before because she is very good at poisoning the well and attacking her opponents (Phmoreno in particular). But really, this needs to stop. As I mentioned above, it is impossible to make REAL improvements to the articles (like those suggested by Lant Pritchett and other academics) because EllenCT's obsessive tendentious behavior always gets in the way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I note with sadness that Marek still refuses to acknowledge that all of the peer reviewed secondary sources (bona fide literature review articles in academic journals) which have reached a conclusion on the question since 1997 have all came to the same conclusion: that inequality inhibits growth. And all these years without once producing a secondary source that reaches the contrary conclusion. Yes, there is at least one secondary literature review which does not reach a conclusion, but so far all my detractors have only been able to come up with one such inconclusive secondary source. Why Marek thinks that personal attacks and accusations of bias against anything other than the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature are a reasonable basis to try to argue for article text which leads explicitly opposing that conclusion is beyond me. EllenCT (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I've gone through two of the sources now. They don't support EllenCT's argument in the least. The continued, endless argument that they do in the face of all evidence to the contrary goes beyond IDHT at this point. Capeo (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Which two sources? Do you deny my central contention that all of the peer reviewed secondary sources which have reached a conclusion on the question since 1997 have all concluded that inequality inhibits growth? EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One, yes, I do. Two, that wasn't even the contention you made. I'm not going to respond anymore by the way. Enough has been said above. Capeo (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not interested in delving into the economics topic, but the behavior outlined here is nothing new outside the topic either. Similar behavior was discussed in a protracted ANI in an entirely different topic ranging from content and source competency issues, aspersions to attack editors, etc. that are so closely tied to content that it's difficult for the community to sort it out.[39] If sources have also been misrepresented in this topic, it is part of ongoing trend. After not being involved with EllenCT for some time now since that ANI, it doesn't look this behavior has improved seeing Volunteer Marek's summary above. If the topic ban is imposed, EllenCT should also be reminded that a short WP:ROPE would apply in any topics outside economics as a reminder to knock this behavior off in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Based not on all the MEGO economics stuff, which I frankly cannot follow, but on EllenCT's behavior in this thread and Kingofaces43's comment just above mine. Because of this, the closer may wish to downgrade my support, but it's obvious to me now that EllenCT brings disruption with her by the very nature of her pattern of discussion. (And believe me, I have no great love or respect for some of the people on the other side of the issue, so this is not an "us vs. them" !vote.) BMK (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

Consensus on the topic ban seems clear, with only one objection. The content discussions, while interesting, are not serving to move the thread forward or change the existing consensus or opinions. The content would be best explored on the relevant talk pages where editors interested in the topics rather than the ban discussion can benefit from the insights. Jbh^Talk 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I've not been upholding the reliable source criteria far more accurately than my detractors? I note that very few actual administrators have weighed in. Most of the people supporting the arbcom referral and the topic ban proposals are the same tag team who always show up in ANI complaints about me. If there is a topic ban, do you suppose it would preclude responding to the RFCs that were requested from the RSN discussion? Would it preclude mediation? Do you deny my central contention that all of the peer reviewed secondary sources which have reached a conclusion on the question since 1997 have all concluded that inequality inhibits growth? EllenCT (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would preclude you participating in any discussions having to do economics broadly construed with only the exceptions set out in WP:BANEX. While I am not an admin I would think that the topic ban would include every thing from taxation to trade, through micro and macro economic theory, monetary policy, growth, inequality and the effects of those things on populations, nations or subdivisions thereof. In general it would also include wealth generation, distribution and redistribution along with the theories, applications and results thereof. Plus all of the various schools of economic theory and their proponents from Keynes to Marx. Supply side theory, trickle-down, Globalism, Mercantilism and even Adam Smith etc etc.

Topic bans typically include all pages in all namespaces which relate to the topic and specific sections within articles or pages which relate to the topic even if the entire article or page is not covered by the ban cf. you could still edit RSN but not a thread discussing sourcing relating economic growth or other economics related topic. It precludes mediation, RfCs and Noticeboard discussions except as noted in WP:BANEX. See WP:TOPICBAN.

As to the rightness or wrongness of your position, that is irrelevant now except insomuch as the above threads relating to sources seem to have adequately demonstrated the misapplication/misuse and/or misinterpretation of sources and your total inability to recognize others' arguements. Right or wrong is now no longer the issue but rather the disruption you have been shown to bring to the topic area which is what the community is responding to here. Should a ban be imposed WP:UNBAN says "you may appeal (and comment in an appeal discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard, or at requests for arbitration." Jbh^Talk 02:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding, "As to the rightness or wrongness of your position, that is irrelevant now except insomuch as the above threads relating to sources seem to have adequately demonstrated the misapplication/misuse and/or misinterpretation of sources and your total inability to recognize others' arguements," I'm confident that the discussion clearly shows that I haven't misapplied, misused, or misinterpreted sources beyond the occasional trivial mistake, and I have clearly addressed the central point of all the other arguments. The only people complaining of disruption are those who are convinced, without evidence, that I have been trying to push anything more than the consensus of the secondary reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediation?

Is anyone opposed to mediation? Are any mediators able and willing? EllenCT (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I advised you here to clarify what your content dispute was about and submit an RfC about it. Did you do it? If you did, could you please provide a link to the RfC? I think this should be done prior to starting mediation, arbitration or any other drastic steps. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I had hoped to get a better idea of the locus of dispute with my questions at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality before composing one. I just now opened Talk:Economic stagnation#RFC on international and secular theory sections and Talk:Economic growth#RFC on relation of inequality to growth. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I had hoped you would be able to express in a few phrases what exactly was the essence of the content disagreement, rather than simply asking "which version is better?". This is not helpful. Your RfC does not provide any link to relevant discussion. Could you also please answer to this comment by VM? At the first glance, it appears that he is right and you misrepresent sources. But I am not an expert on this subject and could be mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The main disagreement is whether inequality inhibits or promotes growth. All of the peer reviewed literature reviews which reach a conclusion on that question say that inequality inhibits growth, and greater income equality stimulates growth through agregate demand. Here is a discussion of some of them. There is at least one secondary source which does not reach a conclusion on the question. The disagreement on the stagnation article has to do with international characterizations and whether there are any reliable sources indicating that secular stagnation theory has ever stood the test of time. I responded to Marek's question in the subsection above. EllenCT (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that lots of sources for "income inequality" "economic growth" come up on Google Scholar. Incredibly, enough PDFs for these come up on the right hand side of the page that I thought I'd accidentally gone on Sci-Hub for a moment. The way I'd like to see this addressed is that people list all the papers that look at the relationship between the two, summarize each paper - strictly according to what it says, without any deductions! - and put all of them into some relevant article. You could organize them by viewpoint but I'd prefer virtually any other sorting scheme, such as country or methodology, and preserve "threading" of papers when one reevaluates or criticizes or expands/confirms the viewpoint of another. This is something that everyone here in theory could do together, provided that the temptations to draw excessive conclusions on one side or to strike out sources seen as wrong on the other were resisted. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Re the two above linked RfCs. They are poorly formed and look like they were just thrown up to get an RfC open to say there is an open RfC. Any uninvolved editor would need to pick through two versions shown in a single diff rather than having two clear statements and attached refs to compare. It is either tactical or there is a CIR issue regarding articulating and formulating the matters at issue. Jbh^Talk 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, asking for a comparison between two revisions is an established RFC practice when the parties can not agree on the specific locus of dispute. EllenCT (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Making editors pick the competing versions out of a single diff and not having the competing versions presented in the RfC so they can be referred to most certianly is not though. Anyway, I have requested you reform the RfCs so the competing wording can be seen, referred to and discussed on the relevant talk pages. You will either do so or not. Jbh^Talk 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What prevents editors from being able to see and refer to the alternative wording in the diff? EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I presented you with a request and a reason. You may choose to respond courteously to the request - acknowledging that the issue I complained about is one I truly believe to be a barrier to bringing in uninvolved participants - or not. I see no further need to engage with you on this issue it is a simple yes or no request. So yes? or no? Jbh^Talk 01:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it might be more courteous to do the work you ask yourself instead of implying that I am somehow obligated to do it? I will be happy to answer your question if you can provide some reason that you must think editors might not be able to see or refer to the alternative wording from the diffs. EllenCT (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're asking JBH to work out what the dispute is that you and other editors are having for you? did I understand that correctly? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be... that and wanting me to screw around rewording another editor's RfC when they have already refused to make the requested change. Yeah, I will get around to that just after I finish my evening waltz in a minefield. </sarcasm>

I do like the redirect/refuse/avoid tactic being used though, it illustrates IDHT/BATTLE behavior perfectly. It also shows how pointless mediation would be. Jbh^Talk 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) What's the point obvious behavior is obvious Jbh^Talk 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Failed mediation This so called mediation is a perfect example of her disruptive behavior. After being told by several editors that her version of Economic stagnation with an Internationally section following the lede was not supported by the sources, was off topic and was out of place, she called for an RFC and proposed the same version. This is some sort of serious personality disorder. EllenCT does not gave a damn about what others think or about the quality of her edits. It would only take a few editors like her to turn Wikipedia into a sham. She is never going to change and the only hope is to have her banned.Phmoreno (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To state that another editor, even a habitually disruptive editor, has a personality disorder is either a diagnosis requiring clinical credentials or a personal attack. Since I don't think that there has been clinical interaction, it seems like a personal attack. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case, except that civility is required even with respect to disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem awfully intent on having her removed from the Wikipedia community. I don't view that any more favourably then most other editors here. As for the RfC, yes of course she presented her own version that's half the point. The RfC presents two competing views and asks for 'consensus' on which one is more accurate or what have you. So no that does not show any form of a personality disorder and I'd suggest you pull the PA out of the discussion. You took this to AN/I to have the issue resolved, so why are you adding to it with unnecessary attacks? I do however have to strike my comment about the RfC since I now realize that you are referring to the globalization comment that has repeatedly been explained to her as being OR. My apologies. Unfortunately that is the content in dispute here, I think the opening of the RfC was a misguided attempt at starting a mediation discussion. Whether that's a case of IDHT or not, I don't know to be honest. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think EllenCT should be or deserves to be banned from Wikipedia as a whole. However in certain topics - and on these articles in particular - some kind of sanction, like a topic ban is both needed and deserved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also and more to the point, there is yet to be any mediation so I don't see how you figure that it has failed. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note It was very popular in the fifteenth century; however, I think you are being overly positive here – there are plenty of examples of failed arbitrations, where one party is disatisfied, and violence or litigation breaks out again. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Are you referring to my comments or Phromeno's? I feel like it's directed to me but that placing of the comment suggests otherwise. Or is it a general statement? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediation would be appropriate if the RFCs fail. EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC presentation

Since the question of RFC presentation has been raised, I am interested in others' opinions as to how to present multi-column comparisons of formatted wikitext when relatively wide graphics with small captions are involved, or if you think the diffs are sufficient in such cases please say that too. I am not sure sub-column comparison formatting is superior to the permalinks in the diffs when graphics are involved. EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The best that I can suggest is, take the wikitext (without images) and place them in the RfC. Label which bit of wikitext is which, by this I mean label the text you have added (and the sources you have used, correct page is important here) and label the text that existed prior to (or after) your revision. As for the diagrams, are you using the diagrams to support your conclusions? if so, then possibly link the diagrams to the RfC with either a hyperlink to the original or through a diff. Finally what is the question? which is better?, which is properly sourced? or what? By this I mean to state clearly what it is you are asking for consensus on. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: Thank you for working to address my concern. Jbh^Talk 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Extremely uncivil behavior by IP User:203.106.156.98

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

---

See: User_talk:LaMona#17:35:04.2C_19_June_2016_review_of_submission_by_203.106.156.98. User is already subject to blocks (just not in time to avoid this): User talk:203.106.156.98. I'm doubting that limited blocks will work, but welcome suggestions. LaMona (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP appears to be blocked. — foxj 21:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User behaviour issue

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

---

I'm concerned about the editing behaviour of User:Wikiworld2, who had a relatively reputable history of editing mostly on psychology topics relating to addiction recovery between 2012 and 2014 — but after being completely silent through 2015, reemerged this year as a certifiable tinfoil-hat lunatic. I know that's a pretty loaded description, but I don't know how else to characterize edits like these:

• Talk:Rosemary Barton
• This reverted edit to Talk:Compton, California
• Talk:Hells Angels (disambiguation)
• File:HMSSwitchcraft.png, which is being used in Spencer Creek for no obvious reason; that article itself is a complete flaming mess, created entirely by Wikiworld2, which contains content like "Because of the proximity to a major powerline route, the area is a natural destination for those wishing to survey, plan and study area customs, traditions, religion and cultures with respect to the development of self-driving tractors." Er, what the what?
• The addition of this photo to Cambridge, Ontario, as if it were adding anything of value
• The addition of an entirely unsourced pile of content to CJMR that was so explosively inappropriate that I had to revdel it — let me TLDR it for you as "allegations of direct involvement in 9/11" and leave it at that.
• Talk:Whodini
• The last section of Talk:Nigga

I don't know if the user's gone loco, or if an old dormant account got hacked and somebody's doing this for lulz — but either way, I want to ask if anybody else agrees with me that we're approaching editblock territory here. Bearcat (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) I have notified the user of this discussion for you. I'm not sure whether it's WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR or WP:CHATFORUM, but something isn't as it should be. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just took a brief look but found this, oddly inconsistent with the above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to confirm that the material at CJMR rev-deleted by Bearcat was seriously wacko conspiracy theory nonsense (covering multiple accusations, not just 9/11) with serious BLP violations. The only source cited was totally unrelated - just a 2003 version of the web site of a Toronto radio station. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• I've had a reasonable look over Wikiworld2's edits of the past few days, and a lot of them are not at all tinfoil hattery, but are still problematic as unsourced or incorrectly sourced additions. One example is this addition to Food bank, where the claimed main article does not exist and the provided source says nothing whatsoever about Muslim food banks - it's just a BBC news story about halal meat. And then there's the masses of unsourced trivia and personal analysis added to Spencer Creek, which has now been reverted. Given a few of Wikiworld2's comments, perhaps a little sensitivity is called for here, and perhaps some friendly guidance might be the way to go - I'm not seeing any attempts to talk about any of these recent edits on their talk page, just a mass of automated notices. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  I've made an attempt to talk to Wikiworld2 on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  I've had no response, but instead Wikiworld2 created the nonsensical article Wikipedia Live again. I've deleted it again and have left what I think can be considered a last warning. I see no alternative to a block if this continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  And then they created Portal:African Nuclear Medicine And Weapons, containing the same nonsense as Wikipedia Live, so I've indef blocked for disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Dylan Hughes

• Dylan Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ifcsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ifcsports claims to be Dylan Hughes on my talk page and would seem have a COI. He removing sourced content claiming outdated, which may be true, but it would seem that it should be updated rather than removed. The remaining text is unsourced. Jim1138 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Ifcsports may be Dylan Hughes and he may not be. He could have legitimate concerns and he may not have any. Keeping WP:BLPEDIT in mind seems a good idea, but simply stating sections are "incorrect" does not suffice as a reason for deletion (let alone an edit-war) but Ifcsports is a new editor and may not be aware of policy. Kleuske (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• "Ifcsports" is likely also a username violation, but I'm on my lunch break. Please inform them. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Eet smakelijk Kleuske (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Innocent victim of collateral damage? Checkusers ahoy

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

---

I rather doubt that the person posting the unblock request at User talk:2602:306:B8FE:5F0:3D20:61AC:5767:8324 is an innocent victim of collateral damage, but I suppose it's possible. Could somebody who understands these matters (CU's ahoy) take a look, please? And, if it matters, I have also blocked their range, 2602:306:b8fe:5f0::/64. The same individual (obviously) used a couple of other IPs from it on June 8. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

The only collateral would be the people within the household. So I guess it's their little brother who did it! I didn't do any checks since I'm familiar with the nature of this ISP and have modified the block as a result. Hope you don't mind. Elockid ^{Message me} 10:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you blocked the range for a month, what a good idea. Thank you, Elockid. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

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

A new article recently created

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

---

User:Dodger67 recently accepted a draft-Constitution-Talca Ramal. I had a big doubt. That IP Address who created that page had mailed me last to last week that this topic deserved an article and he gave me some sources. Later when I Had made a lot of progress and had almost created that article after translating it from spanish wikipedia I mailed it to him. Then he turned the whole game over, he created that draft on the info i mailed him and even submitted it to take credit of the info i mailed him. Most of the content is mine and he has taken credit of it. I request u to change the name of page creator from that IP to mines. He just took the credit which is very bad my name isnt even there. U can even see this chat(heading is- reply to ur message on my talk page) in my archive which will tell u he taking credit only. -- VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you inform the other involved parties that you were launching this discussion as is required? _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as I was mentioned as the accepting AFC reviewer - I have no opinion about or interest in the issue here. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: and @Dodger67: I didnot get it what u guys are trying to say that IP just betrayed me and took credit more than 70% of the article is mine! Somebody ought to change the page creators name. This aint fair -- VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OMG varun do you really care about credit!! Im an IP user I obviously dont! take the bloody credit I dont care! Yes you helped a lot I appreciate that, but anyone looking at the true history, ie the start or speaking to Ricky or Huon will know that I created the thing!! I dont care I am an IP user!! but even ask poor Redrose64 (talk) who helped me endlesly and patiently over 3 weeks!

having said that I appreciate your help Varun

Take credit if you want it... but we all know the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.20.240 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As a practical matter, there is no technical means to assign edits from one user to another. Further, we don't keep score - there are no internet points that the IP gets and you don't. If you want your name on the article, go ahead and make edits now. Surely it's not 100% complete and correct, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and WP:SOAP from User:92.3.12.105

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

---

This edit is an example of WP:SOAP; this edit is an example of WP:PA. I would appreciate his actions to be reviewed by fellow users. Thank you. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A Putinist and a Fascist... that's quite an achievement _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The attacks really are a bit too bad. Blocked for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

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

User:193.60.234.209

Just to draw to someone's attention.

• 16:12, April 20, 2016 - User:193.60.234.209 is blocked for 24 hours
• 15:08, April 22, 2016 - User:193.60.234.209 is blocked for a week
• 13:35, April 26, 2016 - User:193.60.234.210 is blocked for a month
• 18:34, June 16, 2016 - User:193.60.234.210 is blocked for 3 months
• 10:54, June 20, 2016 - User:193.60.234.209 starts editing again

If you need confirmation that they are related please see the following two edits where 210 comments on 209's talk page while the 209 account is blocked.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:193.60.234.209&diff=prev&oldid=716419875
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:193.60.234.209&diff=prev&oldid=716424987

Also they both seem interested in the same articles, for example...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wow!_signal&action=history

Oh, and the User:193.60.234.210 discussion is still at the top of this page at the present time. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• AlistairMcMillan, is there a particular edit which bothers you? I note that their Wow! edit seems solid, and, on the other hand, I don't quite understand this unexplained revert. Anywayz, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• They are both shared IPs, registered to University College London. It's possible that an individual has edited disruptively using both IPs but there again, other individuals may be making perfectly fine edits using these IPs too (though I note a school block has been applied to 193.60.234.210). The recent edits from 193.60.234.209 look fine to me and probably not the individual who was editing Around the World in Eighty Days or Wow! signal in April. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. It could be different editors. Maybe everyone at University College London is confrontational and overtly familiar with Wikipedia policies. :) AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DinoLover4321

Despite repeated requests for him or her to cease (as evidenced on his or her talk page), User:DinoLover4321 has continued to create dozens of extremely short and near content-less pages with absolutely no sources, as well as upload several images in blatant violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, such as:

• File:Saltasaurus_Skeleton.jpg
• File:Mourasuchus.jpg
• File:Herd Of Diplodocus.jpg

I request that he or she be barred from creating new pages and uploading files, if not blocked from editing completely. JohannSnow (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This user was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#User:DinoLover4321. --Yamla (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly taking a position here. I don't know enough about dinosaurs to really weigh in. But it could be the user simply isn't aware of their talk page and so haven't noticed the warnings. Unfortunately, the only real way to draw attention to a user's talk page may be to block them. --Yamla (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was not possible to stop the orange bar from lighting up around "Talk" at the top of the page when someone posts to one's talk page. If that is the case, it would be pretty hard to ignore such a signal. BMK (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I support an indef block. This user should not be allowed to continue editing until and unless (s)he understands the copyright policy. As an aside, I have a user script that pops up a message about talk pages on every edit or upload and can be forcibly added to an editor's common.js, but that's not the best solution here because of the copyvios. MER-C 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

An indef block may be needed. A WP:CIR issue, clearly. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a clear sign of WP:CIR. Their talkpage suggests no attempt to interact with anyone or address the many issues raised. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Indef-banned user proxy editing via talk page.

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

---

User:009o9 was banned per this ANI, and the appeal was declined several times, but the editor is still continuing to proxy edit and engage editors in several talk threads on his talk page, and is additionally still referring to a declined draft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a blocked user could use their talk page to appeal, and failing that, would not retain that access. Also, as this seems procedural, and the user cannot comment here, is an ANI notice still required? MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That user is mighty active for an indef-blocked user. Some editors there are cutting him slack. But if he wants to be unblocked, he should post a formal unblock request. Otherwise, he should have his talk page privilege taken away, and his talk page cleared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Forgot to link User_talk:009o9#June_2016, where he appealed and was declined twice. MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When a user is blocked, the only allowable use of their talk page is in seeking an unblock or at least discussing avenues for an unblock, discussions/negotiations of restrictions and the like. If they are up to other, more nefarious, uses such as getting others to proxy for them, then TPA needs to be revoked. Blackmane (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Going to second that. The user isn't just blocked, but community banned. At this point TPA needs to be revoked, and the user needs to follow WP:UNBAN to have their account unbanned, which means waiting at least until this time next year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If this was a normal block it would be one thing, but this is a community ban. I have revoked talk page access and given them a link to WP:UTRS. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Mass genre changes by Martin 1887

Martin 1887 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone through a large number of articles and mass-changed the genre of them all, per their contribution history, without discussion or consensus, even after I have posted {{uw-genre1}} and {{uw-genre2}} on their talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• At some point, we'll have to treat genres with almost BLP-levels of scrutiny to stop this nonsense. The editor seems to have stopped. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, he's still going.[40][41][42][43][44] These are just a few, and he has even been restoring his genre changes after he has been reverted. Consensus was reached some time ago that resulted in changes to {{Infobox television}} instructions so that they would note that genres must be sourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ejpolaron's image uploads

Ejpolaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been uploading a large number of images lately. Almost all of them have been uploaded without copyright tags and a number of them were copied from other websites (e.g File:Zambales Mango.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/zambales-seeks-p200-m-grant-to-develop-mango-industry/), thus I did post on their talk page informing them that copyright tags are needed and that copying images from other websites with no evidence of free publication is not OK. Later, though, they have restarted uploading these untagged images, some of which are again copied from other websites when there is no evidence of a free license; e.g File:Hermana-minor-island.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from https://tonetcarlo.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/our-flying-date-with-two-sisters-in-zambales/ and File:Whiterock Beach and Waterpark Subic.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from http://www.agoda.com/white-rock-waterpark-and-beach-hotel/hotel/subic-zambales-ph.html. Evidently, my prior request didn't work.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours, primarily to get their attention since they don't seem to see the raft of talk-page warnings. It's interesting that they seem to edit only in the Northern Hemisphere summer. Miniapolis 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Account showed up suddenly to edit-war, showed a suspicious knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia

BiblioJordan (talk · contribs) appears not to be here.

This doesn't look like the kind of edit (summary) typical of the first edit of a new, good-faith user, and within a few days of suddenly appearing and starting to edit-war, they were already forum-shopping their dispute to RSN. I suspect this user may be a sockpuppet -- there has been no IP edit-warring recently on that page, so it's not a long-time anonymous user who decided to create an account -- but I have no idea of whom so I can't open an SPI.

It doesn't really matter, though, since the battleground behaviour alone warrants either a block or at least some eyes.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I note that three separate accounts have been inserting the same disputed material into the Neoliberalism article...

  User:C.J. Griffin, here

  User:Feminist2016, here, here.

  User:BiblioJordan, here, here, here.

Similarly, this addition by C.J. Griffin was reverted, then reinstated by BiblioJordan.

C.J. Griffin seems like a respectable long-term contributor, but the other two both registered on June 13. Perhaps enough for a CheckUser check, at least on the two newbies? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The two new accounts are a somewhat  Possible match to one another, but they're editing from different ISPs in different cities, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're the same person. Perhaps there is another explanation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that BiblioJordan is an WP:SPA at least. It's an account that looks to have been created specifically to edit war to keep material critical of Hillary Clinton in the neoliberalism article (material that obviously shouldn't be in the article -- I'm surprised to see an experienced editor involved in restoring it). His/her only edit to any other article has been to the feminism article, adding "False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton" to further reading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The combination of clearly having experience here in the past, and edit warring right from the get go gives me the impression that this is an inappropriate use of an alternate account at best. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the Faux reference from Feminism, and my removal has been reverted by the user, in case anyone wants to fight that battle. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Further FYI: the reference on Feminism was re-reverted by Bugs and seems to have stuck. I removed the content from Neoliberalism, was reverted by BiblioJordan. I re-reverted and addressed on talk. We'll see if they decide to war of this too I suppose. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why lack of long experience editing Wikipedia pages should automatically disqualify someone from contributing. Shouldn't the merits of their arguments be more important? I'll note that I did not make the initial edits to the Neoliberalism page, but was spurred to start contributing when a couple of other editors tried to delete all mentions of Hillary Clinton. The other editors on this thread seem to agree that the reference to Clinton "obviously shouldn't be in the article," but no reasonable justification (or indeed, any justification at all) for that opinion is given.

Incidentally, the "forum-shopping" allegation is unwarranted. Given the behavior of several editors on the Neoliberalism page, I sought formal mediation to resolve the dispute. The request was denied given that there was insufficient prior discussion, and I was advised to take up the matter first at the RSN and then at the Neutrality noticeboard before again requesting mediation. BiblioJordan (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your very first edit, 8 days ago, was to attack other users.[45] That's the kind of first-edit usually made by someone who won't be here very long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That edit was to undo an unjustified deletion of relevant information. By framing my edit as simply a personal "attack" you are diverting attention from the substance of the disputes at hand.

Again, I don't see why being new to the world of Wikipedia editing should disqualify me. I am flattered that the initiator of this complaint accuses me of having "a suspicious knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia." I confess to not being a long-time Wikipedia editor/gatekeeper, but I have indeed tried to learn all the rules. I only ask that my contributions and justifications be judged on merits, and not dismissed a priori given my newness, my "suspicious" level of knowledge (!), or my political perspective. BiblioJordan (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• DoRD, thanks for checking. User:Timothyjosephwood, please combine edits--I had to go through over a hundred of your edits to get to the meat. I have removed a sentenced containing a phrase inserted or reinserted by BiblioJordan: there is no page number cited for Western, I can't find "militarized policing" in that book, I am not sure why Davis and Western would be referenced together with a cite for Western's book--and, BiblioJordan, your "heavily promoted by the Clinton administration" has all the academic quality and trustworthiness of a Trump tweet. "Heavily promoted" is already HS writing (where every verb requires an adverb), and the phrasing is at least tendentious. Worse, I doubt very much whether this is in Western's book, given how it seems to be a later addition to the text that already had a citation. Please be careful. Better edits will stand a better chance of remaining in the article. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There were reasons. But it ended up being more...extensive than I planned. TimothyJosephWood 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this, and concur that it looks suspicious. This is edit-warring over the same content by new accounts, and I agree that this may be a case of coordination. GAB^gab 22:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't write that sentence, but I certainly agree with the author that neoliberal economic policies and "militarized policing" were key features of the Clinton administration (and subsequent ones, but Clinton was in important ways a pioneer). Michelle Alexander's 2010 book "The New Jim Crow" discusses the latter topic at length (though some will no doubt contend that the book is "not a reliable source," since it reaches unsavory conclusions). As for phrasing, I would have no problem with removing the word "heavily" since it sounds slightly awkward anyways, but the "promoted" shouldn't be controversial, since it's a simple fact of the 1990s.

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Is it really that tough to believe that more than one person might view the Clintons as neoliberals (millions of progressive Americans certainly seem to, judging by the Sanders campaign's appeal, and there is abundant academic literature on the mainstream Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism since the 1980s). Again, I ask: Because I'm new do I automatically lack the privileges of longer-term editors, who seem entitled to make arbitrary deletions and raise personal charges against other editors? Does the validity of our respective arguments not matter here (I've raised various substantive objections on this and other pages, none of which has been forthrightly answered---and often not answered at all---by my opponents)? The other editor who seems to agree with me is C.J. Griffin, whose account is not new, and with whom I've never even corresponded, so I'm not sure why I am the subject of such singular scrutiny. Are you also investigating possible coordination among the various editors who have engaged in ad hominem attacks and redbaiting against C.J. Griffin, myself, and the sources we've cited (e.g., Rjensen), and who have consistently muddied the substance of the dispute with diversionary arguments? My concern is that standards are not being applied evenly. BiblioJordan (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

continued unjustified content removal

• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amamedli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Palace of the Shirvanshahs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:HistoryofIran removes well justified revision without engaging in a debate. Several discussions have ensued on Palace of the Shirvanshahs page regarding Persian language transliteration having historical justification. I have made a sustained good faith effort to debate this subject but have been stonewalled by this user who appears to be less interested in historical facts and Wikipedia conventions and more interested in inserting Persian language transliteration on this page (to my knowledge he has made no other contributions to this page). On June 2 I was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, an attack which was coordinated and reported between this and another user. In response I provided a structured and detailed justification for removal of Persian language transliteration. I waited three weeks and no responses have been provided by this or any other user. I provided a notice yesterday that due to lack of responses I will make the change, however this user has immediately undone the revision and again provided no justification. Would ask admin interference to bring good faith into this nonsensical behavior.

(cur | prev) 14:21, 21 June 2016‎ Amamedli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,422 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (Undid revision 726243631 by HistoryofIran (talk) I have provided pages of justification, which you haven't replied to in spite my direct address to you. Can you be serious?) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:42, 20 June 2016‎ HistoryofIran (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,466 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (Not a proper justification at all, just your own opinion where you ignore every other statement/source and think your word is supreme. Take your concerns to an admin.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:02, 20 June 2016‎ Amamedli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,422 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (Removed Persian transliteration. Detailed justification on talk page posted on June 3rd. If you disagree, please discuss on talkpage) (undo)

I have made many appeals to bring common sense into this discussion. Here is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amamedli (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTTHEM.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well the IP editor has a point. Coming here with "I was blocked for edit warring based on a coordinated effort of others" is not a good argument. Now Talk:Palace_of_the_Shirvanshahs#Need_Opinions_.28transliteration.29 has no response but I am completely baffled at what is being asked for there. What exactly do you want done? I have no idea what all that writing has to do with your recent editing related to including a Persian version there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The poster, User:Amamedli, was blocked for edit warring on Palace of the Shirvanshahs on June 2. The report was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive317#User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked). It appeared that Amamedli was warring to give precedence to the Azeri translation of the article name rather than the Persian translation. Arguing about whose nationality should come first is a classic symptom of nationalist edit warring. It is not very useful to come to WP:ANI and complain that others do not agree with you on the article talk page. It is not up to admins whose version is best, it is up to the consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. The only issue is the lack of discussion on the talk page and since it's not even clear the talk page is being used for nothing more than a dumping ground and insults at the other editors, thus my comment. I don't see anything about their actual concerns. Should we suggest, WP:DROPing the stick and moving on? Closing as no action taken? Would this fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and a simply 1RR or topic ban be appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to stipulate that user Anamedli has been on Wikipedia for little more than a month, while some ~80% of his contributions so far have been solely to the topic the "Palace of the Shirvanshahs", and then specifically regarding the exclusion, position change, and removal of its Persian translation. I call that pretty much a WP:SPA account. He first started to change the placement of the translation, while some days later he started to entirely remove the Persian transliteration. We've been going over the inclusion of the translation for a very long time, as is visible on the talk page, only back then with a different user. The "new" user here in question, Anamedli, simply jumped in some time after the initial user in question who wanted the same thing (Interfase) had no sourced grounds to stand on, had lost the argument, and started to bring up his whole own ideas and self-made formulations as for why the translation should be removed. Anamedli does pretty much the same thing; he tells them in his edit summaries, as well as at the talk page. Funny thing is regarding the whole matter is, is that the talk page is full of sources posted by user HistoryofIran that actually show that the dynasty that founded the palace had been thoroughly Persianized in all possible ways well before the foundation of the palace. But all that is completely futile with such users, based on my long empirical experience. Even if you'd post 99 sources, you're usually still wasting your time, because you're argueing with an agenda, not with ratio.

That all said, all that Anamedli is doing, in his very short and rather dubious period of time here on Wikipedia, is to remove the translation (by the classical means of edit warring), and dropping historical revisionism on the talk page in the form of completely unrelated WP:tl;dr information, as well as, most importantly, self-made WP:OR fabrications. He lumps totally unrelated sources together, sources that tell nothing about the topic, but just in the feigned attempt to prove his ungrounded point, while ignoring the already posted sources that mention the topic specifically. His way of reasoning is: "The region of modern-day Azerbaijan was Turkicized some time in history, therefore this dynasty HAS, I repeat HAS, to have been Persianized as well, because I say so. No, I can't remotely find any sources about this self-made idea, but because I say so, and I just don't like what I'm seeing, I'll do everything that I can in order to remove this material. If I have to impose WP:OR and resort to edit warring, that's fine.").

Unfortunately, this is all typical irridentist behaviour that is, unfortunately, so commmon on articles of the region (Armenia/Iran/Azerbaijan/Georgia/Turkey). Look at the other IP's and sock/WP:SPA accounts that visit Wikipedia every day en masse, and please tell me otherwise. This matter was long done when user Interfase couldn't bring even 1 counter source to HistoryofIran's sources on the talk page, but its being all refurbished right now for no reason.

Oh, lastly; he started to edit war as of yesterday again (20-06-2016). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

once again, All I hear back from you guys is a) amamedli was blocked for edit warring (yes, doesn't make me wrong on the points raised though :)) b) he has been here less than a month (LouisAragon seems to think this is an argument against me.... yes, but this doesn't make me wrong either) c) nationalistic motivations (come on, those where already here :)).... note that none of the above proves me wrong on the point I am raising, which is that Persian transliteration does NOT belongs on this page. Three reasons listed (#1, #2, #3) on talk page. Yes it has been discussed with User:Interfase. In what way does this prove my suggestion wrong? Cultural heritage deserves to be properly reflected, not by users citing tenure but by calm common sense and objectivism. This is meant to be forum of good faith. Can we have some of that please? Can we look at the facts? Anyone? Humor me User:LouisAragon. You can question my motivations, but why won't you put two sentences together with a plausible argument that Persian language transliteration belongs on this page. I am not disputing that they were Persionized, but to include language transliteration, you have to show the Palace was named in Persian. I am demonstrating that by 15th century all of Shirvan was Turkish speaking including within the confines of the actual Palace in question. You haven't disproven one of my sources or arguments. Just capitalizing "HAS, HAS" is not an argument (why all the anger). Can you justify the accusations of 'self-made fabrications'. WHAT SPECIFICALLY did I fabricate? Specifically please. Don't masquerade as an impartial third party. I almost spat my drink when I read your "isn't it sad about this region" comment. And this User:Interfase argument

User:Ricky81682... yes, nationalism is very present here. Can you bring much needed objectivism into this mess? Can you help ensure that facts actually matter, or are we going to just let them be brushed aside in favor of condescending reflections e.g. 'classic signs of nationalism'? I assert that Persian language has zero connection to the Palace of the Shirvanshahs. Persian transliteration doesn't belong on this page anymore than Navajo belongs on the Hoover Dam article... is this an exercise is superficiality or is there actually any interest to get to the TRUTH? I am motivated by displaying Azerbaijan's architectural heritage truthfully, but just accusing me of 'nationalism' doesn't disprove my points. In fact it potentially promotes the opposing nationalism (represented by HistoryofIran and LouisAragon)... dang, forgot to sign (my bad) Amamedli (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sourced content removal by User:Jobas

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

---

User:Jobas is continuously removing large portion of texts from the article Growth of religion while it has been re-written. For instance, he removed Eric Kaufman data here[46] as copyvio but added same here again[47]. He is not adhering to neutral point of view and accusing me of socking. --Karibahar (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Anatha Gulati, is backed with one of his several sockpuppet (65 he has sockpuppet) accout or (User:Bolialia) was editing in the article Growth of religion, where he made everal Copyvio, i removed all of his Copyvio edit but now anther new user as you can see here, making excally the same edit, cliaming it is re written. Accaully i did it beofre discovring that it was copyvio. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

He is trying to flag me in order to retain his POV edits on Growth of religion.[48]. Karibahar (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Any administrator here can check both of our edits on Growth of religion to decide whether mine is copyvio or User:Jobas is POV pushing.Karibahar (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I went to his page, since your edit were suspicious, it was excally the same edit of the User:Anatha Gulati or User:Bolialia, and was interestig that a new user making the same edits.--Jobas (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I just tried to keep the article neutral as you have been removing sourced texts violating WP:UNDUE. Karibahar (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Really beocuse user:Dianna hide the edit of User:Bolialia before since it was Copyvio. Still interesting a new user know all these rules. and make if not excally a fimiliar edits as User:Anatha Gulati (who had so many sockpuppet accouts did before).--Jobas (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be mistaken. I added back only those texts which were removed by you and the page's edit history shows that both your and User:Bolialia's edits were hidden by User: Diannaa. Karibahar (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes since it was problems about his edit. he was making copy past for the edit of Pew study. So sure my edit will been hide too.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you selectively remove the texts from the article? Anyway, I will leave this to more experienced editors and administrators. Karibahar (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed what i noticed.--Jobas (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When User: Diannaa already checked and removed the copyvios then why you suddenly started further removing? How this edit[49] is a copyvio of this source[50]?Karibahar (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This exmaple of what i remvoed :

• this edit: flight from marriage” among Arab women." as quoted by David Ignatius. A significant drop of Muslims birth rate has been shown with an average of 41 percent between 1975-80 and 2005-10 which is 33 percent decline for the world as a whole. It also quoted that "Twenty-two Muslim countries and territories had fertility declines of 50 percent or more. The sharpest drops were in Iran, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Libya, Albania, Qatar and Kuwait, which all recorded declines of 60 percent or more over three decades was copy from here.
• this edit: if current trends continue, Islam share of the world’s population would equal the Christian share, at roughly 32% each, around 2070. After that, the number of Muslims would exceed the number of Christians, but both religious groups would grow, roughly in tandem. By the year 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%). was copy from here p.7
• This edit Statistical data on conversion to and from Islam are scarce. What little information is available suggests that there is no substantial net gain or loss in the number of Muslims through conversion globally; the number of people who become Muslims through conversion seems roughly equal to the number of Muslims who leave the faith. As a result, this report does not include any estimated future rate of conversions as a direct factor in the projections of Muslim population growth was copy from here
• This edit that i removed was copy from Total Fertility Rate by Religion, Pew study 2010-2015 p.13
• this edit that i removed was copy from Total Fertility Rate by Religion, Pew study 2010-2015 p.60
• This edit that been removed is from p.70

Yes since when it is POV to remove Copyvio.--Jobas (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• None of the above edits relates to me. I already re-wrote the contents which you removed as copyvios. I did not revert your these edits. Even anyone can simply check the source and make the edits which I did. Karibahar (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Karibahar been blocked as you can see here for sockpuppet.--Jobas (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Devotee of Truth

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

---

Would someone mind giving an indefinite block to User:Devotee of Truth? Obviously a sockpuppet; the account was just registered today, and (aside from his userpage) has done nothing except complaining at my talk page about something I said at the talk page of an obscure article. Even if that weren't an issue, run a search for davidcpearce (this is a reference to User:Davidcpearce) in this edit and look at the comments in the sentence immediately before the phrase He has no business editing here. We have no business tolerating someone who makes such comments about other users, especially when it's obviously a sockpuppet. Just bringing this here because someone might allege WP:INVOLVED because the user was complaining about something I said. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, this may shed some light on the whole deal: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Thomas Pogge. Might be a sock of the user blocked there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Threatening to "wage total war" on people is not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Already indef blocked, but yes, an obvious sock of User:Eminent Jurist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thanks for the quick response. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Damn it all, doesn't anyone read the classics any more? He was quoting Sun Tzu Facepalm _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, another example of the Wiki-truism that anyone with "truth" in their username is generally not here for the watermelon and fried chicken. BMK (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism in Bulgaria-related articles

For a number of weeks now, several Bulgaria-related articles like Bulgarian Empire, Tourism in Bulgaria, Harmanli massacre, Russo-Turkish War (1877–78), Bulgaria national football team, Bulgaria women's national ice hockey team, Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78), Bulgaria men's national water polo team are being subject to vandalism through removal of information and/or the addition of deliberately incorrect and often utterly invented content. This is carried out by a number of IP addresses: 2601:403:4202:5C10:B5B4:DF8E:C417:C35F (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:403:4202:5C10:D85E:76C5:A7D0:C216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:403:4202:5C10:6479:3043:1D11:24F (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but the main (and only recurring) address seems to be 73.161.219.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These accounts are disruption-only, and I request that they are blocked, and that the indicated pages be semi-protected for a sufficient period of time. Constantine ✍ 21:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

POV + False royal titles + Pure vandalism

The user Gerard von Hebel has a long history of adding POV edits to articles on Portuguese Royalty (Miguelist Line pretenders) for some years now. He still editing and reverting articles based on false and unreferenced information. The Miguelist family is just a set of pretenders to the Portuguese extinct throne. All information and titles cited as "factual" by Hebel (Princes, Dukes, etc.) are just titles of fantasy (not even courtesy titles) and based on Miguelist advertising literature (we must remeber that Portugal is a Republic. Also the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98, categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of his descendants, forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic). It's impossible accept information like this and refusing to name the other existent claims, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and Duke of Loulé (for example). This user factual accuracy doesn't exist and he isn't neutral. That's the truth. In fact, Gerard von Hebel just wants to cover up the real information about the History of Portugal. He intends to win the community by "fatigue" through its constant revertions on a matter which he is not understood. Please verify that he also has eliminated information that remains verifiable literature sources. As the community can see in the article of the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Hebel made more that 8 rr's to my editions!), or in the article of the pretender Duarte Nuno of Braganza, and many others, the user Gerard von Hebel still reverting factual and neutral information to disputed factual accuracy versions, and giving several titles of fantasy to the pretenders of Miguelist Line and also counting with the (sometimes usual) Cristiano Tomás support in that attitude. They accused me just to continue to publish their loved false information about this subject. Hebel user deleted also information based on verifiable references... Since last day, Cristiano and I started a consensus trial, but now cleary we can see that Gerard von Hebel is playing with our face. He is replacing all the fantasy titles as if they were true titles of royalty; he is eliminating all the Infobox/Pretenders in Miguelist pretender articles (and placed that they are members of royalty in a Republic!); he is are reverting all information (mine and now even from other users) just to promote lies and in a brazenly non-neutral way... and are trying to accuse me. I ask urgently your help. We can not allow lies in Wikipedia. I'm trying now to construct a consensus, but Hebel is trying to destroy all. You can see it in his editings... Please, help me in this conflict. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anjo-sozinho reported by User:Hebel (Result: )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hebel reported by User:Anjo-sozinho (Result: )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Anjo-sozinho on Carlos I of Portugal and related articles

David Biddulph (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a couple points to make in rebuttal to Anjo's points:

• He has a long history of popping up every couple months, setting out on huge waves of mass edits, reverting consensus agreed upon on talkpages various times, much to annoyance of many, like myself and Mr. Hebel, who try to maintain these articles' stability and credibility. Some examples include:
  • Consensus that was reached through discussion here on the use of infobox/royalty rather than infobox/pretender on the Miguelist dukes' pages and Anjo's blatant disregard for this consensus, without any community input, here, here, and here.
• The sources that Anjo continues to use are either completely biased towards the support of Maria Pia, like his use of the book entitled Maria Pia of Braganza: the Pretender, or are uncredible, like this edit using a non-sourced online encyclopedia
• Hebel and I have tried to clearly explain Wikipedia policies and the need for consensus, and in the face of other editors supporting views contradictory to his own, Anjo continues to disrupt the stability of various articles and input poorly sourced information and claims.
• Anjo's language and discourse are far too emotionally based and leave no room for reasonable understanding of WP. His "with me or against me" attitude disrupts the community Wikipedia tries to foster and attempts to cause conflict in order for his own views to be promoted. (see his language and discourse here, here, and here.

In conclusion, if there is anyone who disrupts the stability and credibility of these articles, it is User:Anjo-Sozinho, who continues to act against Wiki policy, community consensus, and in the interest of what seem to be his own personal views. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I rally, really, reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally hate getting involved in disputes like this one, but it seems pretty cut and dry.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás: You said well, you take the decision "without any community input". Consensus is not that. Now what you want if force me to silence the real facts by publishing lies and dynastic advertisements to promote Miguelist pretenders. Wikipedia now is it? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Now Cristiano Tomás and Gerard von Hebel are combining in their personal discussions page a way to block me just to silence the truth that I'm being reported. This is the new policy of Wikipedia? See here. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Or rather here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As all the Wikipédia administrators can see here, I still receiving more threats (and they are already enjoying shamelessly with that subject) to silence me and not to justify the vandalism that are promoting with the attribution of false titles to Miguelist pretenders. Hebel started it in a few months and continues. I ask help from the administration of Wikipedia, please. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself yet Cristiano and Hebel only want to silence me. Please, I ask again administrators help. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho, every pretender on Wikipedia get's called by his courtesy title. The Duke of Bavaria, The Prince of Prussia, at least two Dukes of Savoy that hate each other and about three Margraves of Meissen that also don't agree about the succession to the throne and yes indeed also the Duke of Braganza. We don't have to agree with that policy, but it is the policy and we follow it! Can't you see how that would NOT apply to a pretender who has no courtesy titles because she is an illegitimate child who's parentage is not proven and, as even you have conceded, has not given sufficient proof for her fringe claims? And this in the context of the bare fact that you haven't succeeded in getting any consensus for your repetitive battle against the way we handle these things in the last years? I can't make it any clearer than that. Also read up on how Wikipedia works as it should and how we are not here to promote our pet causes but to write an encyclopedia. I don't think you understand that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012) and as "...Her Royal Highness D. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Crown Princess of Portugal" in Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006. But there are more and more examples and you don't have any proof to tell that her claims are false. If you call "Dukes" to foreign persons (remember that the Portuguese Courts and Law banish all foreigns from the sucession line, even to President of the Republic role), Miguelists cannot be Dukes, or Princes, or Kings, in Portugal. They are born in Switzerland (Duarte Pio), in Austria-Hungary (Duarte Nuno), in Germany (Miguel Januário). Just Maria Pia of Braganza was born in Portugal and she was born at the time of last Portuguese Monarchy. That's the facts. If you used the same criteria for treatment in all articles of the pretenders in question (Miguelist and Saxe-Coburg) so I could even agree with you. But you don't... or you think to reconsider that? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just adding an example of Anjo-Sozinho distorting a neutral invitation on a talk page to an ongoing discussion, playing victim and displaying clear bias: here. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, distorting and partially deleting another users comment on a talk page while inserting your own text is clearly the limit. That is a serious act of vandalism and reprehensible behavior like that should not be tolerated in any circumstances. That is a serious incident. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Having had a read through the talk pages of Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza, I can't help but feel the [{WP:BOOMERANG|bent piece of wood]] is coming back. @Anjo-sozinho: you do not have consensus and fighting the same fight with the same editors on multiple pages repeatedly is disruptive. You presented your case, multiple editors had problems with your sources and your argument, as it was not policy backed. You even tried a RFC which was soundly rejected. If you don't want to get blocked for disruption (not to mention the ad hominem comments), the next step should be WP:DRN or you best back down. Blackmane (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Persistent restores of material without proper citations - Butterfly effect in popular culture

• Butterfly effect in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few weeks ago I nominated the article for deletion. The deletion ended with no consensus. Recently a different editor nominated the article for merge, the discussion is still ongoing; I neither support nor oppose the merge.

While these discussions were going on, I performed cleanup on the article several times - each time providing an edit summary for the what and why of the edit - almost all the edits are removal of "self-sourcing examples" per a consensus from a discussion on WP:POPCULT. When my first edit, which was monolithic, was ill-received, I broke it down to smaller edits - each time describing that either there are no citations or that they fail the "self-sourcing examples" threshold.

These "self-sourcing examples" and other unsourced or poorly sourced material is repeatedly restored despite WP:V clearly stating that the material needs to be properly cited. Editors use various excuses

• "the examples are proof in and of themselves" - this is against consensus of this discussion
• "illegitimate blanking / mass-deletions" - this is not true; the material is removed in accordance to consensus on WP:V, the WP:V policy itself, and of course because removal of uncited or unencyclopedic material is not vandalism
• "do not edit while there's ongoing discussion" - this is contentious at best, the deletion discussion is over and no edit can affect it; the merge discussion is also unaffected by removal of uncited and poorly-cited material.
• "restoring stable version" - there's no policy on Wikipedia that prefers the "stable version" over the removal of uncited and poorly-cited material

My reasons for removing the uncited and poorly cited material are detailed on the talk page at considerable length (and also detailed above).

How can I make sure the uncited and poorly-cited material is not endlessly restored? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

New range block requested for LTA vandal

There's an LTA vandal who primarily operates on the 166.137, 166.173, and 166.177 ranges. You can read a detailed report at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, but the short version is that the vandal adds hoax casting information, mostly to animated children's films. For example, he might change edit Disney's Aladdin to say that Liam Neeson played the Genie, then add a bunch of Rugrats characters in a fictional crossover.

I previously requested range blocks on this LTA vandal here, here, and here. On June 18, two range blocks timed out, and vandal edits almost immediately started up again on one of the ranges, including the following:

• 166.137.216.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.217.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.217.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.217.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.218.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

So, I'm requesting that 166.137.216.0/22 be range blocked once again for continued vandalism once the block timed out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage vandalism by Anjo-sozinho

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

---

Anjo-sozinho distorts text from a talkpage message by another user and insterts his own text As can be seen here Anjo-sozinho has vandalised the text of another user Cristiano Tomás and inserted his own. That is unacceptable behaviour, especially in the light of what is going on here, here, here, here, and what happened in the past. Then there is also this. And we could go on. Reporting this incident. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the timestamps, I'm inclined to believe there was some kind of edit conflict and Anjo-sozinho was trying to put back his deleted post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to all, this is just a continuation of this conversation [51], which is still active above.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I hadn't noticed the earlier goings on, on that talkpage in time. I deleted this message and section when I did. But what you state was probably the case. I retreat my remarks in this section on this incident altogether. I actually deleted them before you restored them to this page... I don't get to do that??? I'll leave that to you. I also deleted my notification to Anjo on his talkpage. That having been said, I'm not sure what Anjo tried to do there, but in the end his post was restored by you. Which was the right thing to do. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, you can close this discussion but you shouldn't be deleting your posts if there are replies to them. Basic courtesy to your fellow editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken reverting maintenance edits without explanation

Ever since I made a routine maintenance edit to Spats (footwear), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has been very combative and unwilling to collaborate. He reverted me twice on that article ([52], [53]), yet never provided any justification as to why his preferred way is any better. Instead, he voiced in his edit summaries how I was damaging the [his?] article. Conversely, I not only justified my reasoning in the summary of my original edit, I did so in two reverts of his reverts ([54], [55]). I further tried to explain my first revert on his talk page. Yet given another opportunity to make his case, he instead deleted my comments, reverted me that second time, and accused me of edit warring. At that point in time, I had reverted once and he twice. So if anybody was edit warring, it wasn't me.

I then replied, trying again to encourage him to make his case. After an hour and a half, he had not replied but was still actively editing elsewhere. I took that to mean that he did not have a rebuttal to my points, and reverted that second time. Shortly afterwards, he punitively accused me of refactoring, templated me (a regular) for edit warring (even though we each had two reverts), and "banned" me from his talk page and from pinging him.

I'm concerned about Beyond My Ken's disruptive editing. He is intent on blocking changes to Spats (footwear) (and likely other pages on his watchlist). On the specific issue of moving the {{Refimprove}} tag to the top of the article (to increase visibility—the article only has a single reference) for instance, it turns out that I'm not the only one whose attempt he reverted ([56], [57], [58], [59]). After making my case and attempting to get him to do the same, he has yet to even attempt to collaborate with me. He can't even be bothered to write an explanatory edit summary. Frankly, I'm stunned that such an experienced editor seems to have no interest in collaboration. The hostility also concerns me greatly. I've been around for awhile so I can tolerate a few insults, but his confrontational nature could easily scare away new editors. My talk page is awash with his attacks, and I have exhausted all avenues for a meaningful dialog. I believe intervention to be necessary and that brings me here. Thanks. – voidxor 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If Beyond My Ken does not want you to post on his talk page, then you really ought to respect that (I realize that exceptions have to be made in some cases, such as notifying him about ANI threads concerning him). To my knowledge, editors have no right to forbid other editors from pinging them, but then again, if he has asked you not to, it is only polite to respect that as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: How am I in trouble here?! I think you misunderstand the timeline. I didn't post to Beyond My Ken's talk page after he asked me not to (except the manditory ANI notification, of course). Also, I think you're missing the bigger picture. I'm not here simply because another editor asked me not to post on his talk page; I'm here because I'm (arguably along with other editors) being bullied away from performing routine cleanup. – voidxor 05:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were in trouble - where did you get that idea? I simply noted that editors requesting other editors not to contact them on their talk pages is not by itself unreasonable behavior, and that nothing is accomplished by complaining about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. I thought you were drawing conclusions on the incident as a whole. Yes, in and of itself there's nothing wrong with such a request, but I don't believe that means that I should have omitted that detail here (and you probably aren't suggesting that I should have). – voidxor 05:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware of the history of this template. There was a previous incident with BMK repeatedly reverting editors who moved this template to the top of articles culminating in a RfC back in September. The overwhelming consensus was to put it at the top and the decision was added to the template documentation afterwards. So the community consensus is to have this at the top of the page and any attempt to move it to the bottom is against that consensus. --Majora (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Question is, what do you do when an editor is constantly editing against consensus, and has no desire to collaborate (i.e. "my way or the highway")? – voidxor 05:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If they have been here considerably longer than you, the answer is "not a damned thing, because if we try to stop them, some loud faction will bitch incessantly to reinstate them, and they will be thus reinstated". It is not how it should be, but it is how it is. --Jayron32 05:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)