Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Cryellow

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

---

The last days Cryellow (talk · contribs) started to behave disruptively. First at The Sherry-Netherland[1]. I don't know much about this, so I will contact Ken for this. The reason I'm reporting him/her is because at Pope Benedict XVI s/he has been inserting this text that clearly violates the BLP policy by inserting alleged ideas that he resigned for contentious reasons and not personal reasons, the worst part is that s/he believes that suggested information is factually correct. Also he violated the BLP policy with me, and possibly Elizium23, with the comment "sorry to shatter your Catholicism" at the moment he assumed that at least I was Catholic, when I'm not. While I was writting this report, he continued the BLP violations with this. It is clear that this user comes here to insert his/her points of view, and believes this place is a vehicle for doing that. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the edit warring. The BLP violations on Benedict XVI are unacceptable. Equally well this personal attack on BMK is unacceptable.[2] Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I am having problems with adding the following:

In the 1969 Academy Award winning movie "Midnight Cowboy," Dustin Hoffman's character Ratso Rizzo tells Joe Buck (Jon Voigt) that he can reach him at the "Sherry-Netherlands Hotel" after setting up a con job in which Joe is burned and Ratso, who is squatting in a condemned building and could never walk into the Sherry Netherland without being ejected let alone live there, doesn't want Joe to ever find him.

to this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sherry-Netherland

when I add it, Beyond my Ken immediately removes it. I opened up a TALK discussion on the matter and left the TALK open for MONTHS, after which the majority of those who commented agreed that my edit should remain, but still Beyond my Ken removes it.

SEE: the Sherry-Netherland Wikipedia page, Sherry-Netherland talk page, and MY (cryellow) talk page.

2) Same basic issue on this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

where I am adding the following to the article:

It has recently been suggested that Pope Benedict XVI resigned because he himself was part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals, that he was being blackmailed by those with proof of his complicity, and that he resigned to avoid a scandal.

and someone Tbhotch keeps edit warring with me to remove it. I have referenced two sources, and yet he keeps undoing my revision.

---

I think the over all issue is that you have people like Tbhotch and Beyond my Ken who think they OWN Wikipedia, and bully less frequent users into removing any edits to what they view as “their” Wikipedia articles. Cryellow (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This kind of edit is highly disruptive and shows zero knowledge of WP:BLP.[3] Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I looked over Beyond my Ken's TALK page, and it is one torrential dispute after another where Beyond my Ken reverts edits to "his" Wikipedia pages, and then foulmouths the users who dare to debate him. Cryellow (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? And that gives you the right to insert smearing speculation about Benedict XVI being involved in child abuse; and independently to make puerile personal attacks on BMK? Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The issues here are whether or not my edits should remain. On the Sherry Netherland page, the edit should remain after the majority of those who considered it, even Beyond my Ken's "buddy" felt that it should remain.

Whether my edit remains on the Pope Benedict XVI page will depend on whether it is okay to include substantiated but not absolutely verified facts about a person in a biography. As a matter of fact, there is NO biography of any historical figure that does not include some speculation in it, and for you to say that biographies do not include speculation would mean then that there need be only one version of a biography of a person, which is absurd. You may pick up ten different biographies of John Lennon for example, and in some it is claimed that he had a consummated sexual affair with Brian Epstein, and in others this claim is disputed. Yet, all of the biographies are still valid ones. Cryellow (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is how disruptive your edits are at the moment. You should not be making these infantile personal attacks. Please reread WP:NPA and WP:BLP, and note that the "L" there stands for "living". Lennon and Epstein died some time ago. Ratzinger is still alive. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia takes a dim view of BLP violations. Continuing disruption in this fashion isn't advisable. Taroaldo ✉ 08:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Cryellow account was created in March 2008, yet the editor has not learned anything about core Wikipedia policies. Inserting "it has been suggested" in front of an extreme claim does not entitle an editor to violate WP:BLP, WP:EW, and WP:RS. Would an admin please issue a final warning and close this. Cryellow should ask at WP:HELPDESK for basic information about policies in order to avoid strong sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• The situation at The Sherry-Netherland is fairly simple. Cryellow wants to include what I believe is a trivial mention of the hotel in the film Midnight Cowboy. Two other editors (Elizium23 and Jim.henderson) agree that it should not be in the article, while one editor (an IP who describes himself as a "good friend" of Cryellow, who has never edited before or after) agreed with Cryellow. Cryellow asked for a third opinion, and got one from TransporterMan, who agreed that the entry should not be in the article. Despite this clear consensus against him, Cryellow continued to attempt to insert the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As for the Pope Benedict situation: the source Cryellow provided is a blog, and therefore not a reliable source according to our standards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No one here seems to care much about what Beyond my Ken or Tbhotch thinks. Tbhotch created this page with much fanfare and threats and it is turning out to be a big *yawn. Cryellow (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, the Sherry Netherland dispute was posted on the Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Sherry-Netherland

for that article on December 24, 2012. On 12/26/12, an editor came along and agreed that my edit should remain. That's one vote for me! Then, on 12/29/2012, Beyond my Ken's OWN FRIEND Jim.henderson came along and agreed with retaining my edit, but proposed some compromise language such as "In the film Midnight Cowboy, impoverished con man Ratso Rizzo claims to live at this hotel." That's a half vote for me! again. Then on 1/17/13, another editor came along and voted that my edit should remain AS IS - making a total of 2 1/2 votes in my favor, and none (other than of course Ken's) against me (but then Ken's vote is cancelled by mine, so in sum we have 2 1/2 votes for me, 0 against).

FINALLY on July 25, 2013, after waiting six additional months for any further comments - and none were posted - I reverted the edit. I would say leaving the comment period for this matter open for seven months, during which time 2 1/2 votes were in my favor and none against, is long enough to have settled the dispute.

And then of course, immediately after I reverted the matter Beyond my Ken panicked and came on, immediately removed my material, and brought in a couple of his hacks and cronies (TransporterMan and Elizium23) who voted against my material.

But - how long must a TALK dispute remain open before the matter is settled? I waited patiently for seven months and did not revert my edit until, during those seven months, every editor who stepped up agreed with my material. Why does it matter that AFTER the dispute was settled that a couple of editors came along to try to put in their two cents worth ("too little, too late, and predictably pro-Ken editors.") Where were these editors while the dispute was ongoing?

Then as far as the Pope Benedict XVI material it does not refer merely to a blog, but to newspapers articles in Italian newspapers. If the quantity of references is at issue, I can certainly add more references for the material. How about if I add this CNN reference? Cryellow (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you try to reinsert that poorly sourced and dubious content about Ratzinger, your account would almost certainly be blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP. Please also stop making personal attacks on other wikipedians: please do not refer to other editors as "hacks and cronies". Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

When I have the time, Kirk, I'll escalate the Sherry Netherland matter although already settled, to the next level. I'll open a dispute on the Pope Benedict XVI material. I don't live on Wikipedia and it is pretty clear who does, which is why certain editors take things too personally and think that they OWN content. This exercise here continues to be a big yawn and not relevant to the real issue of whether or not the material is germane and should remain. (Damn! that sh*t rimes.) Cryellow (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything you have posted here denotes something, you think you are right regardless if you are right. I don't care about the hotel edit-war, but neither about Ratzinger personal life. Whichever my personal views in religion are, I care about Wikipedia when I am in Wikipedia, and I don't mix my opinions over a topic with my life here. In this hours did you read WP:BLP? In case you haven't I will resume it for you: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material is challengeable, questionable, negative and speculative about a living person, it is not that I own the article, in the first place because I am not watching the article and your edit was filtered by Huggle when I was in my routinary checking of vandalism. The sources you present have pure speculation about an event, with poor or no real evidence this to say it is or "may be" the reason why Ratzinger resigned. You did an absurd comparison with Lennon-Epstein, absurd because L-E died years ago and BLP doesn't apply to them, but you didn't care to read their articles. Epstein was openly gay, he with his own mouth revealed it; Lennon, according to his article, said once: "Well, it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But it was a pretty intense relationship. It was my first experience with a homosexual that I was conscious was homosexual...", apparently you are not reading. Do you have any evidence of this? Because if you can't have a reliable reference, being Ratzinger himself or his staff, of having other preferences or that he resigned for polemical reasons, you can't simple say 'I am going to search for more references' to justify you POV pushing, because it is what you are doing, and it is demostrated here: "Whether my edit remains on the Pope Benedict XVI page will depend on whether it is okay to include substantiated but not absolutely verified facts" (italics mine), if it is not an "absolutely verified fact", why should we post a BLP violation with possibilities of a legal sue from Ratzinger against the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation or being a vehicle to allow defamation? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be useful for User:Cryellow to read WP:BATTLEGROUND, because his comments above -- "One vote for me!" etc. -- are not those of an editor who appears interested in discussion, compromise or consensus, they appeear instead to be the the comments of an editor who believes he is in the right, and that everyone opposed to him is wrong. This is the kind of editor we cannot afford to have here, and I'm afraid that it may be necessary to -- at some point or another -- indef block him from further editing. I'm sure that the admin corps would prefer to give him a chance to redeem himself before that happens, and I have no objection to that, but I do think it's important to make it clear to him that his attitude towards editing is not ideal, and is likely to lead to his being blocked in the near future. As usual, such warnings carry more weight if they come from an admin, rather than from a rank-and-file editor such as myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in this situation, it's informative to look at an earlier version of User talk:Cryellow, which provides some insight into Cryellow's original purpose in editing Wikipedia, which appears to have been promotional in nature. [4]. Although he does not appear to have made promotional edits since, it's clear from the present circumstances that he really never has understood what we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just read through this thread again and caught something I missed before: the idea that I (of all people) have "hacks and cronies" at my beck and call gave me a good laugh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued disruption

I have reopened this report because Cryellow (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is continuing to add material to Benedict XVI that violates WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this matter. If you believe that the material does not belong then open an arbitration or some such. The reason that this matter closed without any admin input is that there is no violation. You do not jump straight to an admin violation simply because you disagree over inclusion or exclusion of material on Wikipedia.

The current edit on Pope Benedict XVI's page is: [5] which is absolutely true. Cryellow (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for the Pope Benedict XVI matter has been opened. Cryellow (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, Cryellow's editing has been disruptive and continues to be so. There is no scope for "dispute resolution", particularly in the malformed way that Cryellow has just attempted on WP:DRN. [6] If they were a good faith editor (see their comments above in the main thread), they would have made a request at WP:BLPN. My own feeling is that at some stage their account is likely to be indefinitely blocked. Their recent editing history shows a fairly classic example of WP:NOTHERE. Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci. Cryellow has essentially burned through their chance. I'm favoring an indef block for disruption. 108.23.54.2 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: this IP has made no other edits.

• Cryellow: chronic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, complete disregard of WP:BLP and WP:RS, vindictive attitude. Block; based upon user history, indef looks warranted. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is open on this matter. The issue is whether or not to include the edit, which has been revised actually as recently as today and is not even the same edit as was originally submitted a week ago. Nothing more to this matter than that. Don't make a federal case out of it. Cryellow (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your edit is completely different; instead of a single unreliable source, it cites two news articles and asserts things which aren't even in those articles! The edit is prima facie bad and you are edit-warring to keep it in. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence by TransporterMan: In the first part of this discussion, Cryellow says, "Beyond my Ken panicked and came on, immediately removed my material, and brought in a couple of his hacks and cronies (TransporterMan and Elizium23) who voted against my material." I resent that wholly-unfounded accusation. I'm one of the most active volunteers at the Third Opinion project and merely saw the request for a 3O — which Cryellow had listed — listed at the 3O site and responded to it. If Cryellow has evidence of collusion between Beyond My Ken and me, I would urge him to bring it forth. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the other post that was only about one edit from 108.23.54.2, I meant to say more as to why Cryellow should be given a block, but forgot and that's why there's only one edit. 108.23.54.2 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

It's unfortunate that this thread hasn't received any admin attention (not that I blame anybody, we don't get paid much), because that fact seems to have encouraged Cryellow to reject all advice, criticism, and references to policy from experienced editors, on their own page as well as here, and to continue inserting egregious BLP violations on Pope Benedict XVI. I've blocked for 31 hours after looking only at the history of that page, together with the discussions on Cryellow's talk. I haven't had time to take stock of the other issues mentioned above; I will later. (Provided I get a raise.) Bishonen | talk 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC).

Update: I have warned Cryellow on their page to be more polite when s/he returns from the block. Even in this thread, we see personal attacks and general belligerence. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

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

Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved

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

---

There is a difficult POV dispute at this talk page. In the discussion thread at Talk:March Against Monsanto#Fringe?, some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations. The main statement of these accusations is this: [7]. Three of the accused editors have explicitly denied the accusations: [8], [9], and [10]. I have attempted to suggest that these concerns be raised at the appropriate noticeboards instead of repeating them at the article talk page: [11]. Unfortunately, all that is happening is that the accusations are being repeated and the back-and-forth is continuing on the article talk page, and it is making it very difficult to get to any consensus about content.

If the accusations are true, then offending editors are violating WP:NPOV and WP:COI. If the accusations are groundless, then those continuing to make the accusations are violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Whatever the case may be, I think that it needs to be figured out (to the extent of what can be determined on-Wiki) and dealt with (at least to the point of moving the accusations to the proper place). I have put a link to here on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion began when another editor raised the point that Monsanto had recently chosen Fleishman-Hillard to handle their PR in the wake of the protests against the company. I mentioned that this thing has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot noting in "The Covert Biotech War" that Monsanto shills were running around the Internet in 2002 playing all sorts of dirty tricks. Is there some kind of PR operation occurring on Wikipedia? It's possible. Reliably sourced content critical of Monsanto is removed on daily basis by editors who seem to just "show up" out of the blue from absolutely nowhere. Firemylasers (talk · contribs) is one of the latest obvious WP:SPA's. Then you've got SpectraValor (talk · contribs), whose first edit was to remove a reference to the Monsanto Protection Act in the lead section.[12] User:Thargor Orlando has been at this nonsense for months, recently removing the fact that the "HCIA is "partly funded by Monsanto"[13] while three editors, SpectraValor, User:Arzel, and User:Thargor Orlando all removed the fact that "American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".[[14]][15][16] Today, Thargor went hog wild, removing critical commentary about Monsanto and the media from The Louisiana Weekly, Thom Hartmann, and the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, replacing it with an absolutely hilarious personal paraphrase that makes no sense to any human being on the planet,[17] except for maybe SpectraValor who tried the same thing just a few days ago[18] and User:Alexbrn who tried it earlier in the month.[19] I have dozens more of these diffs showing anything critical about Monsanto is deleted, watered down, or altered in a way that it no longer reflects the original source, while new user accounts and users who have never touched this article before seem to just "appear" out of the blue to revert to each other's versions. They tried to get the article deleted and they failed.[20] Now they are trying to delete the content. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You've pointed out that an obvious SPA is an obvious SPA. Great. You've also accused a number of other editors, including some who have been here for quite a long time, of being "paid shills" simply because they disagree with you on an article about an event that's only a few months old. This is eminently unproductive. You certainly managed to run me away from the article by escalating the rhetoric.

This may be an issue that some people have strong feelings about, but that's no excuse for broadly failing to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. a13ean (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A13ean, I'm sorry you feel falsely accused, and perhaps my wording confused you, but you did remove the content about the march sourced to the AP in this diff while replacing it with off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this subject in violation of WP:NOR. Yes, you left the AP source in the article, but the content it cited was no longer there. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed

Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling.[13] Although 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[14]

to this

Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton currently grown in the United States are genetically modified. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] However, critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues,[16] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact GM plants (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property law. Some advocates have pushed for mandatory GMO labeling, [22] and while 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[23]'

I understand that you objected to the sourced statement I added about the scientific consensus. However, the rest of my edit in that section only expands on the concerns of the protestors, and continues to rely on the AP source in question. We disagree on one point; you could have addressed it in a reasonable manner. Instead you responded with this. This is no way to act in a collaborative effort. a13ean (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has acted with extreme hostility towards myself and has accused me of being a SPA, editing in bad faith, trolling, astroturfing, etc numerous times. Here are some diffs: [21] (unfounded accusation of bad faith), [22] (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), [23] (direct accusation of being here to disrupt), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566206688&oldid=566204885 (direct accusation of being SPA in a manner that violates AGF), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566376264&oldid=566371720 (accusation of trolling, astroturfing, bad faith, etc).

Here's two more general examples of this kind of behavior (with other users/generalized): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566199730&oldid=566180385 (accusation of grand conspiracy to protest Monsanto or something), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566200209&oldid=566199730 (same thing but slightly more direct).

At this point I'm attempting to back away, but Viriditas babysitting of the article and constant attacks mean that it is impossible to discuss anything with the other editors without Viriditas popping up and interfering. He/she is being extremely disruptive and is actively denying that WP:FRINGE claims are fringe, as well as attempting to spread discredited studies and completely ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter.

To be quite frank I am disappointed with this reaction. I was hoping to have a discussion over the page's issues, not some sort of massive argument over simple things like WP:FRINGE claims. And for the record I don't work for Monsanto, or a PR firm, or any of the places that Viriditas seems to think I work for, and am quite willing to prove it through whatever means are necessary if desired - these accusations are absurd. Firemylasers (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your account was created approximately a year ago on 18 July 2012.[24] You never used it, preferring to let it "sleep" until 22 July 2013,[25] at which point you launched right into attacking the reliably sourced "Monsanto Protection Act" material (HR 933) in another thread.[26] You've also admitted[27] to creating another sleeper account, User:Garzfoth, which you created on April 30.[28] Further, you have disrupted virtually every discussion on the talk page, distracting away from the topic under discussion and efforts towards article improvement by attacking every editor who disagrees with your efforts to remove reliable sources as a "pseudoscientist" promoting "fringe" beliefs. Meanwhile, you continue to "challenge" every reliable source that criticizes Monsanto or quotes members of the March Against Monsanto, and claim that we can't write about this topic because the reliable sources violate every policy and guideline. The fact that you are an SPA dedicated to disrupting the talk page and the fact that you have admitted creating multiple accounts tells me that there are strict limits to AGF. You created your account a year ago, didn't use it, then created another account in April, and didn't use it. That implies questionable intent, and as any SPI/CU can tell you, follows the typical pattern. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In Viriditas' defence, his edits seem to me to be broadly in line with a coherent view of the Topic and tend toward a coherent article which could be defended as being in-line with WP policies ... although I think there are some problems to be resolved over whether/how fringe guidance applies to some aspects of the content. The problem is that it is difficult to have a genuine discussion when his assumption is that any holder of differing views is operating in bad faith (and I see I am included in his rogues' gallery above) - this makes progress towards consensus difficult or impossible because of the often combative and personalized nature of interactions with him on the Talk page (and he is not the only editor behaving in a less-than-civil fashion). The bad behaviour around this article is a problem which needs to be resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I noted that you, SpectraValor, and Thargor all "coincidentally" happened to making similar edits to the same section stretched out over a period of a month, and this is not an isolated incident. Thargor might make an edit and talk page argument, disappear, than SpectraValor would come back and make similar edits and similar talk page arguments, and then disappear, and the cycle would repeat. Just yesterday, you complained on the talk page about the so-called pseudoscience in the article and how it needed to be balanced out. I asked you to point out this pseudoscience for me, and you could not, so you went ahead and added it to the article to support your argument.[29] Ironically, you engaged in WP:PROFRINGE while at the same time complaining about it. When confronted with this, you argued that we shouldn't whitewash their beliefs. So this kind of editing also appears to be disruptive. You complain about fringe concepts, and when asked to identify them, you fail to find them, so you decide to add them to the article! That's very strange editing behavior. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the wiki rules prohibits possessing multiple accounts. I have

A) Disclosed the only other account I have.

B) Have NO edits on the other account.

C) Am ONLY using THIS account.

D) Am using the account that was created FIRST.

E) Have done NOTHING to warrant these repeated accusations of grand conspiracy, astroturfing, bad faith, etc.

As such your accusations of bad faith are completely unfounded. There are no rules against a delay between account creation and first edit. You have NO excuse for your repeated attacks, nor does choosing MaM as my first article to contribute to mean that I am some sort of astroturfer or acting in bad faith. YOU have disrupted EVERY conversation ever created on that page - blaming it on me is highly amusing but ridiculous. I am not the one who decides to edit war over every minor change to the article. In fact I have not even made any contribs to the article proper - I wanted to discuss it on the talk page first, and instead was met with EXTREME hostility from you in reaction to every single comment I made. Your claims that I challenge every reliable source are false, as your sources are not reliable, and you have been actively attempting to use discredited research in order to justify your promotion of WP:FRINGE claims. You have attacked every editor on the page for attempting to provide a NPOV on the article. In no way am I dedicated to disrupting the talk page - in fact I argue the opposite, I argue that YOU are dedicated to edit warring your opinions into the article, disrupting every single attempt to discuss the article, pushing pseudoscience, and adding as many opinion pieces as possible in while simultaneously excluding any opinion pieces that you dislike. In no way are your violations of AGF justified by my actions. Firemylasers (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any contribs to any article on Wikipedia under this account except the talk page, highlighting the SPA issue I've raised. My "opinions" are not in this or any other article, Firemylasers. The entire purpose of your account seems to be to attack editors who are trying to actually improve the topic area. Every discussion you've participated in involves attacking reliable sources. Then when editors respond, you attack the editors. And you post large, unformatted, one line screeds that scrolls the discussion right off the page and makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. Further, you continue to make an enormous number of absurd and patently false claims, such as claiming that the COI between employees of Monsanto and the government is a "conspiracy theory", that economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and monopoly of the food supply "lacks evidence", and that every reliable source which describes the "Monsanto Protection Act" is a "misinterpretation". What you don't get is that we don't write from an editorial POV, we write from the POV of the sources and we attribute those views to the sources. This fact seems to keep eluding you, hence your continuing problem dealing with what you perceive as "conspiracy", "pseudooscience" and "fringe" theories. We are not dealing with editorial opinions, we are dealing with the opinions of the sources. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have avoided making contribs specifically to avoid having an edit war, which has been your default response to any contrib that you disagee with. I was initially going to follow the "be bold" directive, but after reading the page's edit history I decided to take it to talk. Your claim that the entire purpose of my account is to attack editors is completely false - you may notice from my contribs that I agree with other editors on the page and have attempted to discuss issues with the page, which was made rather difficult from your appearance and subsequent personal attacks and attempt at pushing fringe claims. The definition of reliable source is not yours to write Viritidas. You've been attempting to justify your fringe views with fringe sources. I merely pointed how said sources were pseudoscience/fringe. My responses were detailed because I felt that including detail and citing sources would help explain the issue in detail - unlike your responses, most of which consisted of blatant abuse of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and outright denialism of my sources. Claiming that a COI had been acted upon is what I was calling a conspiracy - this is exactly what that claim was implying. The economic losses indeed lack evidence, as was proven by OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto and the subsequent appeals. Your "reliable" sources on HR 933 were biased and did not provide a NPOV, and you explicitly attempted to exclude reputable sources such as NPR on the grounds that they were not providing the biased narrative used by a certain article. You have repeatably reverted changes made by other editors in order to ensure that the article is littered with opinion pieces and devoid of NPOV in as many sections as possible. Firemylasers (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

According to you, all sources that criticize Monsanto or represent the POV of the protesters and their march (the actual subject of the article in question!!) are "biased" and are full of "pseudoscience", "fringe", and "conspiracies". Such is the extent of your conversational skills. It sounds to me like you really need to read up on WP:NPOV before doing any editing. Again, we do not write from the POV of editors, we write from the POV of the sources. You keep confusing the two. It's really funny that you keep accusing me of POV pushing when all I am doing is representing the sources about the subject. On the other hand, you keep arguing that we cannot use this or that reliable source because you know as an editor it is "fringe", "conspiratorial", "pseudoscientific", or "lacks evidence". But that's not how we use sources. In fact, we use sources entirely independently of what editors believe or think about them. Whether you think sources are "biased" about HR 933 or not is irrelevant. We represent their significant views. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the aggression in this comment. (Viriditas has been using POV sources) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no "aggression" in my comment at all, and all sources are POV. You appear to share the same confusion as Firemylasers. All sources have a POV. Our job as editors is to best represent that POV using the framework of our policies and guidelines. This means using reliable sources. And when we are dealing with a topic about the March Against Monsanto, it is important to best use sources about the subject to avoid OR. We don't use sources about other subjects that have nothing to do with the topic we are writing about (which several editors, including the OP keep doing). I hope that makes sense. When we write about the March Against Monsanto, we use sources about the March Against Monsanto. Those sources will inevitably contain a POV that an editor disagrees with. Our job then becomes one of figuring out how to best represent that POV based "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". It's actually very simple, but some editors bring so much baggage to the job, they begin to engage in a dispute about the content rather than describing what the sources say about the dispute. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As an initial disclaimer, I should mention I have had interactions with Viritidas before and I've never thought much of the way they interact with other editors and explain their POV. But I have to agree that some of Viritidas's accusations seem careless at best. For example, Viritidas accuses 'they' of trying to get the article deleted.

But looking at the linked AFD, of those who nominated to delete, we have the nominator who later agreed after the article was improved to keep it (although still felt the AFD was justified). RMcC remains involved in the article talk page but otherwise is an experienced editored with a wide range of interests, and in fact that's the only involvement a related area I noticed [30].

We have User:Matticusmadness who's comment may have been a little quirky but seems to have had little or no involvement in the subject area, instead involved in other things particular video game related article and they do sometimes participate in the AFD process [31] and has edited as an IP before again with no evidence of involvement in the topic area ignoring vandalism apparently from others using the IP.

We have User:Jytdog who does have a fair amount of involvement in this area but also other areas related to the health, medical and biological sciences, particularly from what I can see in opposition to fringe and pseudoscience and poorly sources claims; and other related areas like IP law and economics. They are a somewhat experienced editor including regular deleting spam like stuff.

Finally we have User:IRWolfie- who also has a fair amount of involvement in the area but also other science related areas particularly it looks like, fringe science and pseudoscience areas [32] as well as other stuff, for example, tech (IT) related areas and is also a fairly experienced editor.

There is one more editor who was initially a weak delete, later changed to a weak keep who I'm not mentioning. Meanwhile there was apparent external canvassing from someone with little involvement with wikipedia in favour of the 'keep'. While the 'keep' seems to stand regardless of the canvassing, it points even more to the suggestion there was any conspiracy involved in the AFD being unfounded considering the evidence shows none of the editors suggesting delete being SPAs or having any evidence of a COI.

While this doesn't preclude some of the editors named by Viritidas above as problematic SPAs and who's editing is worthy of analysis, it does demonstrate the problem when Viriditas accuses anyone who disagrees with them or undertakes edits they disagree with as being potential Monsanto shills, without even considering the editor's history and experience, and raises the likely negative effect this will have on any discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I don't mind you mentioning me. I've had little-to-no involvement in the topic area in question but spend plenty of time at AFD. I was particularly put out by the suggestion that I was somehow a Monsanto "agent" trying to "censor" debate through standard WP processes and said so. It was a rediculous suggestion and one made by both SPA IPs and experienced editors alike, which was disappointing. I would feel the same if those sorts of things were still being thrown around on the talk page. Stalwart111 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I note those accusations continue even here, above - "They tried to get the article deleted and they failed". Lumping experienced and uninvolved editors in with silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about pro-Monsanto "agents". We - those who initially supported the deletion of an article about an event that clearly failed WP:EVENT - are not part of some giant pro-GMO conspiracy. We are editors who tried to uphold policy in the face of hysterical and emotional personal attacks at that AFD from (ironically) clearly anti-Monsanto SPAs. Stalwart111 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever discussing you here, nor did I participate in the AFD. But, I am curious now. How do you maintain that this failed WP:EVENT when we have reliable sources saying just the opposite, commenting on its impact, its influence, and its lasting legacy? This is what irks me the most. I think the sources are at odds with your personal opinion, and we write articles (and determine their notability) from the sources, not from personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You discussed me when you referred to the "they" who supported deleting the article, as I initially did. And I don't "maintain" that view - that's my point. As I said above - initially. The original article was a horrible mess started only days after the event with basically only social media for sources. As the AFD continued, coverage increased and some of that substantiated a potential legacy. Thus my changed !vote (and the nom's). Despite our obvious willingness to be convinced (would a "Monsanto agent" be so willing?), we were still accused of trying to "censor" the subject organisation. Be glad you didn't participate - it was pretty disgraceful behaviour - but don't make the mistake of jumping on the bandwagon now. Stalwart111 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor I've been watching the discussion and edits for a only short period, but find the statements made by Viriditas to reflect pertinent aspects of the situation from a balanced perspective with respect to policy covering content. With respect to the SPA comments, looking at the this Special:Contributions/Firemylasers would seem to support that observation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but no, Viriditas's believes currently marketed GM food is dangerous etc, and has been pushing this viewpoint. That is completely out of line with the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's strange, since I have never said that anywhere. What I have said, is that the protesters believe that, and I have explored virtually every aspect of their argument since editors have been disputing every source about the subject. I have analyzed their claims in the sources and I've traced them back to the published evidence and studies, showing where their beliefs come from and how they started. In any case, let's test your claim. You said I believe that currently marketed GM food is dangerous and I've been pushing this viewpoint. Could you provide a single diff to the article showing this? No, you cannot, because all I have done is best represent our reliable sources. On the other hand, the OP and others keep adding off-topic sources to this article that have nothing to do with the march. That's called OR. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas's edits are very much in favor of his expressed POV (and the anti-scientific claim) that there is no scientific consensus on GM food and that they are unsafe. It's in basic violation of multiple policies and guidelines. He may be right on Firemylasers, he may be wrong, but Viriditas has a history of crusading against users he believes are socks beyond what the evidence suggests. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to refute you, Thargor. Here you go: [33][34][35][36][37] Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Viriditas has been aggressively pushing his points of view about this topic. He was even doing it on his userpage during his last block. I suggest uninvolved editors and admins have a look through some of his comments to see the sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever, IRWolfie- (talk)

• On the contrary, you will not find a single diff or contribution showing that I have "minimized the mainstream position" at all. Here are my contributions for you to look at. Please provide the diff that shows me pushing a POV. The diffs will actually show that I have repeatedly promoted the mainstream position, and I am responsible for adding the vast majority of pro-GMO POV content to the article itself using sources about the march. The problem is that some editors don't understand writing for the enemy and have come to this article with a POV warrior chip on their shoulder intending to do battle with other editors and to add off-topic sources to push a singular POV that has nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. Oh, and btw, here is a link to your contributions. What do we find? Well, your very first edit was to violate NPOV, by removing an Associated Press story that reflected the mainstream coverage of the event where "organizers said that two million people marched" around the world, and replacing it with content that misrepresented a single source noting that "an estimated 200,000 marched worldwide".[38] Should we look at more of your contributions, IRWolfie-? I suspect we will find more egregious violations. Another example of "he who smelt it, dealt it" at work. I mean, you got a lot of nerve complaining about me, IRWolfie-, when your very first edit is a NPOV violation. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The associated press story used the numbers reported by the organisers, The newspaper I included gives an actually decent estimate rather than swallowing whats reported wholesale by the organisers. That churnalists credously repeat the claim doesn't make it true, or reliably sourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wake up to find notification of this in my E-Mail inbox? Well it's nice to know an issue I've been involved in is at ANI for it's third time etcetera. I only touched on the AFD because I was trying to better my AFD Record, didn't think I'd end up being part of an ANI Discussion! Anyway, as already established unless I read over the article all I could tell you about the subject is that it's a match that took place in Monsato. IP, yes, I have, but if you check its logs first of all it's a SHAREDIPEDU registered to my (at the time) school, one or two of its edits were me clearing up mess others have made on it generally. I dunno what else to say really, I'll cast my eyes over things if you need the extra head? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with IRWolfie on this one. And using terms which are noted as "being used by critics" as though they were the proper Wikilinks violated NPOV even here. In this case, Viriditas is quite "at fault" and his rejection of science and NPOV here as an editor is not helping him. We use what the reliable sources state (yes - including the anti-GM sources, properly attributed - I would not dream of being unbalanced in any article), but extensive side excursions attacking other editors without providing clear evidence of violations of Wikipedia policies is a violation of Wikipedia policy in itself. Viriditas - you are beating a very dead horse at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If we decide it is true, or simply probable, that Monsanto's PR team is manipulating Wikipedia articles, our problem is much bigger than perceived rudeness. Collect, I really appreciate you, but I'm surprised to see you describe Viriditas as "rejecting science". What do you mean by that? groupuscule (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, Collect, where have I rejected science anywhere? Where have I rejected NPOV? Where did I make these edits and to which article? I suggest that we won't be getting any actual diffs anytime soon. Oh, and Collect? What are you talking about? Can I get the little bouncy ball thingy, cause I'm just not following you. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ask IRWolfie that (He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever) - it appears that you have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view on certain products which have undergone rigorous scientific examination. Perhaps I ought to have said "dislikes the scientific consensus on GM foods"? Collect (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What an unusual response! Am I talking to you or IRWolfie through you? (Could you ask him to pass the salt?) In any case, do these diffs support your claim that I have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view?[39][40][41][42][43] Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We are posting on a noticeboard -- no need for nice personalized commentary. [44] shows you removing "scientific consensus" and changing it to "many scientists" and then adding Some people are concerned, reports the Associated Press, about whether "genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment". Due to these concerns, some consumers, companies, and organizations have advocated for mandatory labeling laws. The Biotechnology Industry Organization supports voluntary labeling but opposes mandatory labeling laws because it believes it would "mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe. I suggest this is reducing a sourced claim about scientific consensus and adding material quite specifically implying that the foods may not actually be safe. And removing a slew of reliable sources at the same time. Perhaps you did not intend it that way? Could the "consensus" be wrong? Yeah. Does that mean we reject and remove the reliable sources making that claim? Nope. Do we seek NPOV with all sides correctly presented? Yep. But removing the claim entirely is not how to do it. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

Your interpretation of the diff is in error. The sources about the march in that section said nothing about any "scientific consensus" regarding "food on the market derived from GM crops" and the fact that their "risk poses no greater risk than conventional food". I removed that statement as it had nothing to do with the subject of the march and was sourced to references that had nothing to do with the topic which the WP:NOR policy explicitly prohibits. On the other hand, the Associated Press news article about the March reported "The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe", which is exactly what was added—directly from a reliable secondary source about the subject. We only use sources about the subject. Editors don't get to pick and choose which sources they like to see in the article about other subjects. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In an usual move, I fully agree with Collect, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you both support violating WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Per NOR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Per FRINGE: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." That's very clear and easy to understand. So then, one wonders why you both encourage others to violate it? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As per the opening statement, seeking clarification; I am an independent, volunteer WIkipedia editor - as per my user page I work at a university and I work on WIkipedia for fun and because I think it is a good thing to do - it serves the public good. I do not work for Monsanto or any PR firm. I have no sock puppets. With respect to the March Against Monsanto article - I actually stopped watching and working on it because I find it too unpleasant to edit with Viriditas - his/her discussion style on Talk is generally (not always) too uncivil for me (which I have found sadly ironic since at the top of his/her Talk page, one finds a quote: "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law".) I have wondered if Viriditas was going to get him/herself in trouble for going too far with negatively commenting on other editors. Sorry it came to this. Viriditas - please stop focusing on other editors and please don't bring your battlefield style even here (as per your comments above). Please take this thread - which is not about the MaM article, but is rather about your behavior on Talk - as a wake-up call to try harder to meet the high ideals of your quote in your daily editing work; in Wikipedia terms, to meet the high ideals of the 4th pillar. More particularly, if you had focused your comments on content, not contributors, this thread would not even exist. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought you left because you were tired of blanket reverting my edits.[45] You can imagine that kind of behavior doesn't exactly encourage a civil response. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm. bummer. Please take this as an opportunity to hear the community. Please be more civil and focus your comments on content not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation but if you feel strongly about the SPA shouldn't you open an SPI over at AIV? That would get the checkuser run and either confirm or deny anything you can draw conclusions to. Just saying because multiple editors can have very similar writing styles, thought they tend not to be identical. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've actually tried very hard to ignore the little guy. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved tangential comment: I would be surprised if Monsanto is not working to influence our coverage of their business domain. I think Monsanto and GMO is an area where we should be very careful to use only high quality sources - the kind that is neither funded by the pro or anti lobby. Viriditas is right that all sources have a POV - but not all sources can be considered reliable sources of information about facts. We should prioritize academic treatments of this field because the scientific dialogue is the only dialogue that we can depend on to be influenced by facts and to be striving towards uncovering the actual risks and benefits of GMOs and the business models of Monsanto. Partisan sources should be given little priority.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that it's true on both sides. I think there's a lot of influence to get specific types of biased sources into the encyclopedia, and I think the March article has enough editors on both sides trying to keep good sourcing in. The issue is more the bad faith and the bad science (even if its from generally good sources). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The scientific consensus is that currently marketed GMOs are safe, yet Viriditas acknowledges he is pushing for claims of dubious safety (or that he would, at this point he was still blocked at the time) in the March Against Monsanto article at [46]. It is this insertion of fringe claims without the mainstream position that is at issue. Viriditas's commentary is that of the supporters ("Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false", "Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. ", etc etc), and is not supported by the evidence (it's more like Seralini's position which was utterly discredited). As in all such monologues from Viriditas, it eventually comes down to a conspiracy about Monsanto. I suggest people read through some of his dialogues during his blocks (ironically one of his blocks was for making unsubstantiated allegations), it is most illuminating. Reading through his comments you see the aggressiveness and the same false allegations appearing in one way or the other. I asked Viriditas to stop calling people shills, he said he would, but he has continued. If I recall, Viriditas believes the statements by the March Against Monsanto people are in fact representative of the mainstream position about safety ("Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination."), IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • it seems that as far as the content aspect is concerned that you and some others have raised concerns about how the general issue of GMOs is addressed in this article about a protest movement whose existence is premised on raising public awareness about the potential dangers of GMOs. I would have to agree with Viriditas that much of that material is off topic and should be linked to the article on GMOs. This article is not directly about the science related to GMOs, but indirectly about the science related to GMOs through the related stances adopted by the March Against Monsanto that is the subject of the article; that is to say the topic upon which Wikipedia is supposed to be providing an informative article to the reading public.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a argument that can reasonably be made, and some people, such as yourself, have made this argument in a reasonable manner. I don't entirely agree with this, and think that there should be a brief mention of the mainstream view in the article, but this is something we can discuss like adults and come to a consensus or compromise on. However, it's never appropriate for any user on either side of the debate to personally attack, insult, and accuse of paid editing anyone everyone who disagrees with them. That's the concern here. a13ean (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is that fringe theories must be addressed wherever they occur. This is not to say that the March page must be littered with fact checks on every line, but the opposition to including scientific evidence to combat fringe claims (most importantly regarding the scientific consensus on GMO safety) is the problem. We even have sources that link the consensus to the March, which was also removed by the same person who thinks ALEC is bankrolling me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• While reading through this discussion I began to get a knot in my stomach, and I realized that it was reminding me of several discussions at meetings that I have had in the real world in which I tried to speak against planned actions being supported by skilled PR people and management experts. In each case I was unable to get my point across because such a person was so good at turning the discussion into an extremely polite attack on me that my point about the topic of the meeting was ignored rather than refuted. I have nothing to say about Monsanto myself, and have never interacted with Viriditas, but I ask you not to dismiss his/her concerns simply because he/she is not very diplomatic. Even if every allegation made here against him/her is true, this is not a reason to assume that the concerns he/she brought forward are unfounded and should not be looked into. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but you are missing the point. Uncivil behavior destroys Wikipedia. There are means within Wikipedia to deal with concerns about COI/sock - V's way of addressing concerns - by making harsh accusations in Talk - is the wrong way. The 4th pillar (a pillar, mind you!) exists so that even when editors disagree about content, Wikipedia remains a decent community to work within. And that is why there are specific means to address concerns about socks/COI - so they can looked at and dealt with carefully, intentionally, respectfully, and as per policy and guidelines. If this is not clear to you please revisit WP:CIVILITY and WP:No_Personal_Attacks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes truth and honesty are favored over sticky-sweet speak. I've seen talk pages completely derailed whilst editors remained incredibly polite. We are adults with limited time trying to write an informative encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 17:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Petrarachan. You are the other editor at Wikipedia that I have left pages on account of; your comments continually express a misunderstanding of WP:CIVILITY, as they do here. The 4th pillar has nothing to do with your opinion of other editors (positive or negative), nor with "sticky sweetness". Truth & honesty on the one hand, and civility on the other, are not mutually exclusive. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia; it is not optional. I hope you come to understand civility and its importance one day. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I need no thanks. Your response is a case in point: though couched in politeness, your comments are ascerbic and condescending. I too have left the entire GMO issue alone, save for my efforts at MAM, because of my inability to deal with you (and the others who regularly work on GMO articles). And it's not because you aren't polite. I will say, you are the only editor on wiki to ever accuse me of being difficult to work with, that I can recall. I will also add that it was whilst trying to save this article from the trash bin that I was taken to the 3RR noticeboard (link sheds more light on the origins of this article and related editing problems) in an attempt to have me banned - the only time on wiki I have ever been taken to any noticeboard. The charges were trumped up, and the case failed. My behaviour is no different on this article than any other i work on, nor is it different towards you, jtydog, yet the reactions to my editing and behaviour when I work on anything GMO related, are wildly out of alignment. I also experienced my first complaints on my talk page whilst building this article - a slew of them from a whole team of editors. After over two years, all of the sudden people are outraged by my behaviour? I have to think the problem does not lie with me, but maybe a POV problem surrounding the GMO issue. petrarchan47tc 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I have now been taken to a noticeboard for my second time, again related to work on this article. There is a suggestion that I may need to take a break from working on it, although I haven't worked on the article in about a month, until yesterday. petrarchan47tc 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you got into trouble, Petrarchan. You wrote above that my comments are "couched in politeness, but are acerbic and condescending." One of the huge limitations in Wiki is that this is all written-word and it is hard to convey tone and very easy to read tone into things. I re-read what I wrote and found nothing explicitly acerbic or condescending, and I would be interested to see what you found to be explicitly so. I can imagine you reading what i wrote, and imagining it was written with acerbic intent - and applying such intent while reading can indeed make it or any text very ugly (even "I love you" can be said nastily). But I didn't write it acerbicly - that was not my intention. I actually wrote it sadly. (if you would, re-read with that tone in your mind) Civility is hard. "Couching in politeness" is certainly part of it and is not to be discounted. It is much more. I try to be civil always, and I fail sometimes. Anyway, I wanted to respond, but we are way way off track of the ANI. I would be happy to try to work through this with you, on your page or mine. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil is nice, but honesty is better by far. I've heard you state numerous times that you were saddened by editors' behaviour (I'm including our work together at BP). This has always struck me as problematic. This place should not make us emotional on that level, and if it is a repeated phenomenon, the best thing is to walk away from Wikipedia until a level of detachment arises. A less passionate editor is always better, in my observations. petrarchan47tc 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil is not "nice". It is the fifth pillar of wikipedia. You have not acknowledged that. It is no wonder you don't see why it makes me sad when people ignore it. Blowing off any of the pillars destroys the foundations of wikipedia. For this one, Wikipedia wants a vibrant community of editors with differing opinions, working together to create great content. This is a lovely ideal, but it is hard. Treating people in an uncivil manner - especially people with whom you disagree - frustrates the ideal. (it is easy to treat people with whom you agree in a civil manner, right? The pillar exists because people disagree, intensely, all the time.) Groupuscule, SlimVirgin, Arc de ciel - all three of these editors "get it". They are unfailing, beautifully, civil. Others, including me, struggle. Some ignore it altogether.Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What you were edit warring in there was "In the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This statement you were edit warring is a fringe claim which is against the scientific consensus. Just because you quote someone else as saying it doesn't mean it's suddenly acceptable. You can't insinuate something is dangerous in an article when the most reliable scientific sources disagree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the history of these "edit wars" where I quoted from a Guardian article, saying that the protesters believed GMOs were dangerous to their health.. (I've copied my recent remarks from the MAM talk page.):

I see a heck of a lot of policing, but little to no content creation related to the March Against Monsanto. What I have seen is a lot of trying to keep the article from being written, or stories spun about how all problems lie with two editors and their bickering. I do hope Admins come around, and thoroughly look through the archives. They will see exactly what type of content has been aggressively added and what has been removed, all with a very specific pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO POV, and wildly outside the bounds of this article's subject matter. It began for me here, and more pro-biotech was added here. I had to continually remove the Monsanto propaganda ( and again), but I was told over and over, by a variety of editors in numerous ways, "You can't put in the protest claims without pointing out that they are not supported scientifically" and we cannot allow fringe POVs to go unchecked in this article, and it was re-added again and again because "We cannot allow fringe viewpoints to go unchecked". One time, IRWolfie swept through and erased most of my work. We weren't allowed to say "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" because, according to A13ean, the source material from Truthout mentioned Séralini, who found that GM corn created large tumors in rats, and who according to this group of editors, was discredited. And here's when another SPI rolled through to "eliminate soapboxing". Then there was the time IRWolfie declared the entire article Fringe Theory. And of course, the various efforts to change the number of protesters from 2 million to "between 200,000 to 2 million" based on one local NY newspaper article written while the protest was still ongoing, which Jtydog started here... and which ended up ensconced in Wikipedia at the Monsanto article and the Genetically modified food article, as well as this one... meaning these editors support the use of this one reference to change the truth that was reported by literally every other media, and to this day, which is that the protest was attended by 2 million protesters (no "range" is ever mentioned, only on Wiki). "2 million" is the uncontested turnout number as for as RS is concerned, but we are not allowed to state that on Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An article is required to not advance a fringe theory, per WP:FRINGE. Pointing at studies and saying they "found that GM corn created large tumors in rats", when the same study have been completely discredited is part of the problem here. You are creating the idea that their views are well supported when they are not. You made a large amount of changes to an article in a short period, and I reverted it highlighting issues. You should be then discussing the issue per WP:BRD, but instead one of your friends re-inserted the material. That you think a statement from the worlds largest scientific organisation etc is Monsanto propaganda is quite frankly ridiculous, and that you were edit warring to remove this is in violation of discretionary sanctions in this area. Uninvolved editors and admins should reflect on how much of a conspiracy theory that is; we have people here claiming that position statements from the AAAS are Monsanto Propaganda. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has created the idea that their views are well supported. What we have done is use reliable sources about the subject to best represent the topic. The statements from the AAS and other articles you keep adding have nothing to do with the subject of this article and actually violate our policy on original research and our very guideline on fringe theories. We can only use reliable sources directly related to the topic of the article that directly support the material under discussion. You can't use them out of context, and you can't synthesize prose in order to debunk ideas that the scientific community considers fringe. I suggest you actually read WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly propaganda in this context. I'm unsure who my friends are, are what they tried to add, but I will speak for myself if you don't mind. I never tried to add or mention Seralni or any science whatsoever. The quotation i sought to add was rejected simply because Seralini was mentioned in the referenced article. petrarchan47tc 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"You made a large amount of changes to the article in a short period of time", aka, as Robert states below, "At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep". I did that work. And you were the one who requested it. In the deletion discussion your complaint was that the article needed to be expanded. I took my cue directly from your comment. No one helped me at the time, many complained about the article at the deletion discussion, but didn't make efforts to improve it (which is somewhat the case to this day). I was alone because Viriditas was blocked for 3RR during his early attempts to improve the page. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Much heat, but little light

Well, at least my post here got some responses! Unfortunately, it seems to be a dialog between users on one "side", who talk in principle about how bad PR manipulation of our content potentially could be, and those on the other "side", who deny that they are doing anything other than editing for what they believe to be NPOV.

It seems to me that, for an administrators' noticeboard, I'm seeing awfully little input from administrators here.

Allow me to make a modest proposal:

1. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:SOCK, please report it at WP:SPI.
2. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:COI, please report it at WP:COIN.
3. If you believe that we do not have an adequate policy for dealing with edits by PR accounts, please start a discussion about how to improve our procedures.
4. But if you are not willing to do any of those three things, then please stop making accusations.
5. Anyone who is unwilling to do any of the above, and continues to make accusations, should get attention from administrators, because throwing around accusations without being willing to back them up is just using WP:NPA violations to try to get the upper hand in a POV dispute.
6. I would like to see some administrators make sure that the above is actually being adhered to.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That is good advice also for non-administrators, and I agree with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. a13ean (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thirded, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also agree - this would improve things immensely. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. OK, here is what is going to come next. I'm going to put a very conspicuous link to this part of the discussion here, on the article talk page. Then I'm going to watch the article talk page very carefully for any editor who goes against number 4 in the above list. If I see that happen from now going forward, I'm going to open a thread here on ANI about the editor(s) in question, specifically and by name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Link: Talk:March Against Monsanto#Notice about accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment About AFD and other matters

As was mentioned, I originally nominated the article for deletion. That happened after an unregistered editor (IP address) came to the Help Desk and complained that he or she had spent several hours formatting a table listing the cities in which the protests took place, only to have it deleted from the article without discussion. The unregistered editor whined that the deleting editor must have owned stock in Monsanto. That was the first accusation of conflict of interest in editing this article. Unfortunately, not much has changed in a few months. At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep. (When I said that my nomination had been justified, I meant that the article when I nominated it was not worth keeping, but that it was worth keeping after the work done on it.) The article has been contentious since then, with continued failure to assume good faith. As Tryptofish says, if you have evidence of bad faith or bad behavior, report it, but only if you have evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All this based on an IP accusing an Admin of having a COI? Did that request actually have any 'proof' ground to stand on? Call it a lack of 'WP:IPs are human too' if you must but I really think that the cause of his may actually have held no reason to escalate. (And no I haven't read the whole discussion.) MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All this is not based on the originator of the article. Robert is saying his deletion nomination was based on that one incident. Attempts are being made to tie the present situation to the problems with the IP, but unfortunately the archives may need to be reviewed for the true story. petrarchan47tc 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from relatively uninvolved Jusdafax

I have never edited the MAM article I believe, but I look in now and again and have ventured a Talk page comment or two, to the general effect that Viriditas raises some questions about the article that should be considered carefully by the community. Viriditas has made a lot of sense to me over the years on other topics. While I have worked with Tryptofish in the past, like him, and am puzzled by the seeming conflict he has with Viriditas, I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages. In my view, this ongoing conflict is a time-sink for a cautious editor or admin, and ANI is unlikely to solve what is basically a content dispute. The next step is either a well-advertised Rfc which will be interesting to word, or dispute resolution. Since the parties at odds appear intractable, that DR attempt probably means a subsequent trip to ArbCom, the final Wikipedia court of appeal. Perhaps that should be contemplated now, rather than waste months of time and then go there. Jusdafax 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am further than this than Jusdafax. I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content. At a quick look a main issue seems to be the undue tagged media section. I assume it is there because of the claim that the media was told by Monsanto to play down the issue and we sourced it. I think this is very due in the article. If we don't include it without the tag then we could be just as guilty as the media. I agree that this should go to ArbCom quickly and be dealt with as it is a recent event. Btw, I live in Canada and don't care if they GMO my food or label it as such. I just want it to be cheap, nutritious, and taste ok. Soylent Green would be fine with me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content." ... "I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages" ... This illuminates the situation excellently. People have forgotten to WP:AGF in this area, and jumped to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them must be doing so at the behest of a big evil corporation. Please, let's take this to ArbCom. Any sort of rational discourse falls by the wayside when people can't even imagine for a second that those on the other side of the conflict are just doing their best to keep a neutral article, and accurately represent scientific consensus. a13ean (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a wildly inappropriate action. Hopefully administrators step in on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, please let me suggest doing the "thought experiment" of temporarily "forgetting" that you know either Viriditas or me. Pretend that we are both editors whom you have never come across before, and look at what we each have said on the article talk page, and evaluate what you see in that fashion. Myself, I became aware of the page in a rather odd way: I saw on my watchlist that an RfC that I hadn't noticed previously has been removed after a month from the RfC page by the bot, and I thought that the page about the March sounded interesting, and I started watching it then. What I have seen, just looking at it with whatever eyes I brought to it, was rather different than what Canoe1967 describes here. I saw a couple of editors who varied in how articulate and clueful they are, who appeared to be arguing in good faith for what seemed to me to be reasonable NPOV, and Viriditas and maybe a few others responding to them with spectacular suspicion and confrontation. I then tried to offer what I though were some middle-ground suggestions. The allegedly pro-Monsanto editors responded in ways that weren't always clueful, but which mostly seemed to me to be good faith and with willingness to compromise. Viriditas has consistently responded to me by insulting me and refusing to credit any good faith, or even basic intelligence, to anything I have said. It's really quite shocking, some of the nastiest stuff directed at me during my entire Wiki-career, and I've had a lot of experiences with some real characters. At the same time, I think that the possibility of POV-pushing by persons who are secretly working for someone, in this case Monsanto, is something that is intolerable, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Like some others above, I expect that this issue will eventually find its way to ArbCom, and I'm seriously considering making myself the filing editor. But doing that at this step would be premature. That's just the way things are. I want the administrative issues that I've raised here to be given a chance. If they fail, there should probably be an RfC/U. And if that reaches no conclusion, then, ArbCom here we come. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the POV. The article is about the protest. It should be the POV of the protest. I think others are trying to shove too much of the Monsanto POV into it. That balance should be in the Monsanto article. We don't include Judaism in Christian articles just to balance the POV. If the protestors call Monsanto a 'big evil corporation' that goes in the protest article and in the Monsanto article they can claim the protest is 'a brain dead fringe group full of quacks' if they wish and if they can source it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you should make that argument at the article talk page, not here (and be prepared to explain how that would not be WP:POVFORK). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted. It is an article on a protest. It should stress the POV of the protest. The Monsanto article would stress their POV of the protest. We have Abortion debate with NPOV but we also have Anti-abortion movements and Abortion-rights movements which each have their POVs stressed. Any NPOV in the protest article should be balanced in Genetically modified food controversies but the protest article itself should stress the POV of the protest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the issue at the article. No one is opposed to the article being about the protest, that's sensible. The conflict comes from the anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy, the coatracking of other GM debates within the article based on thin association to the march, and a more minor sub-conflict about the media issue. That's it. To frame this as anyone trying to make the article into something other than that is simply wrong. You may have been told that when you were canvassed over the phone to rescue the article, but if you came to the talk page of the article, you might know these things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no "anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy" and there is no "coatracking", and there never has been. You've been making these ridiculous claims over and over and over again in an attempt to hold the article WP:HOSTAGE to your POV by removing anything that criticizes Monsanto or presents the views of the protesters as stated directly in reliable sources. More recently, Alexbrn noticed that the article didn't actually contain any of these fringe POV, so he took it upon himself to add it to the article to prove your point![47] So your newest tactic is not to concede you were wrong, but to actively turn this article into exactly what you are criticizing it for doing! I'm sorry, but that's very dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself at this point. That you still haven't chosen to retract your attacks on your fellow editors should say a lot. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If the article is about a protest based on wing-nut anti-science then the article should mention their claims about wing-nut anti-science. We don't censor articles on other fringe theories and exclude their theories so we shouldn't with this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but it was properly summarized per policy as "concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health", but now its been turned into "the belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing "cancer, infertility and birth defects", which takes the concerns about food safty and turns into into an unscientific "belief" that GMOs can "cause" these things. The problem is, the sources never said that. What's going on here is that Thargor, Alexbrn, and others are purposefully trying to turn this article into the very things they are criticizing in order to substantiate their initial criticism, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the claims about cancer, etc. are what the movement itself claims AND what it is reported as claiming in a reliable source, therefore is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to contain this material. We must not editorially sanitize the view of the protestors as this has the non-neutral effect of making their views appear less fringe than they verifiably are. This is Wikpedia 101. Your counter-arguments that draw on implications this is part of a plan by editors who are working in league, as well as being insulting, is just a tremendous waste of time for everyone involved, as this whole noticeboard discussion sadly shows. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to write this article off as another one that forces offwiki editor views onto yet another failed article. You should all take your personal POVs and go create blogs with them somewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for this crap. If I had my way I would topic ban the whole lot of you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the rotten apple/throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. I would settle for editors simply adhering to the most basic policies and guidelines and using sources about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If anyone was trying to censor the anti-science viewpoints from the article, I'd stand with you in opposition. The only desire is to ensure that the worst of the claims get the proper scientific context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." Got it yet, Thargor? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article is about a mainstream idea though. It involves a protest based on fringe theories as well as democratic change. Read a protest sign and then try to tell us they are not stating fringe theories.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been arguing that they've been stating fringe theories from the start. That's what got me labeled an "ALEC-funded" shill and got you involved in the first place. The mainstream idea, in this case, is protesting big corporate entities. The fringe theories not broadly supported by scholarship are their claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am cofused by what you mean. Is the protest partially supported by fringe theories not backed by mainstream science? If so, then all of those fringe theories should be mentioned in a protest article about the fringe theories they are based on. We could also create GMO fringe theories since it seems they are notable and widely covered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That would simply be a POV fork of the controversies article, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the controversy though. It is about the protest and the protest was not controversial. If the protest is based on fringe theories that are controversial then that controversy should not coatrack this article about a protest. We could move this article to a section of GMO fringe theories and thus include both sides in more detail. It just seems to me that editors want to slam the protest article as much as they can with other science material that this protest wasn't based on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue you're missing is that our guidelines insist that fringe theories be combated where they appear. If we present the fringe theories of the protesters without noting the consensus viewpoint, the article is out of balance and not in line with Wikipedia policies. No one is asking for point/counterpoint on each issue, simply on the issue of GM safety that we have a clear scientific consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you either didn't read Wikipedia:Fringe theories or are selecting material from it and paraphrasing it. I don't know why I continue to discuss an article that is doomed to be a mess. Editors are trying to coatrack it with both sides of the controversy which belongs in other articles. I still think you should all be topic banned for trying to force your personal POVs into Wikipedia articles. Go edit Pokémon for a while.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from alleged paid editor or sockpuppet SpectraValor

My work-derived income comes 100% from public funding of my research, and I have never studied genetically modified corn or any of the other products the March protests. I have never received money from Monsanto or any other GMO producer. I was never asked to edit this article. Several of my colleagues and employees and family members edit Wikipedia, and it is likely that I have at some point edited some of the same articles as them but I have never to my knowledge coordinated edits with anyone. I have never been paid to make an edit. I have never made an edit as the result of an off-Wiki request. These accusations made against me are disturbing and false. With the proper guarantees of confidentiality, I would be willing to share my standard financial disclosure form with Wales or another Wikipedia official. The question of paid editors is important, but I am not one. I came to the article because I had recently developed an intellectual interest in the science and social implications of GMOs, nothing more.

I will not edit this article again, and I regret my poor judgment in staying involved for several weeks. To those with the time and energy to stick with it, please remember that just as important as ensuring paid editors follow Wikipedia policy is ensuring anti-corporation editors and anti-paid-editor activists also follow Wikipedia policy. SpectraValor (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to stop editing the page if you want to continue editing it. (And there is no reason for you to keep editing it if it is giving you aggravation.) I have observed that these accusations have been made against you at the article talk page, and I have observed that you denied the accusations there. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion above, this comment: [48] seems to be a lot of the reason for the accusation, and it's worth evaluating for whether it's really evidence, or just seeing a coincidence when none exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am a graduate student in physics and recently a part time scientific consultant (I have never edited any page related to my only paying customer or their industry). I have never received money from Monsanto, or any agriculture related business or NGO -- the same goes for every member of my family and my in-laws. I have never edited wikipedia under any other account, and you can see from my edit history I have no more interest in GMO safety than I have in several other subjects. I will gladly prove my real life identity to any administrator with whom I have worked productively in the past, including those who I disagree with on various subjects. I'll even send you a picture of me in my (100% organic) garden, if it get's people to stop the knee-jerk assumptions that everyone who disagrees with them is a "corporate shill". The behavior on this subject has gotten way out of hand. a13ean (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I walked away from the article some time ago. I'm not paid to edit; I'm not a shill; but I'm tired of being treated as one. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Some time ago, in the interests of transparency, I took the trouble to make pretty much everything about me discoverable from my User Page (TL;DR - no Monsanto connection whatsover). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Question for Viriditas

Viriditas: above, someone asked you why you did not pursue an SPI or other specific complaint procedure: [49]. At that time, this was your reply: [50] (lower part of the diff).

Setting aside how you would know how large or small the other user is, I can fully appreciate the value of not escalating things. However, given that you have chosen to continue to assert that there may be SOCK or COI violations going on, and given how important it is to control any paid POV pushing on-Wiki, why would you not ask for such an investigation, and would you be willing to request such investigations now? Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Focus and wrap-up please?

As (too often) happens in Wikipedia, this conversation has gotten completely derailed. Can everybody please get back on topic, rather than heatedly discussing things that belong on the Talk page of the relevant article? The point of this ANI is Viriditas' behavior, namely, "some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations." I think that the discussion has laid the accusations to rest and has also made it clear that the manner in which they were repeatedly made was inappropriate. Several participants (including me) have said that we stopped working on the article because it is too hostile there. So what about V's behavior? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You've left out a few observations from the discussion, namely, that regardless of Viriditas' possible lack of diplomacy, some issues he raised are seen as worthy of further consideration. It was suggested that the possibly of an effort by Monsanto to influence March Against Monsanto and other related pages here is not outside the realm of possibilities. Also, one editor mentioned that this is essentially a content dispute which may need to wind up at ArbCom, and a few called for this to happen sooner rather than later. Why not allow this thing to play out, as I doubt that Admins have had sufficient time to fully look into the records? Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. Covering up an open sore often ends with infection. petrarchan47tc 23:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Petrarchan47 (which may come as a surprise to them!). I'm in favor of focus, but it's premature to wrap-up. But what I would say is that it is long past time to stop discussing content here (as opposed to at the page) and long past time to stop discussing theoretical concepts of what might or might not be going on, on Wikipedia. The issue here is user conduct. The conduct of the accusers, and (simply by logical extension) the conduct of the accused. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you forgot to mention the issue is also whether we need pro-GMO science at the protest article, how policy regarding fringe affects our article, and whether there is some weird teamwork taking place at this and GMO articles on wiki that happens to coincide with Monsanto's interests. petrarchan47tc 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm back to not agreeing. But that comment certainly is an interesting example of conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan if you want to open a separate ANI on the issues you state, please do so, but please do not take the focus away from the issue raised by the OP.Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And Tryptofish I don't agree - even if it turns out that V was correct that there are socks and COI going on, the way he/she has handled those concerns has been inappropriate. Additionally no serious evidence or even arguments have been made here that there is anything to those concerns. And this is not the forum for addressing those concerns, in any case.Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, it may actually be that I agree with you more than might be apparent. My desire here, as I said, is to focus on editor conduct, because, after all, this is ANI, not the article talkpage or some kind of chatroom. At this point, we are accumulating a long list of editors who are, in apparent good faith, disavowing any connection to Monsanto (reminding me a bit of "I am not now, and never have been, a member of..."). I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm not yet seeing any clear evidence of shill-like editing. POV disagreements, yes, but not organized. On the other side, I'm seeing what you seem to see, which are a lot of serious accusations. I just took a look at Viriditas' user contributions, and he seems to have made about 45 edits since I left a notification on his talk page about my question to him above. I will continue to keep an open mind until my question above gets answered, but I believe that an answer is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your demand that I answer your "questions" sounds exactly like the HUAC hearing inquisitors who demanded that people answer their questions to prove that they weren't communists. I can only assume from your misstep that you are not American and are therefore not familiar with its history. In any case, I have not edited the article in question since you started this thread. Imagine my surprise to find you and the rest of the cast of characters carrying on even more than before, edit warring and continuing to wage ideological battles. You came here to discuss editorial conduct? That's funny, you haven't addressed it at all. I may be your whipping boy, but in my absence, the same dispute is continuing stronger than ever, indicating that your so-called conduct issues have nothing to do with me. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

V, if you look at what people are saying here, your uncivil behavior has driven several editors off the page. I have asked you in Talk to tone it down, more than once. You are not getting it and now it has come to this - an ANI. Please, please try to be more civil. I know you care about the article a lot, but you need to recognize that others do too, and treat other editors with more civility....Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, a couple of things (as obvious as they may be to uninvolved observers). Actually, I am in the US, and quite familiar with US history, not that it really matters in this instance. By the scare quotes that you put around "questions", it seems that you think that my questions were in some way out of line; I will leave that, again, to uninvolved observers to assess. I didn't demand that you answer, but I requested it. You have now made it clear that you do not intend to answer. That is your right, but anyone else following this discussion has the right to draw their own conclusions about it. As soon as I wrote those questions here, I left a notification on your talk page, and anyone can see it, so you need not be surprised by the existence of the questions. As for your surprise about what has gone on at the article during this time, you are factually incorrect in saying that I have been edit warring or carrying on ideological battles. If you believe otherwise, you are free to raise those concerns at the appropriate noticeboards, although it appears from your non-answer that you are disinclined to do so. As for anyone else's behavior there, the conduct issues that I raised here at ANI are principally two things: (1) paid POV-pushing, and (2) accusations of paid POV-pushing made without sufficient evidence. As far as I can tell, during the time after this ANI thread began, there is precious little evidence of (1), and the accusations, (2), appear to have stopped. It's true that there is a POV dispute with or without you, but that is not the same thing. And I have better things to do than to make you or anyone else my "whipping boy".

OK, now I am satisfied that it is indeed time to wrap-up this ANI thread. We know what Viriditas thinks. I don't think that there is anything more to discuss here, although I invite uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on the page and its talk page. I also invite any editors who would like to discuss the next steps in resolving this dispute to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

So three ANI reports has stemmed down to one user being told they need to be more civil? Either or this looks done/good to close to me. Hopefully this won't come up again. But hey what's life's regular course of action with drama causing incidents? My point exactly. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. It was more than just that. I have been banned from editing March Against Monsanto for a week. I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received. Since then I created Taco Bell GMO recall which I tried to include in Genetically modified food controversies at first. My addition was notable and sourced but one reason for the reversion was 'article too big already'. I then created it as a stand alone. Since then it was re-directed to yet a fourth article, Taco Bell, which I reverted. I expect the next step will be an Afd attempt. I still don't care about the GMO POVs that some editors claim exist but I do care about how it effects Wikipedia. Put these articles on your watchlists to see if any further antics arise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:AfricaTanz refusing to engage in talk page discussions while engaging in edit warring

User:AfricaTanz is refusing to engage in any talk page discussions at LGBT rights in Jamaica while engaging in systematic edit warring including reverting of edits. When I talk to him on his user page I get abuse. This is not the first time he has been reported for this behaviour. Can an admin please take a look. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You should still have notified AfricaTanz of this discussion. I've now left them a notice. On the other hand, you too are actively edit warring at this article. As to the use of quotations [51], there is no problem with using larger chunks of quoted text, but "the copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information (WP:QUOTE)." The current article though relies heavily on verbatim quoted text, and this should in fact be remedied. De728631 (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to notify AfricaTanz as soon as I had filed this report but was unable to due to a power cut (we dont all of us live in developed countries) and by the time I was able to get online again the next day he had already been informed by somebody else, ie you, De728631, and given his previous reverting of my comments on his talk page I decided there was thus no need for me to also tell him. The problem is AfricaTanz engages in edit wars while refusing to engage in discussion. Do we want to encourage this kind of behaviour in editors? Note that as usual he doesnt contribute here either but is still reverting multiple editors on the said article. Its impossible to remedy the quotes issue as AfricaTanz will simply revert without discussing, and its his refusal to discuss and his verbal abuse when I tried to on his talk page which are the reasons I have made a report here. I also fear that an editor who engages in religious hatred by calling Rastas bigots is not in a position to write neutrally about a real life conflict between Rastas and LGBT people. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All I know is that I tried to delink a few entries and was instantly reverted by AfricaTanz, ok, that happens. I have now taken it to the talk page, but I am about 5 sections down in the discussion behind user SqueakBox's request to discuss his issues. I know my edits are very small potatoes, but lets see what happens. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to block this user to prevent further disruption. I delinked, per WP:overlink, an article that was linked 5 times in a row. I guess we will see if that gets reverted. If so, please help. --Malerooster (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, the article seems to be stable, but I've added a cleanup tag because of the overuse of quotations inside the article text. I recommend either paraphrasing some of the quoted law and press articles, or moving them to a footnotes section. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also faced with problems with User:AfricaTanz in the article List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars. I added official figures for England and several French regions, with sources, but the guy reverted everything claiming he could not find data! You can see it here: [52]. I see he has also reverted other editors who had added data for Mexican and Brazilian regions. Can an admin have a discussion with AfricaTanz? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've left them a message about it. As to the French source, I can actually see though where AfricaTanz was coming from because you can easily miss the fact that this document consists of several Excel sheets, and the first one does not contain any such data. Anyhow, I hope that this was just a misunderstanding on their side. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bagworm engaging in grave-dancing/harassment

Hey, Hijiri88/Konjakupoet here. As some of you may know, I was run off Wikipedia by a disruptive user who contacted my office and started incessantly hounding me on- and off-wiki between January and April. (If you want details please e-mail my original account.) I came back under a different name in April but when another user (now also blocked) reported on me the off-wiki harassment continued.

I have since been editing intermittently on various short-term accounts and IPs, not so much to "get revenge" or right old wrongs, but just when I was reading Wikipedia and noticed a mistake somewhere. I have no interest in returning to actively editing Wikipedia under a stable account at least as long as that user is (probably) still watching.

However, I have noticed something disturbing since leaving. User:Bagworm has been "grave-dancing", apparently having found that I had retired and would be unable to defend my old edits. He had been disputing content and/or edit-warring with me a few times between September and December of last year. It got to the point where he attempted to unilaterally ban me from editing poetry articles,[53][54] probably so he could undo all my previous edits to these articles. (No specific evidence that this was his intention, but when I posted this on my user page, it took him only seven hours to remove a "citation needed" tag I had added to one such article, based on the flimsy excuse that his other primary sources were adequate.)

After Bagworm realized he wouldn't be able to get rid of me (in all of our disputes I was the one with the better sources, and I was always ready to patiently discuss on the talk page, even if he wasn't), he apparently retired from Wikipedia, not making a single edit for almost four months.[55][56] About 30 minutes after coming back, Bagworm undid an edit I had made under my second acocunt.[57][58] I had removed a questionable citation of an online poetry mag (when he retired, we still had not reached any kind of consensus as to whether these were acceptable citations). I had not added any citation needed tag, since the statement is one of the most easily verifiable in all of Japanese literary scholarship, and could be checked in any good book on the subject. It therefore seemed inappropriate to include a link to an online American poetry magazine with little general relation to the topic of the article (waka and haiku are different genres).

Evidence of harassment is provided below. I tried to be VERY thorough so the post is LONG.

NOTE: The following is a LONG explanation of Bagworm's grave-dancing. I hope not to be ignored based on TLDR, so I'm separating the specific details (with all the diffs) by asterisks for those interested. * * He also undid several edits I had made months earlier to the article Haiga, which is about a Japanese style of painting ("hai-ga" means "haiku picture" or "picture in a haiku style", or some such[59]), but Bagworm and one other user (who has since been indefinitely TBANned from Japanese literature) were insisting that haiga is any picture that is combined with a haiku. [60][61] [62][63][64] [65][66] Ironically this edit summary seems to imply that English-language refs are inherently superior to non-English refs, even Japanese refs when writing about a Japanese topic, which is a gross misunderstanding of WP:NONENG. But this edit added a German-language ref to an article on Japanese painting. And given that this was added directly in response to my asking for a reference, it would have been nice if he stuck with ones in languages I can understand. At the article Haikai, I had removed a number of other not-necessarily-reliable online poetry mags. Meaning no insult to Associate Professor Crowley, who seems like she knows what she's talking about, it just seemed very odd to me to be quoting an website that mainly deals in modern American poetry for the dictionary definitions of Classical Japanese words, especially when we already cited a reference to a book by the exact same author, through a reputable academic publisher. This is why I stated in my edit summary "unnecessary [...] used when other, valid sources were already in use". In my opinion if we are going to add a second reference, it should be to one that is better than Crowley's book (a Japanese dictionary used by native scholars, and probably also by Crowley herself, for instance), not an online English-language poetry magazine. This did not stop Bagworm from undoing me, though. [67][68] The redirecting of tinywords was a potentially controversial issue, and one that if I were still active on Wikipedia I probably would have been ready to compromise on if challenged and if presented with reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. But in this case the redirect was not challenged for almost three months, and when it was it was done by an obvious COI user whose username indicates that he is the owner of the website in question.[69] The only other users who opposed the redirect were Bagworm, in yet more gravedancing and with an ad hominem remark about how I am "sarcastic" (given how much bull I had to put up with from Bagworm and other users like him, can you blame me for being suspicious of articles like that?). [70][71] When I reverted this gravedancing under my cellphone's IP, as no reasonable evidence had been advanced to justify the reversion of a redirect that had been stable for three months, he reverted again.[72] I was reverted again by the COI user.[73] I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about "edit-warring" or "sockpuppetry": BRD obviously applies, and the three-month old redirect, when BOLDly removed and then REVERTed, should have been DISCUSSed on the talk page before being reverted back. Further, Bagworm knew perfectly well why I was using a shifting IP, as when he first attempted to OUT me under one of my temporary accounts I had e-mailed him explaining the circumstances and the danger of his trying to connect my new account with my old one. Further, more than one admin had told me by e-mail or by reverting outing attempts on this and other forums that it was okay under my circumstances to keep maximum anonymity. Anyway, regardless of which side was "right" in the ensuing edit-war (I'll apply that terminology if no one tries to shift the blame inappropriately onto me -- the incident took place because Bagworm was engaged in a grave-dancing campaign to begin with). Also, obvious meat-puppetry was taking place, as before long a third user showed up completely out of the blue to revert me again, this time a Romania-based IP (who I can't contact off-wiki to give the complete explanation of why I was editing under IPs) and as their first edit decided to revert me with the aggressive edit summary "Revert repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor". It seems obvious that either the COI user or Bagworm contacted a friend of theirs off-wiki in order to help in the reversion campaign. And this Romanian IP has in fact continued to seize as many opportunities as possible to harass me and attempt to out me, even going so far as to hijack an ANI thread in an apparent attempt to use a clear-cut POV/source-abusing/edit-warring issue as an excuse to out the good guy who reported it.[74][75][76][77][78] The Romanian IP has since registered as User:Someone not using his real name. My edit to the Senryū article was another in the series of removals of questionable online poetry mags, and Bagworm's reversion was another in his series of grave-dancing personal attacks. [79][80] Other users can disagree with me on the substance (the issue was, as noted above, never resolved), but no one can argue that reverting a bunch of my edits after I was hounded off Wikipedia isn't slimy at best. The Renku reversion is another.[81][82] Again, saying absolutely nothing about Professor Horton's credentials or reliability, I just don't think that we should include information that has only ever appeared in an online poetry mag published by an accountant and someone whose professional bio doesn't mention any qualifications in Japanese language, literature or history, and if it has appeared in more trustworthy sources, then we should be citing those instead. He has become more aggressive recently, constantly reverting my IP on the article Waka (poetry) and insisting (bizarrely) that there was "consensus" at Talk:Haiku#Simply Haiku and Frogpond as sources? that the defunct online poetry mag Simply Haiku is a reliable source, completely ignoring my argument that a modern American haiku magazine is not an appropriate reference for an article on classical Japanese waka. In fact, the only user other than me who posted on the talk page section in question was Icuc2, who agreed that online poetry mags were inferior to books and academic journals, and only need be used when better sources are not available. In this case, another, better source was already in use, a fact which I pointed out several times.[83][84][85] Bagworm, however, has reverted my removal of the inappropriate link some four times.[86][87][88][89] He also keeps trying to change the subject, by insisting that the author of the piece is a renowned Japanologist, even though my problem is that the we shouldn't be including links to haiku magazines in articles on waka unless there is some necessity to do so. * *

I have mentioned a few times in this post that I have been engaging in "sock-puppetry". It needs to be noted that I have never cast more than one !vote or anything of that ilk, and have only been doing this to protect myself from the off-wiki harassment of a certain user. I know, given the circumstances, that this may be a little difficult to accept, so I'm taking the liberty of contacting a few users (Lukeno94, Cuchullain, Yunshui, In ictu oculi and Drmies) who are more familiar with the background of why I retired initially than most Wikipedians, and can verify my claims regarding "sockpuppetry". I am also, of course, contacting Bagworm, Dtweney and Someone not using his real name to allow them to explain themselves if they so choose.

What I request from the Wikipedia community is a TBAN on Bagworm from "Japanese literature", broadly construed, similar to the one that was placed on his co-edit-warrior Tristan noir for similarly slimy actions.[90] This may seem somewhat extreme, but the user has done little for JLit articles, as far as I can see, other than remove verifiable information under the flimsy excuse that a "citation needed" tag had been on it for a certain length of time, add questionable sources to statements that either don't need them or need good sources, and edit-war with me/dance on my grave. The one or two semi-decent articles he started in this area don't stack up against the contributions I made and he is preventing me from continuing to make. (I already provided evidence of Bagworm's practice of removing information under flimsy excuses here.)

Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR. Care to give the short version? — Richard BB 12:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TL:DR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Insulam Simia (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't y'all go to real schools where they make you read real books? Or did you use TLDNR in class as well? Drmies (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I take it you're too old for SparkNotes? GiantSnowman 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Abridged version: I am a secondary account of a user who was forced off Wikipedia by a very disturbed user. After my main account retired, another user (Bagworm) started reverting a large number of my edits that he had failed to undo while I was still active. The user's disruptive edits are all in the area of Japanese literature, an area to which he has not contributed anything of note in at least a year. I would therefore like a TBAN imposed. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

the link you provided is for a banned user...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The harassment was, as I recall, one of the reasons he got banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That user is banned, but the user who is currently harassing me (aided by the already-banned user's sockpuppets) is still at large. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I reject the paranoid accusations of conspiracy leveled at me by the latest incarnation of Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian and his other "alternate accounts"/sockpuppets in the collapsed section above. I simply told him that if he wants the tinywords article deleted, he needs to follow procedure and take it to AfD, instead of edit warring with multiple IP socks. See the talk page there where he failed to participate, while edit warring from IPs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not here to argue with you. You've made decent contributions since then, and I have no serious beef with you. I merely brought you up to provide a fuller context to what was obviously part of a larger harassment campaign by Bagworm. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this discussion where I asked admin User:DGG to open the AfD, but he did not think it appropriate. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Coldman/Jubei the Samurai/Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/182.249.241.* wants me TBanned because some of my edits have run contrary to his? Cos that's all the above seems to me to add up to. Pinch me, someone. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a pretty huge chunk of your edits, and it's likely well over-half of your Japanese literature edits since you came back in April. And going around misrepresenting talk page discussions in order to revert the edits of another user who you just don't like is extremely disruptive. You have misrepresented the discussion between Konjakupoet and Icuc2 as forming some kind of "consensus" in favour of Simply Haiku, regardless of context, numerous times.[91][92][93][94] You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like, and not provide any valid justification. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like". Please don't pretend you have some special insight into what motivates another editor; your wholly subjective assertions do not count for anything. Yes, some of my edits have been to text you previously edited. So what? Remember what it says at the top of every edit window at WP?: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Just because you edited articles in an area in which I've long been active doesn't give you OWNership. Please get real here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As for hounding, it is Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian/Eh doesn't afraid of anyone who followed me to a UAA report, trying to prevent one of his POV pushing Japanese nationalist wikially and spammer from being rightfully blocked [95] Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you followed me to ANI first, solely in order to make a completely off-topic attack against me. And I already said I have nothing against you. What's the deal? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait -- Japanese nationalist wikispammer allies!? Do you know anything about my edit history?? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not follow you to ANI. I participate on ANI regularly. Do note that I supported the topic ban on the Korean POV pusher you reported to ANI. Do you participate in UAA regularly, "dude"? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've been referenced here, and I'm going to make my comment. There is no question that JoshuSasori hounded Hijiri88, and that they continued to do so a long time after they were community banned. Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits. As to the exact topic dispute, I can't profess to have any knowledge whatsoever about who is right; this is most certainly not my area of expertise. I don't know much about the Romanian IP/"Someone not using his real name" part of the debate. I will say this, with regards to the Waka (poetry) edit referenced here (about the reference, ironically) - why the hell are people edit warring over whether to have one or two references for this? One should be sufficient, unless the other one is needed to try and further prove notability of the topic (which isn't an issue here) or the statement is controversial (which I'm assuming this isn't; again, I lack knowledge on this area, so feel free to correct me.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input, Lukeno94. However, your sweeping assertion, "Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits." appears to show a complete lack of AGF. "revert them because of who made the edits" - that is deeply offensive and absolutely groundless, and I would urge you to offer supporting evidence or withdraw the offensive remark. I most certainly do not stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have no personal quarrel with Hijiri, and only in the last day or so did I become aware that the IP edit-warring at Talk:Waka (poetry) was actually him. If you're looking for real evidence of harassment, it can easily be found: Hjiri/Jubei/124 has in the last two days twice removed my posts to Talk:Waka (poetry), here and here He seems to be confused and is claiming that I edited his comments, which I certainly did not. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No, you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me. I accidentally posted an unfinished comment while logged in to an account that I was keeping separate primarily to avoid accidentally outing an unrelated user. My phone is not the ideal way to edit Wikipedia, but thanks to JoshuSasori it's the only way I can do so without either setting up another named account for him to harass, or giving away my home IP. None of this was a justification for you to constantly revert my tweaking my own comment. I had no way of reverting your editing of my comment without also deleting your reply (again, phone), but I made it clear that you could restore your comment if you wished. Your continuing to claim that you have a right to revert my finishing my own comment is essentially claiming that it's OK for you to edit my comments, but not for me to edit my own.

Plus, your assertion that Luke is violating AGF is made without evidence. I provided probably too much evidence that you were harassing me, and you have yet to provide any evidence at all that this is not what you were doing. Can you explain why almost all of your Japanese literature edits since April (or last November?) are direct reverts of edits I made? Can you explain why you consistently avoid directly addressing my arguments, and instead focus on straw-man issues like whether such-and-such author knows what (s)he's talking about? It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits, and you think that since the account that made all those edits between 2005 and 2013 is now permanently retired you will be able to get away with it. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me" - How could that possibly be "obvious"? Though the IP's behaviour was reminiscent of yours, I had no way of knowing Jubei was you until you owned up. That's yet another irrelevance anyway, since I'm not questioning your motives in using multiple accounts here. What I do know is that you are the one repeatedly deleting my Talk posts in direct contravention of WP:TALKNO, and whatever technical straws you clutch at doesn't alter that. You keep making the accusation that I edited your posts. Please show a diff or withdraw this false accusation.

"It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits. No it is not "obvious" because it is simply not true. Please desist from making such purely subjective non-AGF assertions. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to game the system by sticking to the letter of TALKNO and ignoring the actual purpose of the guideline. "I am only able to edit from my phone, and I can't copy or paste" is a good enough reason to blank-revert when someone else edits my comment. Slyly sticking in a separate comment in the same edit as altering my comment is your fault, not mine. I told you you were free to re-add your own comment, but I asked you several times to stop altering my comment. You refused until you were left with no other choice, and even then continued to insist that I was "repeatedly removing" your comments.

I have given the evidence that you are taking flimsy excuses to undo my edits ("I have a source in English that I am choosing to interpret as contradicting what Hijiri's source says" is another glaring example). Please address this evidence directly or admit that you have been hounding me. Your friend Tristan noir tried a similar strategy to your current one ("I don't need to explain my actions because of AGF") back in January, and he wound up getting TBANned. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is my asserting the broader definition of haiga by Haruo Shirane, Shincho Professor at Columbia University, probably the top scholar in Japanese literature in the U.S. at this time, a "flimsy excuse"? It is becoming increasingly clear that you've raised this ANI because my edits impinge on your sense of WP:OWNership of these articles which I've been editing since long before you took an interest in them. Not because of harassment (because there isn't any), not because of grave-dancing (as pointed out by DrMies, there isn't any). What a waste of administrators' (and my) time. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking a quote from a well-known scholar out of context, in order to make it appear that this scholar supports your POV when they clearly do not is a flimsy excuse. This has already been pointed out. You failed to respond, but your above comment indicates that you clearly still think you were in the right in reverting my edits. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not true. What you have evidenced is simply a disagreement between us over the interpretation of a respected scholar's statements. That is nothing more than a content dispute, and your bringing it up here clearly supports my contention that your only motive for this ANI is a sense of impingement on your wp:OWNership of articles which I've been editing much longer than than you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not about different interpretations. You misrepresented the citation, and then when I pointed out to you that Shirane clearly doesn't mean what you want him to you ignored me. Clearly you want Shirane to agree with your online poetry mags, when in fact he agrees with the actual definition of the Japanese word as given in Japanese dictionaries. I.e., he agrees with me. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

i.e. a content dispute: a waste of admins' time. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Let's just cut to the chase here: nominate the article for AfD instead of this proxy war by trying to determine who "hounded" who in an obvious content dispute. Bagworm is a fan and editor of Japanese-style literature in American venues. It's pretty transparent that Hijiri88 & co. have been campaigning to delete such articles. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Bagworm first edited that article in 2008 [96]. When did the many accounts of Hijiri88 edit it first? The earliest I could find was 2013 [97], but it's possible he used another account name before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read the comment you are replying to. This thread is not about tinywords, and I already specified that that's a sidenote here. The article Lukeno is commenting on is Waka (poetry) -- an article I created. I never said Bagworm "followed" me to the tinywords article, merely that he only reverted me for the same reason he reverted all those other edits -- he could. Now can we please get back on topic? This thread is not and never has been about tinywords in particular. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a bulk, specious complaint from yourself claiming you are being hounded by a conspiracy of editors, among which you have named me. I have never edited Waka (poetry). So why did you choose to name me in your complaint then and allege I conspired with others if it's all about waka now? Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment: "gravedancing" implies you're dead. You're clearly not dead, so technically there can be no gravedancing. And typically we take that to mean things like making fun of a "dead" editor on their talk page, etc. Edit-warring (if that's what it is) with a retired account the editor of which is still active is not the same as gravedancing, and it's not necessarily harassment. Correct me if I'm wrong: we're really talking about possible WP:HOUNDING, no? I noted one more thing in clicking through the diffs: Hijiri's opponents have a knack (and, historically, have had a knack) for using minor publications and webzines, to the point of promotion. That tinywords article is one of them--but that's by the by.

  I don't have all the time and attention in the world right now, but I'll get back to this. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • DrMies, the only other contributor to suggest hounding is Lukeno94 (without a shred of evidence), and I have roundly provided evidence to the contrary above. What is your motivation in persisting with this groundless accusation? I most certainly do not stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. So, if I'm not grave-dancing, and not hounding, what exactly are we doing here? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, where did I accuse you of anything? Will you care to actually read what I wrote (I didn't think it was too long to read), or are you just going to open your spout and vent baselessly? (Hint: note the word "possibly".) Drmies (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, DrMies. I struckthrough the offending text yesterday, but just saw your note now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. Just because I'm a bit of an asshole doesn't mean I always act like one. :) Drmies (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My experience is gravedancing on wikipedia is much more commonly taken to mean harassing or continuing to comment on, make fun of or try to shine a spotlight on an editor who is indef blocked or banned, or even simply temporarily blocked where it serves no useful purpose. Sometimes also a topic banned editor in relation to their topic ban. It may also apply to a retired editor in some cases. A key point is generally whether or not the actions are perceived to serve any useful purpose as when they are not, continueing to pursue the issue which has already gone against the editor on some way, is seen as pointless and harmful when the editor is either unable or justifiably has no reason to respond. See for example Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing or do a search for grave dancing on the ANs archives. While it' s true this isn't quiet the same as gravedancing is generally defined and used elsewhere outside wikipedia processes, and it's true doing the same for a dead editor is likely to be also seen as a different very serious form of grave dancing, the other use is not something that comes up very often. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, please see this thread for the reason why my main account is no longer able to defend its edits. Bagworm has known about this since at least early May, when I e-mailed him. He has, however, persisted in undoing a significant number of my edits that he disagreed with, and when I try to revert on my phone, he dismisses me as some kind of IP-hopping vandal. He has not provided any valid arguments for his removals, because he apparently thinks he can get away with it now that my original account is retired. I considered this to be "grave-dancing", but I'm happy to use "hounding" instead. (If you want to know why I can't just set up another account or go back to my original one, I would be happy to e-mail you. Revealing it here would be self-outing.) Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly have not been hounding Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. Neither have I been grave-dancing even by Nil Einne's definition, since (as pointed out by DrMies) Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman is manifestly still active on the general topic. So please, someone tell me, what are we doing here, apart from wasting each others' time? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• So the fact that your first edit in four months was a revert on something Hijiri wrote is pure coincidence? Hmm. And I'm the King of Turkmenistan. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • What are you even talking about? My first edit in 4 months (April 2013) was this one to Bruce Ross where AFAIK none of Hijiri/Coldman's sockpuppets have ever edited. I then made 5 edits, all clearly constructive, to Haiku in languages other than Japanese, where Hijiri was the last previous editor. Did I make any attempt to revert his efforts there? No, because they were constructive and helpful. What does it take for you to get that I am not interested in reverting his work for the hell of it? Please check your facts in future before making baseless allegations, and note that your WP:SARCASM is entirely inappropriate to this discussion. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • You made a few small edits to that and one other article and then went straight ahead to undo one of my edits that had already been discussed, with my POV coming out on top. As far as I can see, almost all of your edits that were not reversions of me were not in the area of Japanese literature. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted one of your edits. So what? The rationale was clear, as I pointed out at the time. Obviously we interpreted the discussion at the Haiku talk page differently. Is this really what you're wasting admins' time with? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Allow me further note, as a rebuttal of the spurious claim of hounding/harassment/personal vendetta, that I have had substantial, productive interaction with Coldman's sock, Sarumaru the Poet, as recently as mid-June at Sarumino (which I created), as evidenced by the article edit history and Talk:Sarumino. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • One semi-good edit should not be used as an excuse for you to go around reverting all of my edits that you disagree with. I have made probably ten times as many good edits in this area as you, and we both no the reason for that: I am fluent in Japanese and have a serious academic qualification in this area, while you ... do not. When you disagreed with me and I was still active under one account, consensus was on my side in every single one of our debates, and the reason for that is that I always had a better case than you in consideration of Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. However, since my main account retired, you have been going around undoing several edits I made, apparently based on the assumption that I would be unable to revert you (or that I wasn't still watching those pages.) Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is simply untrue. If repeating untruths louder and louder is the way to get your point across here, perhaps I have something to learn from you. But sorry, that's not my MO. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note, this is neither here nor there (well, it's actually both here and there), but I nominated tinywords for deletion. This as a kind of disclaimer, maybe, for whoever needs one. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content dispute as it's not an admin matter, but it's obviously complicated by the banned user's continued harassment of Hijiri88. The harasser finds him with every new start he tries to make, precluding his ability to edit normally. That's not going away until Wikipedia finds a way to deal with it and Hijiri can return to normal editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I'm sure you're right, but can we please be careful to keep a clear distinction between the subject of this ANI (i.e. me Bagworm) and the entirely unconnected "harasser" you mention above. Sorry to be pernickity, but the entire above is so long that I'd forgive an admin or other editor for getting the characters a little confused. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just had my entire recent post deleted by DrMies here with not even an edit summary. Perhaps a word of explanation for what looks like a rather high-handed approach? If it's because I've broken some protocol, then I apologise for my ignorance. Nevertheless, it should surely not be too much to expect an explanation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's an edit conflict, Bagworm, and I apologize. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks, DrMies. I'm relieved to hear that, and sorry for doubting you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The TLDR version of this is that the latest incident on waka is simply a content dispute between Coldman and Bagworm, involving some edit-warring. Do note that Coldman's and his other accounts & IPs are not new to intemperate edit warring with other editors [98] besides those mentioned in this thread as part of the alleged conspiracy. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

By "TLDR", do you mean "Too Lazy to Do the Reading"? Because if you had even glanced at the current waka dispute you would know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with content (neither of us have even proposed changing the wording of the article), and is rooted in Bagworm trying to add spurious links back to the article, apparently solely because I removed them previously. Additionally, Bagworm's history of making problematic edits in this area, as I hinted in the final paragraph of my first post here, goes back to 2008. He has been hounding me across numerous articles since last October, and has become especially blatant since April. If you like, I could upload images of my email outbox to prove that I wrote the first draft of this ANI case two months ago, and that that draft barely mentioned the waka article (or the Romanian IP, for that matter)? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If his edits are problematic across a range of articles, then you should start a RfC/U. Running to ANI with wild conspiracy theories in which you saw fit to include myself (although I have had no contact with you since you followed me to UAA on June 11) does not help your case. As far as I can tell, you were both edit warring on waka (you using IPs). I have no idea who is right in that dispute from a content perspective. From a purely behavioral perspective, you are both at fault, you a little more because what you have done can be considered WP:SOCKING. There was an editor who was recently blocked indefinitely for doing little more than edit-warring once while logged out. You have used multiple accounts to participate in several disputes, while not being exactly strainghforward about their relationship, so I have opened a SPI on you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Full response to SNUHRN. There be whales here. Don't uncollapse unless you want a heavy, and almost entirely off-topic, reading project.

As an aside, I will address the fact that you have now accused me of "following you" to UAA twice. The fact is that you first followed me to ANI, apparently with the intention of hijacking a discussion I was involved in in order to attack me. You had never posted to ANI before. Your first nine edits on ANI looked like [99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]. Not long thereafter, I commented on you UAA post here. I may have "followed you" there, but not until you started haranguing me on ANI, and I only gave my genuine opinion of the username in question (I don't think "Koreation" is an ethnic slur, so much as a general problem on numerous Wikipedia articles related to East Asian history). I did not make a personal attack against you. You made two more comments on ANI, both personal attacks against me.[108][109] Your first posting on ANI that was not to a thread I had started was nine hours later.[110] So your assertion that you "didn't follow me here" because you were a "regular contributor to ANI" is spurious at best. And you still have not explained why your first edit on Wikipedia was to undo an edit I had made 23 hours earlier with an edit summary that accused me of "repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor".[111] This is a very strange first edit for anyone to make, and reeks of meat-puppetry. I don't have a problem with the majority of your edits since then, so I don't intend to pursue this further, as long as you stop accusing me of "conspiracy theories", "following you", "edit-warring" and so on. And regarding your above accusation of edit-warring: I discussed the issue with Icuc2, and the latter user agreed that Simply Haiku should not be cited as long as better sources are available;[112] Bagworm reverted my edit based on the spurious claim that what had actually happened was that Icuc2 had forced me to come to a consensus that Simply Haiku is an awesome source and should always be used as much as possible;[113] Bagworm never offered a single piece of evidence or valid argument in favour of his addition, other than this problematic claim of Icucian authority, and in fact doubled down insisting that Icuc2 had not said that Simply Haiku should not be used when better sources are available;[114] I pointed this out to him by saying "Icuc2 agreed that scholarly sources (read: academic books and journals, not poetry mags) were preferable, but were not readily available for haiku. He/she may or may not have been right about haiku specifically, but in this case that argument clearly doesn't apply";[115] instead of responding to this rationally, Bagworm repeatedly defended JoshuSasori's re-factoring of my comment.[116][117][118] Therefore, the link should have remained out of the article until he provided some decent argument. He was edit-warring, while I was trying to get him to discuss it on the talk page. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC) And I gave you my genuine impression of your editing of Wikipedia. I have edited Wikipedia as early as 2007, by the way [119]. You enjoy your anonymity, and I enjoy mine. You're not the only person on the planet who changed his IP address. I have had no off-wiki contacts with either Bagworm, User:Dtweney nor with any other regular editor of Japanese literature articles. You probably forgot however that there was no shortage of ANI and COI/N reports surrounding these articles around May-June, which is how I found the tinywords article, where you were trying to circumvent the normal deletion procedure by a edit-warring a redirect, despite objections on the talk page. I have no horse in this race except upholding Wikipedia standards. And if you look at the tinywords AfD, you can see that Bagworm actually voted to delete that article now, even though he had reverted your redirect in past. Assuming a bit more good faith instead of jumping to conspiracy theories would go along way in improving how others perceive you. I'm glad you didn't accuse User:Joe Schmedley of being a meat puppet because of [120]. There's is hope for you yet. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Tell me: since JoshuSasori outed me, what anonymity have I "enjoyed"? I have told you numerous times that this ANI is not about you, but you seem to keep trying to defend Bagworm's reprehensible behaviour solely as revenge for me bringing you up. I don't know what ANI and COI/N reports there were in the area of Japanese literature around May/June -- one would think I would have been involved, but I don't have any recollection of such. You may be upholding Wikipedia standards, but you have been clearly engaging in disruptive editing in this area by assuming that I am in the wrong and Bagworm is in the right, solely because I am unable to use my original account. Now that ArbCom has weighed in and made a definitive statement that I was not consciously engaged in disruptive behaviour and that this thread should be let run so Bagworm's harassment can be dealt with, can you please stop assuming bad faith on my part? I will leave Wikipedia after this is dealt with, and until that point I will only edit under this account. The sooner this matter is dealt with, the sooner you can be rid of me. Why would I want Bagworm TBANned if I plan on leaving anyway? Because he has not added anything noteworthy in at least the last year, instead engaging me in edit wars and constantly undoing my edits. My edits were all good, and even if I am leaving Wikipedia I don't want to see them undone by some disruptive user who, if I didn't have bigger fish to fry, would have been taken to ANI last year. I have never been blocked for disruptive behaviour, while Bagworm's long-time collaborator has been blocked and TBANned for the very behaviour Bagworm was helping him with. Bagworm's making one gesture of good faith on the AfD (which I saw earlier, by the way) does not mean his "contributions" in this area outweigh his constantly hounding me. Also, I should point out to you that, while ArbCom has agreed that none of my socks deserve blocks for disruptive editing or simply being socks, and that I was already forgiven for trying to protect myself via said socks, Bagworm has been actively engaging in sockpuppetry in order to hide his own COI/advertising, and to hide the fact that he was following my edits even while he was not active on Wikipedia. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I guess my ANI memory is better than yours [121]. I may have been a little off with the dates (April vs May), but at least I remembered seeing something. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like this is being handled privately by ArbCom [122], so I suggest closing this thread as redundant and a potential troll magnet (the tinywords AfD was already trolled). If Hijiri88 is serious about avoiding harassment from a certain banned editor, he should stop putting up these mega-threads where he accuses anyone who disagreed with him on something of being a meat puppet. And he can't be at the same time "retired" (thus complaining of "gravedacning") while he continues editing the same articles on topics which are so incredibly niche (e.g. waka) that they enable his instant identification. See advice at WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, he can't use "gravedacning", "harassement" and "meat puppetry" as trump cards whenever he has a content dispute with a non-banned editor in the same areas in which has previously edited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• In his latest content dispute, Coldman appears disingenuous [123] in his [mis]interpretation of what User:Icuc2 actually said in the linked talk page [124]; Icuc2 did not reject using English sources, or that source (Simply Haiku) in particular. Icuc2 actually told Konjakupoet (another account of Coldman) that "Simply Haiku was also a refereed journal and rather popular in the field while it lasted. I wouldn't make any claims that all of the material in these journals is top-notch, but they do represent the more or less official views of the field, and I believe the citations were being used for that purpose (i.e. not to establish some obscure scholarly point that might need a more high-powered academic source). If you pull out these types of citations, I'm not sure there's much left at a higher level. So I think the standard you are applying here (and in some of your earlier Renga edits, is, if not unattainable, at least unrealistic. If you do have better sources, by all means put them in, but finding sources is a difficult and time consuming process, and no one here is getting paid to do it. It's not helpful to pull out functional references just because you think there ought to be a better source somewhere, particularly when content has been written in the first place based on a particular source that you are removing. In short, I'd much appreciate a reference crusade focused on adding new, better sources rather than removing sources that don't meet an unrealistic standard." Besides WP:NONENG encourages using English language sources whenever possible. This is clearly a content dispute that should be handled via WP:3O or RfC, not by playing the victim card at ANI or misrepresenting other people's words. I don't see why that citation had to be pulled when it's more easily accessible than the 1986 book (which in this case is also in English). The whole dispute looks like making a mountain from a molehill just to have a reason to drag someone to ANI. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have now made suggestions for improving the referencing on the article's talk page. The current references for that paragraph don't really verify the material as written. I suggest we continue this discussion on the article's talk in a more constructive fashion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I might point out that User:Coldman the Barbarian appears to me to be at best skirting the line of WP:POLEMIC now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No polemic. I was told by ArbCom that I needed to stop editing under shifting named accounts. But I was specifically told that my activities were NOT disruptive, that I had OBVIOUSLY not been using these accounts to evade the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community, and that this ANI thread would stay open to let the Wikipedia community deal with Bagworm's harassment. You appear to have had my official statement of retirement deleted, so while I'm back I might as well open an SPI on Bagworm. I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Coldman is openly admitting to attempting to out me ("I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far."). Yes, this has clearly gone too far. Admin action please! --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • With Coldman's admission of using the 182.249.241.* range on his phone, it is now clear that it was he who perpetrated a previous outing attempt on me here. The edit summary contained a real world name, and was erased after I contacted Oversight.--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Please see the SPI. I am not "attempting to out" anyone. I am pointing out that I have been aware of Bagworm engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry for a while, but have not reported it because there was a slight risk of accidentally outing him. Bagworm, however, has been actively linking my clean start accounts with an account that has been outed in the past, and failed to desist when asked to. I have admitted to using some of the information I knew about, but carefully wording it so as not to reveal anyone's real-world identity. Also, I have always, ALWAYS been very tactful about possible outing, even if other editors have been making their real-world identities perfectly obvious by openly engaging in self-promotion. Please someone deal with the sockpuppetry issue and ignore Bagworm's off-topic tirade. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

NOT an off-topic tirade. You have admitted to being 182.249.241.*, and 182.249.241.51 made a direct outing attempt on me on May 20, here. As I said above, the edit summary you used contained a real-world identity so I contacted Oversight suppressed the information. You have really gone way too far now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is posting something on my own page as a joke[125] a violation of WP:OUT? Even if I accidentally posted the same thing on your page first,[126] before immediately reverting myself and admitting the mistake?[127] You have openly attempted to connect me with accounts that have had personal information compromised both on- and off-wiki (to the point where I can't get it retracted), and despite my e-mailing you and begging that you stop you persisted. I have not even brought that up here because this thread is about your hounding of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldman the Barbarian (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I need to point out that I've made no shortage of good-faith mistakes while editing Wikipedia from my phone. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop skirting the issue. You made a direct attempt to out me, as Oversight's records clearly show (why else would they have removed the offending text?), and you are now doing the same with your SPI post, regardless of your disingenuous assertion to the contrary. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Bagworm, you're digging yourself into a hole here, by claiming that something I have done in the last few hours was an "open attempt to out you". I have contacted numerous other users about this off-wiki, making it perfectly clear numerous times that I do not intend to out anyone. My direct statement of such on SPI and directly above this is proof enough that if you inadvertently out yourself during these proceedings, that was not my intention. I sincerely urge you to delete this entire subsection and ask oversight to remove it from view. I am the only other editor here and you have my permission to remove my comments with your own. Then we can never speak of this again. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the one who has dug himself a hole (hence your uncharacteristic offer of compromise). Please read WP:OUTING where you will learn that an 'attempted outing' constitutes an attempt to connect an editor with a real-life identity, not necessarily their own. To mis-identify someone is just as much a transgression as to identify them accurately. You are the one doing the outing attempt now, and you are the one who did the outing attempt in May. There is nowhere for you to wiggle on this. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How is compromise uncharacteristic? Seriously, I have witnesses to say that if you get outed, that was not my intention. Also mis-identifying oneself as a practical joke to mislead JoshuSasori (who was monitoring my userpage when that incident in May happened) cannot violate WP:OUT because I am allowed to identify myself if I so choose. Seriously, think about this: I have not posted anything, either here or on SPI, that could be considered "an open attempt to out" anyone, and have also made it perfectly clear that I do not intend to out you (although given that you made your own identity clear through your own self-promotion, I certainly could make such attempt). I do not intend to out you, so please stop this tirade before you say something stupid. Even if at this point your real-world identity became perfectly clear to readers, no one could possibly take that as having been my intention. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. You have made two outing attempts for all to see. That's all there is be said. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically, expunged edits aren't there for all to see. Plus, if you think any of my recent activities here or on SPI were "outing attempts", I encourage you to contact Oversight and see what they have to say. I think it's perfectly obvious that I have not posted any personal information about you today, so your outing accusation is bogus, and the previous "outing attempt" was an obvious mistake that, when viewed in conjunction with all the other mistakes I have admitted to making while editing from my phone, is easily verifiable as such. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your current attempt to link Bagworm with a real-world identity, however left-handedly, is a clear attempt at outing. The fact that that identity is one you know is not his real one is no defense, however much you protest. As pointed out above, WP:OUTING is just as serious an offense whether the identification is correct or incorrect. Similarly, claiming that the harmful information has been expunged from your earlier outing attempt is a laughable attempt on your part to hide behind your hands. It was expunged because it was harmful. Your current dangerous behaviour should be seen in the context of your setting up a venomous attack page targeting me yesterday. Happily that attack page was speedily deleted - see comments on your talk page by two admins here before you blanked it in shame. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Coldman, as it happens, I was the oversighter who suppressed that edit and, yes, it fell foul of WP:OUTING, because you were linking an account to a real-life identity. And such behaviour is a violation of WP:OUTING regardless of whether the identification is correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you saw said "attack page" before it was speedied. It was not an "attack page", but rather a farewell address written at the recommendation of ArbCom in which I encouraged the community to protect my previous edits from further hounding by you -- something also recognized by Salvio Giuliani as an issue. This is why this thread will stay open until your hounding behaviour, and your hiding your admission to following me behind a sock account, is dealt with. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I saw (and saved) the attack page you created, Coldman. It was speedied because it was an attack page, with your venom directed specifically at me and at SNUHRN as well as others you have speciously claimed to be in some sort of conspiracy against you. Your assertion that it was not an attack page is lame: obviously it would not have been speedied if it wasn't an attack page. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not gonna reply to the above ingenuous attack, except to say that if any part of my farewell address offended Bagworm (or SNUHRN) I apologize. I genuinely don't remember what I could have written that was so offensive as to warrant the page getting deleted, but I really did just mean for the Wikipedia community to continue defending my edits from Bagworm, who has now admitted to stalking my edits.[128] This about 90 minutes after claiming that his partner, and not him, had been the one following me.[129] Neither member of the Bagworm family had been actively editing during this period, but this confirms that it was not a coincidence that his 7th edit after returning was a direct revert of me was not an accident, and his 2nd through 6th were to an article that I didn't technically create, but... CU also confirmed that Bagworm's IP had been making edits that "lend credence to [my] allegation that [he had] been following [me]". It seems entirely possible that Bagworm used his IP as a sockpuppet to make edits that would clearly violate WP:HOUND. At the moment I can't recall a whole lot of IPs that I noticed following me, apart from one group that is based in Japan and obviously a different user, and one other group that made an off-topic personal attack against me on an AfD and later made a serious of vandal attacks against my page that directly outed me and so are no longer visible.[130][131][132] Bagworm's confirmed meat-/sock-puppet that he claims is his partner posted on my (Konjakupoet) talk-page 30 minutes later and asked me to "clear things up", which if I recall was exactly what the vandal IP was asking me to do. Therefore, it is a confirmed fact that Bagworm has been engaging in meat-/sock-puppetry in his hounding campaign against me, and we can be fairly certain that while logged out he (or his meatpuppet) outed me directly and unambiguously, and made a malicious personal attack against me (linking to my professional profile on a freelance translation website and insulting my appearance). It appears this thread may have slipped into TLDR territory a long time ago, but under these circumstances Bagworm needs to be told that his behaviour is unacceptable, and so if this thread gets archived with no result I intend to post again with a much more concise version of events. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for this seemingly cloak and dagger approach, but I may not disclose the edits, because I'd be connecting a named account to an IP. However, I'd like to point out that a. the edits are really few and b. they don't link to your professional profile and they don't make fun of your appearance. I guess the point now is what administrative action you'd want. Would you be satisfied if Bagworm accepted a standard interaction ban or do you want something more? And, Bagworm, would you accept the terms of an interaction ban between you and Coldman? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay... well, I'm not willing to accept a 2-way IBAN. I have done nothing wrong -- rather been the victim of a 10-month-long hounding campaign -- and last time that happened it came out pretty messy. Plus, even for a 1-way IBAN to be effective it would need to keep Bagworm from reverting (1) Hijiri88, (2) Konjakupoet, (3) Hitomaro742 and (4) Sarumaru the Poet. And that's just the already-connected accounts that were editing in Japanese poetry. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Coldman has grossly misrepresented the situation in his tirade above, and conflated information with wild speculation, some of which Salvio has thankfully refuted. I feel very wronged here. I have been the victim of a concerted campaign, first with Coldman's attempted outing of me in May (for which he is completely unrepentant and continues to laugh off as a "joke"), then here at ANI, and next at Coldman's attack page which was speedied. Nevertheless, if it takes a two-way interaction ban between me and Coldman, as Salvio has proposed, to restore some sort of normalcy to the situation (and to everyone's blood pressure), then yes I will reluctantly accept the admin's recommendation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Bagworm wants the Wikipedia community to take his word over mine that, despite my immediately undoing myself and apologizing, I was consciously trying to out him. I thought my SPI was consciously trying to out him too? Has he changed your mind about that? Like he changed his mind about whether his partner was the one following me and not him?[133][134] Or like he is claiming he didn't know about me being stalked by another user 18 hours after his "partner" directly commented on the stalker issue?[135][136] And of his first 7 edits after returning to Wikipedia at the end of a 4-month hiatus, 6 of them were either to a page in whose creation I was integral part, or to directly revert an edit I had made.[137][138][139] Note that all three of the so-called incidents he mentions above took-place after he started his current campaign of reversions. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Kindly cease misrepresenting facts. I never claimed not to have your user page in my watchlist, so did not "change my mind" when I mentioned that it was (in my watchlist). you have shown no evidence of me or anyone connected with me commenting on your stalker issue - the diffs you provide do not support that at all. All of the rest of your harangue has already been fully dealt with above. It is now abundantly clear that you are frantically trying to justify your refusal to accept admin Salvio's good-faith effort to put this saga to bed. You don't feel his recommendation is fair to you? Well I don't feel it's quite fair to me either. But we both need to know when to shut it and accept compromise proposed by a neutral player. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You changed your definition of "follow" mid-discussion. I said you were monitoring my edits (something no one has yet managed to disprove, with at least 2 other editors agreeing that you were), and you have been insisting throughout that this is not what you were doing. You then heavily implied that it was "your partner" who was following me, and not you. Then Salvio reported that not only "your partner"'s comment but also your logged-out edits indicated that you were following me. In all of these instances "following" clearly meant "monitoring my edits" -- which is what the whole point of this whole ANI has been the whole time. Then, you finally admitted to having been "following" me. Then just now you started insisting that "follow" as used by you means "have my user page on your watchlist", rather than "monitor my edits". Either (1) you changed your story, (2) you are deliberately using misleading language or (3) you are accidentally using misleading language despite this whole damn thread being all about you monitoring my edits. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a hypothetical question, as I know Salvio is not allowed answer, but how the devil could Bagworm's logged-out edits indicate that he "has my user page on his watchlist"? Of course even if CU cannot provide us with a concrete answer, everyone knows that the reason is that Salvio was working under the same definition of "follow" as everyone else, except (apparently) Bagworm, was. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding mention of my late partner, here's all there is to it: She made this single edit, and possibly a very small number of logged-out edits previously (as confirmed by Salvio), which I now realise (and have come fully clean about) was very likely the result of inadvertent meatpuppetry. Salvio just a short time ago drew my attention to the detail of what meatpuppetry can entail, and it is stricter than I had realised. I have already offered a cast-iron guarantee that, now that I am fully appraised, there will be no repetition. The above is being blown out of all proportion by Coldman. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not changed my definition of "follow" mid-discussion. My only understanding of 'following' a user-page, article, etc has been to add it to my watchlist. If the accepted meaning of the term is different then I'm sorry if I misled. I don't spend nearly enough time in WP to monitor every move you make. Frankly, you're not that interesting. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, or your main account, the fact still remains that you have been going around reverting my edits. Even if you don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to follow all my edits (it would take less time than I spend making said edits, which isn't much...), you have still somehow found a bunch of my edits worthy of reversion. You have more than once referred to said activities as "restoration" of what was removed "without discussion", indicating a clear awareness that it was me you were reverting.[140][141] Did you not also know that it was me you were reverting with your other, similar edits?[142][143] How about when you dismissed my citing a Japanese dictionary for the definition of a Japanese word, and then used your new source as an excuse to change said definition back to saying pretty much what it said before I had ever edited the article?[144][145] You of course admitted that you had checked the history and knew it was my edits you were reverting.[146] And when I pointed out to you that you were manipulating and thus misrepresenting your source you failed to respond. Please explain to us why you have been doing this, Bagworm. Coldman the Barbarian (Talk) 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OMG, we have been thru all of this at least twice above. Are you just going to keep repeating yourself in a different order and hope that, because the thread is so long, people are going to get confused and think you're coming up with new stuff? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread has turned into one big battleground between these two users. And people are letting it happen?! Guys, take it somewhere more appropriate! Requesting Thread Closure and sanctions as agreed. (I assume some were agreed upon.) MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wtf? This is a thread that should be on ANI, not anywhere else, and no sanctions have even been proposed. If you're not going to attempt to read the thread, don't make that kind of comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Luke, before berating an editor for not reading the thread, perhaps you should read it yourself. Cos, if you did, you'd see that sanctions have been proposed, and that I, the target of this epic, have accepted them. Coldman, however, seems incapable of piping down, instead perpetuating the thread by selling the same goods over and over. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'd noted the interaction ban being mentioned, but not as actually being proposed to be actioned. It's still a pointless thing, since you'll still wander around and revert Hijiri all over the place, safe in the knowledge that they can't complain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Per WP:IBAN:

if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia needs to find a way to protect Hijiri from Joshu's harrassment so he can return to normal editing. To my mind, this needs to happen before we worry about settling disputes of this nature, since until then Hijiri will always be in a position of vulnerability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling a few people may think that Luke is skimming the edge of AGF with his attitude. Nevertheless I feel as if I should explain why I thought it was a battleground.

It's quite simple really. The thread (before my intervention) had aspired into what I saw as a battle between Hijiri and Bagworm, and last I checked doesn't a Battleground attitude generally cause problems and therefore don't we try to stop such battles from taking place? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it were simple it wouldn't take up so much space (that's not to say it should take up this much space). There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith, and an Iban of sorts is perhaps a good solution, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Luke: "Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that"
Drmies: "There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith"

Jeez, I'd laugh at the absurdity of the above, if it wasn't so sad. But it kinda sums up this topsy-turvy world. I've taken some time away from Wikipedia, and come to the conclusion that life without the stress of this kind of nonsense is... better. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but the practice has become something quite different. It has developed a 'system' which can be learned and played, and which by its nature favours those who have learned its tricks. I've been editing quietly and productively for many years, sharing my knowledge and improving here and there, in no big way, and have had very little occasion to have anything to do with its 'admin' pages. Along comes an editor, new to the area I've been working on for years, removes knowledge that has long been incorporated in articles, rubs everyone up the wrong way, utterly abrasive and not interested in collaboration or consensus, but displays enormous energy and stamina, and by manipulating the system gets his way. And so it goes that you drive away editors who simply want to contribute without being combative or learning the tricks of the system. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks

• Footwiks (talk · contribs)
• List of FC Seoul players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What started off as a minor content dispute has not become a more serious conduct dispute. Quick background - there was a recent AFD of this article, initiated by myself. The result was 'keep', though there were a number of comments that the article was in need of a clean up. I attempted to do so by removing unreferenced/unencyclopedic content and basically trying to bring it into line with many other similar articles, some of which have been featured lists. However, I was immediately reverted by Footwiks, the article creator, who has severe ownership issues. In total he has reverted PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) and myself seven times in 3 weeks. He has not really engaged on the article talk page, and when he has he has simply accused me of being a "vandal" - and his English-language skills are poor which is making. I attempted to raise the matter at DRN, but was advised it was more conduct than content (though the two here are related), and so I am bringing it here as this kind of behaviour cannot continue. GiantSnowman 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As an interested party, I probably don't need to comment here, but I have to agree with GiantSnowman. I've been aware of Footwiks' contributions for quite some time, and the guy just doesn't seem to understand that he has to abide by Wikipedia protocols. The ownership issue is the most pressing at the moment, but I really resent being called a vandal by someone who simply doesn't like what we're doing to "his" articles. – PeeJay 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I remember this AfD, even though I didn't participate. Footwiks' weak English was evident in the AfD, and, being blunt, they don't appear to give a shit about consensus or Wikipedia guidelines. Labelling constructive edits as "vandalism" is always a bad sign. "Here is wikipedia. Why are aritcles regarding club's list of players same format? Who set a standard? Don't suppress the freedom of editing. Is Snowman owner of Wikipedia?" is an example of a poor grasp of English, a poor attitude, and someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works (and, arguably, doesn't care) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Projecting obscenity onto another editor is not a matter of being blunt, it shows an inability or unwillingness to use English to express your viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Inability or unwillingness to use English" - uh, last time I checked, the word "shit" was English. If I'd said "merde", then that comment would be valid; as it stands, if you're going to take a swipe at someone for using terminology you dislike, at least bother to use the correct terminology yourself! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a semi involved party (I closed the DRN as unsuitable) I support GiantSnowman's assessment of the situation and Lukes assessment of the situation. While some of the issues can come across from a language barrier I think it's mostly due to the poor attitude and understanding of the policies of the editor in question. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if you have to ask "why are the articles in the same format", that's not a language barrier... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I concur with GiantSnowman and Lukeno94. I looked at the AfD, the talk page, the page history, and DRN. It's absolutely clear that Footwiks has ownership issues. The accusations of "vandalism" are completely ridiculous, as well. I'd potentially support a topic ban from List of FC Seoul players and other list articles until Footwiks can demonstrate thorough understanding of the article ownership policy and realizes that there must be specific inclusion criteria for a list. CtP (t • c) 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• If there's talk of a topic ban, then I'd suggest from all articles related to FC Seoul, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. The user appears to deem themselves the sole arbiter of FC Seoul content here, so I'd say they should be banned from contributing to any article related to that topic. – PeeJay 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a procedural note: The DRN did not "fail" but was simply closed for lack of extensive discussion with a recommendation that it be filed here by the closing DR/N volunteer.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Apologies; clarified. GiantSnowman 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• As the Korean Wikipedia's admin, I can say that he's using English Wikipedia to reference notability for an article in Korean Wikipedia such as Dongdaemun derby, Gyeongin derby and FC Seoul Reserves and Academy. Most of his contributes were reviewed at AfD in Korean Wikipedia. His problem in Korean Wikipedia was mostly about WP:OR. --kwan-in (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Per GiantSnowman and PeeJay, I propose that Footwiks (talk · contribs) is topic banned from any and all articles related to South Korean football club FC Seoul, broadly construed. The topic ban may be lifted when it's clear that Footwiks understands and is willing to abide by Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. CtP (t • c) 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I'm sorry, but just block him or ban him out right. We are way to liberal with all these specific topic bans, and it's already nearly impossible to keep track of who can and can't edit about whatever subject. It's not like this guy is being constructive elsewhere on the project, and just can't get over his POV about this one topic. He either "gets it" or he doesn't at this point. Ditch ∝ 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• These are valid points. CtP (t • c) 17:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Just because you can't keep track doesn't mean the editors involved can't. Not an argument at all really.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see where he's coming from when he says that it's pointless to topic ban him from one thing if he's not going to be constructive anywhere else. CtP (t • c) 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a lengthy block if that's the only other alternative. He does seem to contribute fairly regularly, so a shorter block might work, but if we want him to properly get the message, it needs to be at least a couple of weeks, maybe even a month. A ban seems a little harsh since he's not been particularly abusive, he's just been bandying "vandal" around (which I have to admit gets used far too often around here). – PeeJay 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - he seems to do decent work on football and South Korean articles in general, and banning him outright is a massive over-reaction, so a topic ban from all articles related to FC Seoul, broadly construed (that means editing articles about current players, past players, results, matches, seasons etc. etc.) seems like a good solution. GiantSnowman 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At the end of the day, this is the first step. If the user becomes disruptive elsewhere, we can block them; this is currently the only area of disruption, so let's remove them from it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse

I'm korean. Please understand my poor English, English is not my mother tongue. But Please listen to my opinion. Firstly, There was a List of foreign FC Seoul players and List of foreign FC Seoul players. But List of foreign FC Seoul players article is deleted after discussion and merged List of FC Seoul players many years ago and exist for many years.

A few weeks ago, User:GiantSnowman raise a deletion on List of FC Seoul players and after discussion, Article can exist under Consensus. But, Later on, User:GiantSnowman point out format of article, The format that User:GiantSnowman want is covered same content with Former notable players paragraph of FC Seoul. Why are same contents on Wikipedia? List of FC Seoul players and Former notable players paragraph of FC Seoul. When the List of foreign FC Seoul players deleted, consens was merging and after recnet discussion result was No deletion. So I understood that this article format don't have problem.

And article ownership problem is just misunderstanding. I just expressed my editing version. What I mean is not that List of FC Seoul players of my own article.

Try to put yourself in my place. If you discuss in Korean. Can you express your opion perfertly?

If the User:GiantSnowman's editing version is only allowed on Wikepdiea, Please delete this article. Same player lists are also exist on article FC Seoul

Two articles about same content are waste

Finaly, Due to my poor English, I can't express my opinion and don't understand what you mean perfectly. So There was misunderstanding on discussion.

I fairly contributed on football and South Korean and expecially related articles FC Seoul sinse 2009. I didn't cause any problem 5 years. I can't accept topic ban because they are just discussion misunderstanding and language misunderstanding me and GiantSnowmanFootwiks (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you thought that there was no problem with the article just because it survived an AfD, you clearly either didn't read the comments from User:GiantSnowman or User:Hack. Wikipedia lists must have inclusion criteria: if the criterion for inclusion at List of FC Seoul players was "this player must have played for FC Seoul", then you have to list everyone. Since you didn't list all former FC Seoul players, you obviously had more specific inclusion criteria in mind that you probably should have noted down on the page. Listing the club's foreign players or those who have competed in major tournaments (for completely different teams, I might add) are not suitable inclusion criteria when it comes to indicating why these players are notable in connection with FC Seoul. There are numerous lists of players for different clubs that have reached Featured List status, and I see no reason why this one should be any different. The fact that I am saying this indicates that it is not just GiantSnowman who believes changes should be made to the article – it is far from "his" version, it is one that is supported by community consensus. The fact that you are unwilling/unable to accept this suggests to me that you are incapable of working in a community environment such as Wikipedia. – PeeJay 22:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago, Wikipedia granted the freedom of editing flexibly. As I said before, Past consensus of players list is that We can list any topic about club players. Especially, foreign players and players who have competed in major tournaments are informative list and information that many people want to find.

(List of players who have competed in major tournaments explained that players are only belong to FC Seoul participate Major tournamtne, e,g World Cup, Olympic football)

So Many football club pages had these list in briefly.

For example, World Cup players paragraph of F.C. Tokyo and Many football clubs had independent article about list of foreign players in the past.

Like List of FC Seoul players, Many years ago, List of foreign Persepolis F.C. players is also deleted and merged List of foreign Persepolis F.C. players. In this manner, Many fooball club foreign players list merged to Lis of XXX Club players.

But Wikipedia changed and suppressed freedom of editing. So many informative contentS and articles are deleted now. Many years ago, I can serch and find the foreign players by football clubs. But now We can't find these informations due to controller like GiantSnowman

I have feeling of doubt about editing fo wikipedia. I'm not wikipedia employee and edinting is just hobby in order to give useful information to users. English is not my tongue. So editing contributions and discusiion took many times. Editing contribution may delete someday. Editing of foreign players list took 4 months, Editing of players of major competions took 3 months. But now dissapeared. Eventually, I wasted my presious spare time.

I just want to give the useful information to wikipedia users.

Finally, I accept and understand that consensus of editing changed frequently and editing freedom is very reduced than before In order to prevent wast of my precious time. Before the editing or creative new article, I will grant permission for editing or creattion to controller like GiantSnowman Footwiks (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Footwiks, given your poor English, I really think you'd be better off on the Korean Wiki, where you're less likely to be misunderstood/to misunderstand people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Lukeno94 here. I suppose Footwiks could still make uncontroversial edits here like updating scoring records or adding new players, but he should not edit war at all costs, and he should also avoid getting into any complex disputes, for example those regarding layout, until his English improves. This may seem a little unfair, but those discussions are too difficult when one party cannot express himself clearly. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• • OK, I accept your advise. I also realized that English wikipedia is only territory of native English Speaker and heavy wikipedia users. As I said again, My editing standard is past consenus. List of foreign Persepolis F.C. players article also had same editing standard. Editing is not my job. It's just my hobby. So I only edited when I have spare time. I don't have time to check out econsensus of article standard is changed or not all the time. And I can't give a response immediatley on discussion everyday.

I think that English wikipedia needs heavy users with much spare time or professional users who can discuss everyday.Footwiks (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't say that the English Wikipedia is only for native speakers; however, you need to have a sufficient grasp of English to be competent enough to edit on this Wiki. Imagine the mess that would occur if I tried to edit the Korean Wikipedia using Google Translate! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a question. Firstly refer to List of Persepolis F.C. players, These article also have player category who participate in major tounaments and foreign players. Secondly refer to List of Chelsea F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players These article also have captian category and award winners category. What is the difference from my editing version User:GiantSnowman and User:PeeJay2K3 insist that player article only have just listed players category who done some caps. What is the problem of my editing version? Is problem more detailed content about player than articles like List of Chelsea F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players etc Please treat faily.

Don't be afraid of article standard improvement.

My editing version have more useful informaions than GiantSnowman’s editing version (For example, users can find foreign players, captian players, world cup players among all of FC Seoul players.) GiantSnowman is worried about that disunifying of standard unificaion regading player list article of football club all over the world. My editing version don’t disunify of articles standards unification. It is improvement of standard about player list article of football club Footwiks (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been said multiple times, it isn't GiantSnowman's "version" it is one that is supported by community consensus. If I understand you correctly you want to lower the inclusion standards and put a load more players into the lists you've linked, some of which are Featured Articles? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I said multiple times my editing version is also one that is supported by community consensus 2-3 years ago. my editing version have same article standards of List of Persepolis F.C. players

My editing version inclusion standards (Former players, Foreign playes, Captain players, World Cup Players etc)

GiantSnowman editing version inclusion stadndards (Only players list with some caps)

Only Difference of my editing version and List of Persepolis F.C. players is that my editing version is just more detailed. Why do not action on List of Persepolis F.C. players, List of Chelsea F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players? You only do action on List of FC Seoul players tenaciously

Please treat faily. Footwiks (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks, I genuinely do not know what you are trying to say here, please can you make it clearer? GiantSnowman 10:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, What I mean, my editing version inclusion stadndards is also one that is supported by community consensus 2-3 years ago.

Please reply my question. What is the difference between my editing version of List of FC Seoul players and List of Persepolis F.C. players

Please compare two articles.

1. |List of FC Seoul players-my editing veresion 2. List of Persepolis F.C. players

Difference is my editing version had more detailed informations. Is editing in detail wrong?

Footwiks (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're making little-to-no sense, but from what I can determine you are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as justification for your edit warring, and for addition of unreferenced material to an article, contrary to consensus? GiantSnowman 10:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that a WP:CIR indefinite block might be needed here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks, as far as I can tell, your version of the FC Seoul has a much lower threshold for inclusion. Just look at the contents table, Persepolis has 4 categories whereas yours has 39. That's quite a difference. Take a read over at WP:FANCRUFT, while it may be of interest in a specific football wikia, that level of details isn't really suitable here on en.wiki Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tabarez = Reza.Piri

Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that User:Tabarez (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for copyright violations) returned with User:Reza.Piri as his newest sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their contributions (mostly about Iranian politics and sport) to see they are the same person (WP:DUCK). It really looks like WP:SOCK to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen, User:Reza.Piri appears to plan to engage in an edit war at List of Presidents of Iran, in the same fashion as Tabarez did with his main account, and after its indef blocking with his socks. Its a clear WP:DUCK IMHO. --Sundostund (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a sock puppet report at WP:SPI (direct link). You should have reported him there, not here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, I really appreciate your opening of a sock puppet report, I hope it will help to finally end this sockpuppet nonsense by Tabarez. But, as can be seen, Reza.Piri is still unblocked and he's still editing articles on Iranian politics and sport, including his edit warring on List of Presidents of Iran. I think some admin should deal with that. --Sundostund (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Reza.Piri, so that sock is out. Now we need to see whether Tabarez plans another "comeback", with some new sock account or IP... ‎--Sundostund (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, he now uses another IP. I bet this is his newest block evasion - 2.178.185.80. ‎--Sundostund (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His newest IP is 2.178.77.198 - exactly the same behavior as before, including edit warring at List of Presidents of Iran... --Sundostund (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And now he is 2.178.163.156, look his edit warring at List of Presidents of Iran and Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani... This really becomes pathetic. --Sundostund (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we REALLY need a rangeblock here, it appears this guy went mad at List of Presidents of Iran and Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani. --Sundostund (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His current IP is 2.178.79.203 - again, same editing patterns as before... This guy is so stubborn! --Sundostund (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And now his IP is 2.178.160.190... --Sundostund (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Electric Edit War

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

---

A month or so ago I tagged several sources on the Hurricane Electric page as "self published" or "unreliable" without editing any of the actual page content per wikipedia policy. I then explained the issues on the talk page, again per wikipedia policy. This article has been historically extremely poorly sourced due to issues of notability since it's creation. It barely skated by on my AFD a year ago with a "keep-improve". folks promised back then they would improve the page. Yet, when i checked a year later the article is 1/4 the size it was when I nominated it. It's gotten worse. My goal with my source tags and "talk" comments was to get folks to bring the article up to snuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.164.190.177 reverted my changes, made a bunch of unfounded personal remarks about me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Electric#Jgeddis_is_a_Cogent_shill_and_is_repeatedly_defacing_Hurricane_Electric.27s_page. Please put a temporary or indefinite block on the above anonymous user/IP for bad faith reverts, personal remarks, and nonconstructive edits. This kind of stuff is really inappropriate and unhelpful on wikipedia. Please consider protecting this page as wellJgeddis (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, I'm not sure your resorting to threats and personal remarks is particularly appropriate. Please try to raise the level of discourse. Thanks againJgeddis (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I closed the OP's report at WP:ANEW. The only legitimate beef Jgeddis has is against the IP for the personal attack. The IP hasn't edited in a few days, but I've warned them not to attack other editors again. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here except to advise Jgeddis not to plaster the article with tags as they have attempted to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Late to the party. Honestly, Jgeddis could well be topic banned from that page. He has been editing it disruptively for over a year now and had done little else for the past two, basically turning into a WP:SPA. Blaming the other editors for not tolerating his nonsense anymore isn't exactly the best way forward. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also pointing out the risk of a boomerang is hardly a "threat" or a "personal remark"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • After the above was closed, Jgeddis went to the article talk page to dispute its notability again [147]. I think an WP:IDHT reminder is needed. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Chevron Corporation edit

Hi, I'm asking some experienced editor(s) help here since I'm not used to edit WP:EN and this might be a difficult thing to manage. On 7/6, User:CorporateM made ±35 edits to Chevron Corporation, changing profoundly the page:

• Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevron_Corporation&oldid=563153052
• After: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevron_Corporation&oldid=563146344

On edit comments, it seems that he has moved most of the information into subpages.

In my opinion, it seems to me like a very smart way to hide a lot of controversial and negative information about Chevron to the general public. The current state of the page is really weak: a lot of information seems to be missing (I was looking for information about the Ecuador vs Chevron trial, which was nearly inexistant, when there was a very interesting section about it before User:CorporateM's edits).

Also, even if you may think pertinent to move most of the information to subpages (which I don't), the information remaining on the main article is not very well organized or written (the Environmental record section for example seems like a very weak list of non-related items, without creating a real "record").

I personally would recommend reverting the page to its 563153052 version, prior to User:CorporateM's edits. (But since it's nearly 1 month old, I'm not exactly sure what to do)

Thanks in advance,

--iNyar 02:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to notify editors that you bring up in ANI discussions. I have done so for you here: [148] Tazerdadog (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Chevron article was before User:CorporateM's edits in awful shape as the text was too long overloaded with copyvio and COI issues. I agree that the current article needs some work and the bet way to do this is to clean-up and develop the subpages which then should be properly summarized in the main article. However, this issue is better to discuss at the article's talk page not here. Beagel (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, and as such needs to be discussed at the article talk page, not ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

While it's not entirely clear, saying that I found a "smart way" to hide information seems to suggest the assumption of a COI that does not exist. I wonder if I also found a smart way to hide information about the organization's operations and history, which also have sub-articles. In any case, I have started a discussion on the article's Talk page in a more appropriate fashion about the article's structure. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this Good Article Reviewer a sockpuppet?

Yesterday I submitted the article International System of Units for review as a WP:GA. This morning I received a note that User:FishGF was reviewing the artcile. FishGF's account was first created at 06:21 this morning and his/her first action was to start a Good Article review at 08:00 this morning. The reviewer's [comments] look like they come from a disruptive editor, possibly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:DeFacto.

I find it incredible that a complete newcomer can conduct such a review. This undermines the whole principal of Good Articles. I request that the actions of this editor be reversed and the the Good Article evaluation process be tightened up in respect of who can review an artcile. I will deal with this specific editor separately on WP:SPI. Martinvl (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, could also be a random newcomer trying to make a comment and mistaking the GA review venue for a general article feedback or talkpage venue? Or does the specific point he raised reflect a pattern connected to DeFacto (beyond the fact that DeFacto was obsessed with this topic area in general)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FishGF clearly fails WP:CIR with regard to the ability to judge the merits of an article against the GA criteria. I will help review the article; any others are welcome. We will make this a community review. Binksternet (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding/experience that asking questions of this nature at ANI will result in a block for the person asking; YMMV, but you might want to avoid queries at ANI in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Who was this comment aimed at? I couldn't find anything in the history, so I'm confuzzled. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Luke ... it was a note to Martinvl to exercise caution in inquiring or attempting clarification re socking queries or issues at ANI, as doing so has resulted in blocks to the person inquiring at ANI in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was confused by the "YMMV" bit, thanks for clarifying. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The admins and the article reviewers love each other dearly, but will not pass up the opportunity to take shots at each other. Think of this as Thanksgiving dinner at the home of a large dysfunctional family. --GRuban (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea what any of the history revolving around DeFacto is, or are you here just to bitch about admins? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat, blanking

Praveenant (talk · contribs) has been removing content on corruption from Government of India because, as he said on my talk page, "Every Country has their negatives all cannot be part of a generic article which could affect the growth or view of other of a country, That is against the country sovereignty. Kindly ignore content wich could affect mass people." His latest removal of the content included a legal threat in the edit summary, and I'd already issued a final warning. I might be WP:INVOLVED, so I leave it to another admin's discretion as to whether or not it's time for a block. Qwyrxian (talk)

NLT block applied as this is obviously intended to have a chilling effect. Even if and when the LT is rescinded, the smell here is of WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Good call on the NLT block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

Clarification needed on the indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke was given an indefinite topic ban on everything related to colonialism and Indian history here. I have asked the administrator for clarification on the scope of this TBAN but he has not bothered to respond. I would like to know just how far back in time is YK allowed to edit? I am of the opinion that the article Anti-Muslim violence in India falls under the scope of the ban as it covers Indian history from just before partition up to 2002. This needs to be clarified. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(1)My topic ban was related to Aryan Invasion Theory some thing that happened thousands of years ago, my involvement in the discussion is limited to events taking place after 1983 and later, very much contemporary events. My topic ban was discussed during user:MRT3366's AN/I case and my editing was not considered inappropriate. My editing subjects have been at a barge pole's length away from the scope of my topic ban imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YK, please could you provide a link to the discussion that delivered this result? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The topic ban terms are extremely broad, but in my opinion, Yogesh's edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India do not fall under the topic ban because he was alive during most of those times. In his own words, he was a teen in 1983. Events of that time are contemporary events, Yogesh has been staying away from the topics that actually initiated his topic ban, and so there is no need to nit·pick. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary history is also history. Yogesh has clearly violaed his topic ban. And he hs been doing so consistently over the past 6 months - exhibituing the exact same behavior pattern of tendentious editing and promotion of fringe views that led to the topic ban in the first place. I am extremely surprised no one has noticed, if I had knewn of the topic ban I would have requested enforcement sseveral months ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Last year's events are also recent history, going by the strict definition. So should Yogesh be banned from editing them too? Absurd. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anir1uph. While I didn't read the entire ban discussion, it appears that the focus is colonialism, not recent events. Yogesh should be careful to avoid the bahvior that led to the ban, but I do not see that edits relating to events in their lifetime should be covered by the ban.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When referring to history, the boundaries generally apply to anything prior to contemporary history (which, as explained by Anirluph, includes what happened last year and even yesterday). These "history topic bans" must be exact in their definition of history and not simply assume what is included into them.

In fact, with a TBAN on "Colonialism and Indian History", I would assume that any pre-Colonial and post-Colonial Indian history would be fair game.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say "History of Colonial India", it says "Colonialism and Indian History". And events in India after 1983 are very much "Indian History". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. "Colonialism and Indian history" can be understood as a single topic. When making restrictions on history, boundaries must be placed on the timeline. Current events, which fall into the realm of contemporary history, are not what people have in mind when they refer to history. And the definition of a "current event" is different depending on the person.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stating that history is whatever happened before one's lifetime is absurd. It means that for my grandfather a topic ban on history would still allow him to edit articles on World War I. History includes topics described by historians using historical sources and methods - and which includes recent history but not current events. The 2002 Gujarat Violence the 1983 Nellie Massacre, and the history of anti-Muslim violence in India (which deals extensively with colonial and early post-colonial examples) which Yogesh has been extensively involved, are obviously topics of relevance to Indian History - and his editing has been furthering the exact same political points of view that were problematic in his editing of Indian history. Furthermore Yogesh's behavior in editing these topics have been EXACTLY the same that lead to his topic ban. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, yeah. "Current events" are...current...not "within your lifetime". Would the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan be a "current event" for me? "Current event" does not vary and the statement that they do is...puzzling at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. By that logic World War 1 would have been a current event for Frank Buckles in 2010 since he was the last surviving American veteran who died in 2011.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier on this, as the admin who originally imposed the restriction. I'm a bit on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I personally would have understood the restriction to be applied widely, including recent history, and I think I once told Yogesh I believed he was breaking the restriction when he was commenting on one of these issues. This is especially since it has been my impression that his conduct in this "recent history" area has been problematic in a similar way, and motivated by a similar set of political-ideological issues, as his conduct in the ancient history area (echoing Maunus' observations above). On the other hand, I can't overlook the coincidence that a similar case is currently under consideration at WP:ARCA, where the arbs recently topic-banned somebody from "Argentinian history" but are now telling him in a clarification request that he is free to edit recent history after 1983. In the end, we might just have to look more closely at whether and how Yogesh's behaviour in the recent history domain is independently objectionable, and if so, reimpose a more clearly defined/clarified/widened form of the topic ban under the discretionary sanctions rule (which wasn't yet in place when the original community topic ban was imposed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the ARCA ruling is motivated by the fact that the topic that proves difficult for the particular editor to edit usefully ends in 1983, and is no longer relevant for subsequent periods of Atgentinian history. This is not the case in the case of Yogesh's ban because the subject matter that has proved difficult for Yogesh to approach in a useful manner is still present and in effect up untill the very recent history of India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(1) @user:Kim Dent-Brown: During another editor's AN/I case my comments were hatted for being from a topic banned editor, in response, I said the 2002 events were contemporary events, I was not contradicted,[149] later on the same admin's page when "Darkness Shines" requested clarification, I presented my argument, I was not contradicted.[150] (2) @All: The events which I'm editing are contemporary events to me and a majority of Wikipedia editors, the examples given above: "my grandfather", Frank Buckles are extreme cases. 35% of prolific editors are over 40 years old. Statistically the average age of a Wikipedia editor is 32 years. Aren't these events contemporary ((meaning: belonging to the same age, living or occurring in the same age or time) for the average Wikipedian? Would an editor banned from editing American history and colonialism be banned from editing Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan too? Is his assassination an event in American history, esp. when deciding the scope of a topic ban of someone who was banned for his edits related to 2nd millennium BCE in North American history (3)(a) My ban area is Indian history; the disputed historical event was whether The Aryan migration theory is disputed or not[151] the time frame of this incident is 2000 to 500 BCE. (b) I was sanctioned for slow edit warring. (b)When I my edits were called garbage and reverted, I hit back by undoing those reverts and calling them vandalism.[152] That was the editing behaviour and editing area that caused me to be banned. (4) Since the ban (a) I've stayed many tens of centuries away from date of the dispute I was banned for. (b) Since my ban I've put myself on a zero revert policy, i.e I don't revert anyone who undoes my edits. (c) My last block was over a year ago, and I've made over three thousand[153] edits since on a broad variety of subjects. (d) Since my topic ban I've learnt that it helps the project for editors to be civil and have endevoured to be so. (4) I've made zero article space edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India so the question of edit warring etc. doesn't arise. (5) The said article discusses 1946, 1983 and 2002 as major events, in talk page discussions I've stayed away from 1946. (6) The ban didn't specify a date, I've given no reason imo since my last block a year ago, for the ban to be made stringent. I've tried to make positive contributions to the project as I enjoy doing so, I've taken my ban in the right spirit, by trying to address the causes of sanction, I leave it to the community to judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made 3 edits out of the 3921 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence and zero edits to 1983 Nellie massacre so I don't have extensive involvement as alleged above. I'd be happy to have any of my edits scrutinised for my inability to be useful in any area of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As a direct participant in the ARCA case, the topic ban was actually the broad Latin American history spectrum. Again the key word here is "history", and what the arbitrators meant by it was "non-contemporary history" (as is common by most individuals).

Bushranger and Maunus are unfairly looking for loopholes in my statement. Yes, obviously WWI is not a current event...but no respectable historian would call it "contemporary history" either. However, Reagan's assassination attempt is certainly within the boundaries of contemporary history (although not a current event).

I haven't checked Yogesh's contributions and in no way am I either supporting them or opposing them. All I am defending is the fact that the history topic ban is ambiguous and in need of more specific restrictions. Yogesh should not be punished for the ambiguity of the ban. I am also not blaming the banning administrator, who is acting based on what seems a common procedure.

The point of my statements it that there is a lesson to be learned from these events (for all administrators and arbitrators), which is that topic bans on "history" must either be specific or include a few more lines that also TBAN contemporary history and current events related to the topic. Perhaps a mention or discussion of this is worth at the WP:TBAN page.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

IBAN requested

I am requesting an IBAN between Dharmadhyaksha and myself, throughout all namespaces in english wiki. I have previously asked this editor to not follow my contributions, yet he persists. This revert proves without a doubt that he is both stalking me and reverting my edit for no reason, the article being an obvious fork of Martyred Intellectuals Day. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous observation: Looking at the talk pages of both parties and edit summaries, I think there's a boomerang about to hit. 2.121.145.49 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The unilateral reversions are concerning - and the fact that they're at the brink of 3RR doesn't help much either. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If all namespace interactions are banned, how would you guys interact on content discussions especially as this is not the first page you two have interacted about and had differences and would not be the last either. I guess the AfD will take care of whether the page in question is a POV fork or not. Are there any other recent edits/reverts which he has contributed only after you started your contributions on a page? Please provide them.  A m i t  웃  

He followed me here, two days after I had created the article, that revert is his reinsertion of OR which he added and I had removed. He followed me to Anti-Muslim violence in India, a new article I had created and his only contributions to the article are to add pointy tags and raise cain on the talk page, for no purpose other than to waste my time going by his comments, see this talk page section re both the tags and his actions on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Gross misuse of article talk page, immediate action requested

I request someone step in to read Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Proof-reading the lead, perhaps remove material which does not meet TPG, including my own, and perhaps notify editors involved of the appropriate talk-page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for having not notified the other combatant, BTW. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, this is a little dust-up on the way to arbitration User:John_Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. Consider the incivility directed at me Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Question of POV from the top of the talk page on down. Ignocrates (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we are here, I won't waste the trip. Please consider removing the tag that was placed on the article Gospel of the Ebionites#Relationship to other texts resulting in this discussion: Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Neutrality tag. Ignocrates (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• John, so you're asking some random admin to get into this fray and start deleting talk page content? I suggest both of you try to limit how widely you spill your dispute around Wikipedia. This isn't a stop on the dispute resolution train. --Laser brain (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• John, to be quite honest with you, what I see here is one editor raising concerns about a featured article review, which is an entirely appropriate use of a talk page. I see inappropriate responses to that initial statement from two other editors, but you're one of them, as you're dismissing rather than addressing the concerns. If you feel they're invalid, say so, but also say why. Ignocrates, your responses to John are also inappropriate as they are personalizing the dispute, and "get off your ass and address them" is needlessly inflammatory and certainly uncivil. The both of you should be focusing on concerns with the article, not bickering. A trout for the both of you, and if either one can't focus on the content rather than the writer, stay away altogether. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I'm asking someone to ensure that the conduct meets requirements. There is a very long history of misconduct on both sides here, me among them. Unfortunately, honestly, I believe (think what you will about my beliefs) that personalizing matters is, per his history, pretty much the primary tactic of Ovadyah/Ignocrates for some time now. Honestly, I would appreciate firm warnings regarding misuse of the talk page to both parties, with the possibility of enforcement through standard measures should inflammatory, off topic commentary continue, and, possibly, someone to refactor the page should behavior continue to get out of hand. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note similar uncivil interactions between John Carter and multiple editors: User_talk:Ignocrates/Archive 4#Opinion please and recently diff 1; diff 2. This is not an isolated incident involving two editors. Imo, TPG should apply here as well. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor are false and irrelevant accusations against others even remotely new for you, as per User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. I also believe that it would very much help if additional editors ensured that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and other tactical maneuvers to avoid dealing with legitimate concerns be enforced, by administrative action if necessary. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Capaldi image

Twelfth Doctor contains this image File:Twelfth_Doctor.jpg which has several deletion tags on it for improper fair use license. As this article is likely to be very high traffic very quickly, can we get a quick decision on the status of the file please? (Attempts to remove it from the article get reverted). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Resolved
  --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the image which was deleted is the same one currently being used at File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg - is this correct? I wanted to review it first here; but if I'm correct and that's the same image, then we will need to roll back to the last good version in that collage as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the same image. I am going to restore a version with only eleven doctors -- Diannaa (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I brought this up at the talk page of the article. We are allowed fair use of a character but not an actor. If we can show RS that the actor is dressed in character then that may pass as fair use. I did try two emails to contact the actor because the only free image we have is lame IMHO. If we include fair use better images he may feel 'case resolved' and not provide one for us. We may be better off without until my emails possibly find a target.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked editor making personal attacks on his/her talk page.

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

---

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked by Qwyrxian. Monty₈₄₅ 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Rodneye9110 was blocked on July 9, 2013 by User:Dennis Brown as a sockpuppet of User:Ryanspir. Today on his/her talk page this editor has made personal attacks against me [154]. I asked the editor to remove the attack and the response involved more accusations. I ask that this user have his or her talk page editing privileges removed. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the attacks, and told the editor that she/he may request an unblock and nothing else. Any further complaining or attacks will result in talk page access being revoked. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And he reverted you.... [155]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Commissioner Gordon and disruptive editing at Robert Falcon Scott

Commissioner Gordon (and his self proclaimed second account Team911lotus, diff), has been permanently blocked on the German Wikiepdia (see here, in German)(and see Talk:Robert Falcon Scott#German Wikipedia blocking users for trying to repair and clarify fraudulent misinterpretations in the German Article of Captain Scott.). He edits primarily the Robert Falcon Scott article and its talk page, with some edits to my talk page and to other articles on Antarctic exploration.

He has a very high opinion of Scott and opposes anything in the article which he seems to feel is negative about him. As an example, please see this section of Scott's talk page, where he wants to change a sentence in the article's Lead from "From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy, with questions raised about his competence and character." to this "From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy with questions raised about his competence and character, while it remains unclear, whether these doubts are just a product of a character assassination campaign driven by feelings of envy, grudge and jealousy created by supporters of other polar explorers like Amundsen and Shackleton, who felt offended as they alledgedly came short concerning publicly displayed honour and appreciation towards them." The section then gets bogged down in a discussion of the meaning of stoicism.

It's not me having a high opinion on Scott, but this guy being a fanatic supporter of Ernest Shackleton fighting any edit saying anything remotely positive about Scott. He is also part of a minor fraction trying to defame and villainize Captain Scott, to the extreme that they composed an utterly biased article whose neutrality has been disputed but which can nevertheless be found on any searches relating to Scott. This article should be banned ASAP as it is an accumulation of false pretenses, concealments and distorted facts.

The change he is talking about was only supposed on the discussion page by me and not in the article itself. The complaining user has repeatedly reverted any attempt of trying to rectify the distorted misrepresantations, like for example quotes by fellow and highly praised antarctic exploreres Mikkelsen and Borchgrevink, while his whole attitude can only be desribed as defaming and presemptuous.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed some of his edits to the Scott article - please see Talk:Robert Falcon Scott#Bold, revert, and discuss. I have a lot to do today IRL, so just read the Scott talk page section on BRD. Things had settled down until today. Now he is back and is flirting with WP:3RR for these three edits removing the {{Main}} link to Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott for being of disputed neutrality: [156], [157], and [158]. Note - I removed the NPOV tag from the Controversies article as it was based on the lead not having references diff.

The controversies about the article

Main article: Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott

is not only about the lead. This so-called lead takes about 50% of the article's text, therefore omitting fellow wikipedians the possibility to change ANYTHING. Apart from that, the article refers to merely a hand-full of authors and therefore is a strong candidate for consideartion of this golden rule by the wikipedia inventor himself

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"

Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight

CG has accused me of "defraud" see the Talk:Robert Falcon Scott#Commissioner Gordon, please stop section and if you want more of his invective (some auf deutsch) please see User talk:Ruhrfisch#Disputes between two great men - is it worth disturbing their peace?. I have a whole lot to do still tonight in real life and am going to post this, notify him (as I also have warned him about sockpuppets and 3RR and no personal attacks) and get back to work on something I get paid for. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has not only defrauded the Wikipedia Community of an original image of a statue of Captain Scott, he has also managed to cut out the possibility of "undoing" his deletion. I have made a screen cap of the original version history, which obviously has been falsified....--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gordon, just put your posts at the bottom of the section (like this one). You are messing up my post with your interpolations.

For the record I have made a total of 3 edits to Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott, see here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am just replying to your allegations on spot, and by the way, it was you who also tried to put the blame on me, misplacing a comment by another user into a conversation between us two, trying to put the wool over the community's eyes here and then talk yourself out of the matter with a paltry excuse on the discussion page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARobert_Falcon_Scott&diff=565398440&oldid=565185175

Comment by user 86.131.44.59:

"It is suspicious that Ruhrfisch (a German name...) is trying to defend the problematic German site and discouraging us from discussing it here in English (and thus alerting a worldwide audience to the potential fraud...). Can Wikipedia step in and sack the German wiki administrators who are responsible? As far as I can make out from the German website, there is one main perpetrator calling himself "Jamiri", and one or two supporting sycophants. Taking out the main perpetrator would probably suffice as the first step, so Ruhrfisch should have nothing to fear, initially. "

And here the fresh evidence of how you cut out the "undo" option (right at the bottom the last edit on 18th of march, 2012:

http://www.upload-pictures.de/bild.php/37124,verstossruhrfisch8KRMW.jpg

In comparison, the version history after another "intervention" by the user "Ruhrfisch" , to cover his tracks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&offset=20120423141643&action=history --Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Commissioner Gordon for one week for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Ruhrfisch, you have the patience of a saint; fortunately, I do not. I've also blocked the illegitimate alternative account indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb23 - I once stupidly blocked someone I was in a dispute with (then unblocked them). Since then I try very hard to be more patient, but my halo slips often. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know until now that people threw boomerangs in the Arctic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And his block is "illegal", of course. [159] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

When was the last time someone saw a real living fish in the Ruhr? Drmies (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A complaint about User:Sitush

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh User:Sitush has taken effective ownership of the wikipedia article. Relevant discussion may be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh (please scroll down to the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit) . I have already taken this to Dispute Resolution (where it is still pending) but i believe this is the more appropriate forum now to deal with the issue since Sitush's misbehavior needs to stop now and Dispute Resolution is not the appropriate forum for this purpose. My allegation is this: Reckless to the explicit rules and guidelines specified in WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus, Sitush is now treating this WP:BLP as his personal facebook page. Sitush has persistently been flouting wikipedia rules and guidelines, specifically the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and also WP:Consensus. I have given many examples in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh (see the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit') where he has done this. Even the sub-section 'Batla House Encounter' whose content was disputed (which was why i had taken him to Dispute Resolution) was deleted completely together with a unilateral deletion of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section (of which the 'Batla House Encounter edit' was part) by User:Sitush while the dispute was still pending in Dispute Resolution. My contention is that Sitush seeks WP:Ownership of the article, is not interested in WP:Consensus, continues recklessly with violating the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and hence deserves to be recused from editing this article henceforth.Soham321 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Lots of people complain about Sitush because Sitush is one of the few editors willing to take the time to maintain a range of articles in accord with standard policies, while a never-ending stream of new editors arrive to make sure their particular outlook receives prominence. The report above contains lots of links to various policies and guidelines, but I can't see any diffs showing something that needs attention at this noticeboard. Please pick one item and quote a few words from it so the text can be found in the article, and/or the talk page. Briefly say why the item is a problem, and what action you recommend. Other editors are unable to take the time to explore the very long Talk:Digvijaya Singh#User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• There is currently an active complaint at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard taken out by Soham321, so there is a degree of forum shopping here. However I do see that at DRN the two volunteers who have commented seem reluctant to make a judgement, suggesting that more discussion needs to happen at the article talk page; perhaps this lack of progress is frustrating Soham321. I have read through the Batla House Encounter section of the article talk (and briefly through the whole article talk page) and I don't find anything obviously objectionable by Sitush. Soham321 has on the other hand described Sitush as a liar which I would caution him/her not to repeat. I can't reach an opinion on Soham321's complaint myself because as Johnuniq points out above, there is no concise diff to demonstrate a specific problem. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that a prerequisite for Dispute Resolution is an assumption of good faith between the interlocutors. That assumption of good faith was broken when the disputed edit (which was and is still pending in Dispute Resolution) was deleted in its entirety by Sitush and not only that the entire section of which the disputed edit was a part was also unilaterally deleted by Sitush. At that point of time it became a complaint about Sitush's behavior. The context in which i had accused Sitush of misrepresenting me was when he claimed i was also in favor of deleting the entire section ('Debates, Disputes, and Controversies') which he unilaterally deleted, when in fact i had explicitly opposed the deletion of this section (and i had given my reasons) when Sitush had asked me my opinion on whether it should be deleted in its entirety. I had in a separate discussion with another editor objected to a portion of text within this section ('Debates, Disputes, and Controversies') that had been added by this editor on the ground that it had no real biographical value but i had achieved WP:Consensus with that editor when he allowed me to make some modifications to his edits which i did to make them conform to WP:NPOV. Sitush does not believe in WP:Consensus as is evident when he unilaterally deleted the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when a portion of this section had been taken up for Dispute Resolution. When the 'Batla House Encounter' edit (which was a part of the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section) was in the WP:BLP, Sitush had modified it and made the edit inappropriate/inaccurate. This happened when Sitush violated the wikipedia guideline of Balance when he did not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit (see Balance in WP:NPOV). Sitush also violating the wikipedia guideline of Impartial Tone when he inserted a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). So the first point of dispute is that the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section which Sitush has unilaterally deleted when a portion of it was in Dispute Resolution needs to be re-added to the main article. Once we agree on this point, i can start giving the relevant diffs to show the multiple occasions on which Sitush has violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in this WP:BLP.Soham321 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The diffs for the removals that Soham refers to are:

• 1
• [160]
• [161]
• [162]
• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]

Subsequently, I made this series of edits into which Soham interjected {{POV}} - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am giving the relevant diffs myself now. Soham321 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• 1 This is the page that existed just before Sitush started removing the entire content in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
• [168] Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit in its entirety. This section was in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
• [169] Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Batla House Encounter' edit which was in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section and which had been pending Dispute Resolution
• [170] Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Views on RSS Section' edit which was also in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.

Sitush keeps going like this till finally the entire section in 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' has been wiped out by him. My point is that Sitush violated WP:Consensus when he removed the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section because he had asked me whether i was of the opinion that this entire section needs to be removed, and i had said No. I gave my reason for this on the talk page which i now reproduce: The Controversy section should not be removed in its entirety because of two reasons. First, it contains important biographical information about Singh and second it involves issues of national interest. I refer in particular to the two edits on Singh's views on RSS and also the edit on the Thackeray family controversy.The Batla House Encounter edit should also remain in this WP:BLP because it remains a talking point in the Indian media with some continuing to claim that despite the verdict of a sessions court (meaning a court belonging to the subordinate judiciary-- implying that the verdict can be appealed in a higher court) the whole case of the prosecution remains dubious and 'full of holes'. For more on this, See for instance http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ . On the other hand, there are others who claim the encounter was genuine. For more on this, see http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/. So, since this remains a talking point in the Indian media, Singh's view on this encounter can legitimately be put on his WP:BLP In this connection i would also like to invoke WP:Ownership with the relevant extract: "All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." Soham321 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior to his deletion of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section, Sitush had modified an existing edit ('Batla House Encounter') which in my opinion was accurate and made it biased/prejudiced/inaccurate. This is the diff: [1] Notice that Sitush violated the wikipedia guideline of Balance when he did not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit (see Balance in WP:NPOV). Sitush also violating the wikipedia guideline of Impartial Tone when he inserted a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV).Soham321 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. Two DRN volunteers suggested further talk page discussion and from the outside looking in, it seems they're absolutely correct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to have further discussion if the disputed section in the main article is unilaterally removed along with several other related sections (the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section) in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines of WP:Consensus and WP:Ownership. The whole thing becomes messy when this deletion takes place while the disputed section of the article is in Dispute Resolution. Also, a substantial amount of discussion on the talk page has taken place since the two wiki admins had asked for more discussion. The discussion on the talk page has concluded. Sitush has made it clear that he demands ownership of the article in violation of WP:Ownership and he is not interested in any consensus in violation of WP:Consensus. Soham321 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I had given four reasons on the talk page as to why i had put a POV tag on the main article which is now consisting almost entirely of whatever Sitush has written ever since he has claimed ownership of this WP:BLP in violation of WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus. Sitush has made amends with respect to one reason, but the other three points still stand. They are:
• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding the following on the basis of hearsay and speculation in one solitary article: "Singh was directed by Sonia Gandhi to ensure the selection of Ajit Jogi as the Chief Minister for the new state and this Singh did, although Jogi had been critical of his style of politics and Singh had personally preferred not to see him installed to that office. While Singh managed to convince the majority of Congress Legislator Party members to back Ajit Jogi, the absence of Vidya Charan Shukla and his supporters at the meeting raised questions about the exercise of seeking consensus as Shukla was the other main contender for the post.[16]"
• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding a POV comment of the political commentator Aditi Phadnis. This comment has no place in a WP:BLP.
• Violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by giving freely speculative reasons for Digvijaya's defeat in the Madhya Pradesh elections in 2003 based on a solitary source.Soham321 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the diffs provided by Sitush, and they generally show the removal of tidbits from an "Other controversies" section in a BLP—almost always a good thing! While again trying to find a concrete example of a claimed problem, I noticed Talk:Digvijaya Singh#Edit Battleground with what appears to be an accurate summary of the problem (there are three groups of editors: neutral Wikipedians; politician supporters; politician haters). In that section, Sitush commented "I'd say around 80% of this article is undue weight and attempts at soapboxing" (the article at that time shows that is correct). Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit history of the main article as well as the talk page content will show that the 'Other controversies' section was added by User:A.amitkumar and i had myself told amit that these edits of his do not seem to have biographical value in my opinion. But amit disagreed with me. However, i achieved WP:Consensus with amit by making some modifications to his edits. My specific objection here is to the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section being unilaterally removed by Sitush when one of the sections in it was being disputed and was in fact pending Dispute Resolution. By doing this Sitush is claiming ownership of the article in my opinion in violation of WP:Ownership and he is also in violation of WP:Consensus. Soham321 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN does not work that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Soham, I think that one problem here is that you are frequently not understanding WP:OWN, WP:Consensus or the ramifications of WP:BLP, just as you did not understand WP:Vandalism. Please also note that I am still open to suggestions. I am trying to improve this article, I really am, but your constant accusations are wearing me down and, alas, are fairly typical of WP:SPA behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I still maintain that your deletion of the entire section of 'Batla House Encounter' together with your deletion of the related sections like 'Thackeray Family Controversy' and 'Views on RSS' i.e. all content within the section 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' at a time when the 'Batla House Encounter' edit was pending Dispute Resolution was violative of WP:Consensus and also WP:Ownership. As of now, the entire WP:BLP of the main article under consideration consists almost entirely of words written by you. I find this unacceptable and violative of WP:Ownership. Also, your prevarication when you falsely claimed on the talk page that I also wanted the removal of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section on the talk page did nothing to enhance your credibility. Soham321 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC) And oh, if you would really have been open to suggestions you would not have unilaterally deleted the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when a portion of it was being disputed in the Dispute Resolution page. Soham321 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham, you can huff, puff and maintain to your heart's content but even this last response of yours clearly demonstrates a misunderstanding of policy etc. Articles regularly have as few as one major contributor without being owned by that person; consensus is based on policy, not "votes"; BLP dictates that contentious material is removed if/until the issue is resolved; DRN is a voluntary process, although you have tended to see it as some sort of court of Wikipedia with your frequent premature desire to run there (examples include 1, 2, 3). - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree that as of now the entire text in the main article under consideration consists of words written almost entirely by you? Soham321 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? It is developing quite well, I think, but needs more work. That, however, is a content issue rather than a behavioural one. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Soham321: The above still does not show a problem. Yes, Sitush removed a section, as noted in my last comment. But (briefly) what is wrong with that? Presumably you think some of the text should be retained—(briefly) what text and why? Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I object to the removal of the following three edits in particular by Sitush:
• 1 This is the 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit
• [171] This shows two versions of the 'Batla House Encounter' edit
• [172] 'Views on RSS' edit

My reason is as follows: The 'Views on RSS' and 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edits involve issues of national interest. These sections would be present in any biography of Singh. The 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit is significant because it involves Singh's attack on the regionalism and regional chauvinism articulated by a section of politicians in Maharashtra and the 'Views on RSS' edit is important because it involves Singh's criticism of the Hindu extremist group, the RSS, which has increasingly become more powerful in the political sphere and whose endorsed representative Narendra Modi is tipped to be the Prime Ministerial candidate of the main opposition in India in the next general elections in 2014. The 'Batla House Encounter' edit should also remain because it remains a talking point in the Indian media. In the latest issue of Tehelka magazine there are two articles containing two different views on this encounter. ( http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ and http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/ ). Soham321 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• DELETE to IMPROVE should happen only when no reliable sources are available. Editors cannot claim removal of controversial content due to content dispute (especially for content which is validly sourced). If you feel this is trivia then this is not the right way to handle trivia. Statements such as "this doesn't look good", or "this should not be here without reason" are certain traits that show ownership by the editor which is not correct. Also showing an editors past good behavior doesn't permit them to do things wrong now or prove what an editor does is correct(there is no dearth of first time offenders in WP), so lets keep that argument out of this topic.  A m i t  웃   17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DELETE to IMPROVE should happen only when no reliable sources are available - do you have a policy to support this statement? It is not uncommon to take such steps, especially in BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE talks about trying to correct/fix the problems before you revert and the policy about WP:BLPREMOVE talks about removing contentious content only for un-sourced or poorly sourced content. The controversy section was added to the BLP by me because of WP:WELLKNOWN to try to summarize the large sections of controversy into a single section and use only 1-2 lines per controversial statement the leader might have made instead of using such large sections for each controversial statements. Where is the policy that states sourced content should be removed for improvement, a trend or habit is not a policy either?  A m i t  웃   17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a policy for removal; I queried your statement, which read like it was based on policy. There has been lengthy discussion about the controversy stuff and in the absence of any consensus plus the burden of BLP and not wanting to be a random list of random allegations, I boldly took the lot out. As noted in a diff above, I'm not averse to considering proposals but none were forthcoming at the time and, indeed, Soham had indicated an unwillingness to provide any. I do wish that people could try not to write articles in list form and I do wish that they considered the relative importance of statements made in those lists etc ... but I've been around India-related articles for long enough now that I really should know that good writing is not usually going to happen. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I lost interest in interacting with Sitush after he started misrepresenting my position by making false statements. For instance, Sitush claimed that i was in favor of removing the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when in fact i had opposed such a move. That was also when i had explained to him why the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section should not be removed as he was in favor of doing. For the diff, see here. Soham321 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs of text removal by Sitush and I found that these were improvements to the article, removing text with problems such as non-neutral tone, and synthesis of sources to form a novel conclusion. I have not looked at the article's talk page or at the DRN discussion.
As described by Johnuniq, Sitush is to be praised for interposing himself between Wikipedia's policies and politicized or activist editors. This position subjects him to a near-continuous stream of and criticism and even invective. If Wikipedia is to maintain its neutrality, Sitush should be supported as much as possible by the community. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If your only contribution to this discussion is to sing praises of Sitush, then it is not going to help anything here. I am leaving this topic even though the content under discussion was created by me. I have no issues with Sitush, and any consensus brought here or on DRN is fine by me. But try to keep the discussion pointed to the content and not the user.  A m i t  웃   18:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush's three edits given as problem edits are well within policy, there is no reason to sanction him for them. Wikipedia biographies shouldn't be used to provide a platform for the "views" of its subjects. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate infoboxes userboxes

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

---

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

---

I happened to find this page of an inactive editor which includes some inappropriate and rather useless infoboxes. The page links to File:Citroën DS 21 Pallas (1).jpg. I think the infoboxes should be deleted. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

The reference to the file of the Citroën is that people who link to the file can see the infoboxes when they click the page. Since some of the infoboxes are pornographic it doesn't look good for the project. Also MfD is a waste of time since the infoboxes are good candidates for CSD, although I am reluctant to classify them under vandalism G3. But thanks anyway. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikipedia is not censored? HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that pornographic pictures and infoboxes userboxes are not normally acceptable on user pages? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Is there a formal policy? HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy-wise I'm not sure. But there were repeated discussions about this userpage image, deleted since then. I think also that actual porn images are disabled by the software from appearing on a userpage since then. But I guess userboxes are exempt. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The only image on that user page is one of a machine gun. That's not pornographic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But if you look a bit closer you will see

Say after me... No More Bush, phew! 250px

The redlinked 250px is the deleted link to the porn image. "Bush" is a double entendre and refers to this image. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. That's ridiculous. It's as if you're going out of your way clicking on random links in the hope that you'll find something to complain about. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In what way is the example I gave you of a deleted pornographic picture on a userpage random? Also please leave the personal attacks out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also what infoboxes? There aren't any there - though there are some userboxes. GiantSnowman 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant userboxes as in this example. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Firstly, as HiLo48 points out, Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Secondly, unless you are saying that the image isn't on the bad image list (where it probably should be limiting it to appropriate pages), I don't see what your point might be. Are you claiming bad image list isn't working if the image is transcluded from an allowed page? If so, I'd be happy to help you put in a critical ticket on Bugzilla to fix that. Technical 13 (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to HiLo48 regarding porn images appearing on userpages and follow the link I gave them as an example. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The only image on that user page is one of a machine gun. That's not pornographic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I was not talking about the machine gun. Please see my reply to you above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • See also these repeated and long discussions on Jimbo's talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No, I won't go and see those pages. I've shown you the NOTCENSORED policy. Unless you can show us a policy that supports your view, you're wasting our time here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's your prerogative. But you can't speak on behalf of everyone. Talk about your own time, not "our time". Someone else may find this information useful. The userboxes have already been put at MfD. That's already a positive outcome and not such a waste of time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• As far as your talk about policy and NOTCENSORED, how would you like to see userboxes like this one in userpages across Wikipedia: User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/jo. Do you think userboxes like this one are appropriate in an encyclopaedic project? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have my own view about the suitability of these images but this is not the place to discuss their deletion or retention. Anyone with a view either way should go to today's MfD page to express it. This isn't an AN/I matter. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was simply responding to the questions posed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown, I don't disagree about the deletion part, but don't those images belong on MediaWiki:Bad image list anyways? Technical 13 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Jason Gianginis

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

---

Can an admin quickly check if this page has been deleted before? The reason I'm asking is because of suspicious dates (July 2013) in templates on the page, indicating a possible copy/paste recreation. The user has not been notified of a speedy deletion, which is why I could very well be wrong (in that case apologies to you, Jason Gianginis). The "website" link on the article Jason Gianginis links to a Facebook page which has been deleted. I checked some of the titles on IMDB but can't find a "Jason Gianginis" in any of them, nor is there a "Jason Gianginis" found with IMDB search. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's been deleted before, it was at a different title, as there's no deleted revisions of the page. (Also, next time you might want to post at WP:AN as this isn't really an "incident". ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did think of posting at AN first, but the page notice says: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." with the bold/italics and red text. Ginsuloft (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV

Could we please have an administrator take a look at WP:AIV? It is backlogged and reports have been left without action for several hours. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Dimension10 and page moves

Dimension10 (talk · contribs) pretty much took it on themselves to re-arrange the pages that used to be Standard Model and Standard Model (mathematical formulation). I created a thread at WT:PHYS about this, and asked them to stop moving things left and right so I can fix the mess, and make sure the old links point to the intended articles, but they just won't stop. Take a look at their move history to see the damn mess they left behind. Could an admin please block them for the moment, until they agree to stop moving things left and right and let the discussion of WT:PHYS come to it's conclusion? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Headbomb There is no mess. The mess only started after you started making some of the redirects redirect to Introduction to the standard model, and some to The standard model. It's clear that you' are the one messing up everything here, using vulgarities randomly, making a big fuss about almost nothing, and wanting the article's nameing conventions to be against all the other articles', just because YOU can't comprehend technical, mathematical, details, and YOU don't want the technical articles to be the main article? . . . Dimension10 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) .

Could you please stop it with the personal attacks? I fully comprehend the technical details involved and the only purpose of the discussion on WT:PHYS is about the names of the articles, how to best deal with them, make sure we direct the readers where we actually mean to, and all that jazz. Your half a million moves makes it impossible to have this conversation about, you break a bunch of links in existing articles, and behave like a bull in a China shop. It's clear you won't be stopping anytime soon, and you need to be blocked so your disruption stops and so that people can have a discussion about things without pulling their own hair trying to figure out which article is which. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Look who'se talking (For others, please check the original version of this section.) . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be doing something wrong because even this page (WP:ANI) became one big mess when you edited it. Are you using some non-standard software when editing? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happened to the standard model articles . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the formatting issue on this page, the result of {{curly brackets}} rather than [[square brackets]]. When a move is opposed like this, the correct thing to do is to revert to the names before the move, and then come to a consensus about what the page names should be. Indeed, major name changes like this should optimally be discussed at WP:RM or the talk page or the project page first. I think an admin will need to help sort out the moves now, lots of redirects got re-edited. I'm afraid I can't help, I need to go offline in 5 minutes, and I don't want to leave it half done. I don't think any blocks are needed at this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this, but a few things strike me as problematic with Dimension10. The user page User:Dimension10 is using a protected template and adds, "If you edit it (the user page), the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." On the talk page, the controversial moves of other pages have been brought up at User_talk:Dimension10#Controversial_moves. The Townsend string theory matter alone is a problem. Dimension10 has clear problems with this topic area and actually attacks editors when actions do not go their way, even if their claims are proven false. Even stating, "Stupid adminstrators who don't know string theory want to delete." in relation to the Townsend string theory page.[173] These moves were a bad idea and should not have been done without consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention things like [174] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this topic? HUH?! If you can't stand a joke (the kill you thing), I think your comment is pointless . And the move was because the admins refused to check the refs, and they were happy with the move . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm also uninvolved, but most of the moves seem to be for the sake of personal preference, or "potential spelling mistakes". For example, it's really unlikely that someone will misspell "The Stranded Model" for "The standard model"...

I agree with everything Headbomb et al said. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of editors who feel that jokes about murdering editors who comment on a talk page are in bad taste. But YMMV. As for the moves... you may have a strong case for your version, you might not. But clearly the moves have been disputed here - so now they need to be reverted until a discussion can be had and consensus can form. I do find it troubling that your first response when someone questions your moves is not "Well, I moved Standard Model because of reasons, and then moved Standard Model (mathematical formulation) because of these reasons, and this is why I think it is better that way..." and so on - Your first response was to attack Headbomb instead. You need to dial it back a bit, Dimension10. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove move permission from someone? That would deal with the situation rather effectively. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, @Dimension10: please can you advise how/why/what re:your typing? The formatting and spacing is...bizarre, to say the least. GiantSnowman 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On fixing the mess

In parallel to the above stuff, any admin that wants to clean up the mess (aka restore to the pre-move status quo) would have to

• Move Introduction to the Standard Model → Standard Model
• Move The standard model → Standard Model (mathematical formulation)

Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)

• Particle physics standard model
• Standard model (basic details)
• Standard Model of particle physics
• Standard Model of Particle Physics
• Standard model of the universe
• The Standard model
• The Standard Model
• The Standard Model of Particle Physics

Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (mathematical formulation) (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)

• Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model
• SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)
• SU(3)XSU(2)XU(1)
• Standard model (details)
• Standard model (technical details)

Then delete the following redirect

• Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model)
• Standard+Model
• The Stranded Model

Then WP:PHYS can have its discussion about what titles to settle on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it all. Anything else I need to do? NW (Talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware, that covers everything that needs to be done concerning article moves at this point. Things may change after the discussion at WT:PHYS, but that can be handled through the usual channels of {{move request}} and similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of images as RS

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

---

Discussion (or the attempt at it) has been going on for some time now at Haredi Judaism. It relates to additions made by a novice editor User:Jonathan.bluestein. I wish to bring to attention at this point only one issue: That of using images as RS. Is there ever a circumstance when images can be used to cite text? If so, please can someone confirm when they can be used.

Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism#Using images as RS. I had removed the image of the swimming pool which was being used as a reference. It was re-addedby User:Jonathan.bluestein until he removed it himself: [175].

Now he insists on using another image as a source: [176]. I had removed it ([[177]) and he has just re-added it ([178]) after replying to my post at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My name's Jonathan Bluestein. I strongly suggest reading the Talk page on Haredi Judaism, to get a sense of what has been going on there as of late, and what Chesdovi has been up to. He has been making tremendous efforts to delete mass amounts of material off that article. As for his claims in this particular discussion:

First image - unlike what he wrote, it was not removed. The use of it as reference has been removed.

Second image - in my opinion, a valid source. Addresses the subject matter. Has copyrights. Was shot at a relevant location and at a relevant time to the subject being discussed. Speaks for itself as proof of a certain claim made in the article's text.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the proper noticeboard for this discussion. Try over in WP:RS/N instead. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Thinking this is the incorrect forum for this discussion, perhaps WP:RS/N and Mangoe suggested or WP:DRN? Anyways, I'm requesting this be closed (since I'm now "involved" or I would have done it myself). Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks/ Chesdovi (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:CJK comparing academics to 9/11 "doubters"

User:CJK seems to consider a Wikipedia talk page an appropriate arena to compare academics who have expressed doubts as to the guilt of Alger Hiss to "9/11 doubters". [179] Can I ask that he be topic-banned from the subject matter until such time as he is prepared to adhere to expected talk-page standards, and to not violate WP:BLP policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Related reading (Arbitration request filed by CJK four weeks ago) for anyone who wants to get a bit of a background on this. NW (Talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link, NW. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK does exactly the same thing again: [180]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeat offender

User:Jonathan.bluestein has consistently been re-adding citations to Hebrew Wikipedia pages, despite this being not in line with policy. He has been told umpteen times about this at talk (and here) and on edit summaries.

Yet his latest edit has re-added them: [181]

---/ Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Offender"... Nice one, you're outdoing yourself :-D I'd like to request the moderators and editors to go through the lengthy talk page for Haredi Judaism to understand the context of what's going on. Chesdovi and I have been running an 'Edit War' for quite a while now, and I gather one needs to understand the reasons and background before making a decision on how to intervene (the entire conflict is well documented on the aforementioned talk page). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding this a bit hard to decode. Bluestein does seem to me to have some policy issues and is probably too reliant on his local knowledge of the Israeli scene; on the other hand it seems possible that Chesdovi's perspective is a bit, well, colored. I am tempted to conclude that Bluestein's views may be correct but that he is having trouble proving them according to our standards. There surely must be other editors who do read Hebrew (which I do not) who could mediate this, but it seems quite problematic to have the content of what is after all a pretty important Judaism/Israeli topic determined by an edit war between only two people. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. The sourcing is bad enough already, with a ton of bare URLs, commentary in the notes, lengthy quotes, doubtful sources, etc. I've removed a few of the more egregious citations. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Drmies do you read and understand Hebrew? Caden ^cool 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I sure don't! Good thing that's not important here. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Drmies - you've deleted a few ref/cite that were from Jewish Halacha. It is a primary source for ALL religious Jews (not just Haredim), and for many Haredim it's more important than even the Old Testament. Knowledge of Hebrew is required with regard to that last edit you made, because there were culturally-bound and complex Hebrew quotes there. Please refer to the talk page if you wish to discuss this. Other edits you made I agreed and went along with. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I can give it to you in a couple of languages (Hebrew not included), here and on the talk page, but my edit summary is quite clear, I believe. This is original research. What you need are reliable sources that provide an interpretation of sacred text as it applies to the particular denomination under discussion. No knowledge of Hebrew is required; indeed, if knowledge of Hebrew were required it would only prove my point. See WP:PRIMARY. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The editor also appears to be on 4RR today. I have left a warning rather than blocking, but am going to look at the article now and will revert back to the main version if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The usual way of handling such sources in almost all contexts is to give the English version in the article, preferably from a standard translation that can be cited as such, and then the original language source in parentheses or as a footnote. Since this is the English WP, it is always necessary to give an English translation. I can't think it a good idea to take comment on the sources only from Rabbis speaking or posting on the internet, but from reliable conventionally published sources as well. (& I think some Haredi commentary is in fact published in English) One key reason for this is that not all groups use the internet, so their views will not be included)

More generally: there is a difficulty in all articles like this of giving representative views--there are as many interpretations as there are religious Jews, and to say that a particular publication is the mainstream source is extremely difficult. It's particularly difficult giving a reason for a custom, because I think sources typically give as many different reasons as possible, and it is not easy to pick one to identify as the usual reason. There is an inevitable tendency to give the views of the authorities whose opinions one personally follows, and those like myself not fully literate in the tradition may not be able to tell this. There is a particular danger especially for those outside the tradition of picking what seems the most "quotable" comments, which can mean the ones that one thinks illustrates the weird or picturesque or extreme behavior of others. (and this can be a problem if one relies on English journalistic sources).

Certainly, however, it is wrong to refer to the Hebrew WP as an authority; it's no more authoritative than we are. Those who wish to see it can follow the usual interwiki links. There is however a way of giving WP:Soft redirects. The guideline currently says those to other language WPs should be avoided "because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." The key word here is "generally"--I think there will be reasonable exceptions. But I do not think we ever refer in text or a reference to another WP.

I think however it is reckless to remove or edit material in a language one does not understand, and I think it abusive to edit--especially to edit sensitive material--on a subject or a culture or subject one does not know or where one cannot read the sources. I've made formatting edits on such material, and sometimes corrected English grammar, or copy-pasted a name or a title, but beyond that it's risky doing even what seems like obvious clarifications. Yet how can we leave such editing to the supporters, or the opponents, or a tug of war between the two? The only solution is to rely upon neutral scholarship, but it isn;t necessarily easy to find scholarship that everyone regards as neutral. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Barlas

I am once again reporting Ancientsteppe (talk · contribs). His edits in the above mentioned article are contraproductive. This comment on the talkpage proves that he is not familiar with WP:RS or other basic rules of Wikipedia. This is not a matter of scholarly dispute, but about a user who is distorting academic sources and is pushing for his own POV - without being able to privide a single reliable source. --Lysozym (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Insults from Guardian of the Rings

Starting edit wars and vandalizing pages wasn't enough for User:Guardian of the Rings, so now he's resorting to insults. This really makes it impossible for me to communicate in any meaningful way with him, no matter the subject you can't discuss anything with someone who calls you a "NEFARIOUS IDIOT" [sic].--Nero the second (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now he's doing a revert war in my own talk page. Somebody should talk to this guy.--Nero the second (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Address each and every one of the issues raised in my refactored section here, and I will relent from your talk page. You are not going to get by here by running to mama (i.e. AN/I) crying in the manner you have done so far; that's not how AN/I is supposed to function. GotR ^Talk 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that he doesn't stop reverting in my talk page even after I pointed to WP:OWNTALK.--Nero the second (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's stunningly hypocritical of you, isn't it? Now that least of all, you have received my talkback notification, which has served its purpose (I do not know if you use the watchlist), get on with my points. GotR ^Talk 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first, Nero the second is right about WP:OWNTALK, if they want to remove the discussion they are free to do so. Please stop re-adding it. In the interests of trying to resolve this, lets discuss the issue here, rather then edit warring on user talk pages. Second, no one has vandalized anything, accusations of vandalism just add heat to the fire, and don't help resolve a dispute. Monty₈₄₅ 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have nothing to say on the content dispute underlying this, but GotR: calling someone a "NEFARIOUS IDIOT" (caps yours) is a personal attack, and that kind of behaviour must cease. Also, any editor is free to remove posts from their own talk page; this is taken to mean they have read the message. Do not re-add messages to talk pages of users who have asked you not to. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Compare this and this. The first revert could be explained by sloppy editing, but the second one is vandalism.--Nero the second (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I note from the "stunningly hypocritical" remark that appeals to avoid personal attacks have fallen on deaf ears. And in any case, the accusation is false, I never reverted GotR when he deleted my messages from his user page.--Nero the second (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no reason to conclude it is vandalism. For it to be vandalism, the edit must be made in bad faith, with a desire to harm the encyclopedia. It looks like you had an edit war, that happened to include an error. Again, I'm asking you to stop calling it vandalism. If the two of you stop antagonizing each other, perhaps we can get to the underlying issue, and resolve it, rather then having to block one of you or the other. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No comment on anything else, since it's just repeating, but neither of those is vandalism. The edit messed up the page, but I doubt it was done intentionally. You should read WP:VAND#NOT. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 21:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Back to the underlying editing, Nero the second: Do you have an objection to the edit Guardian of the Rings was trying to make, or only to the version of the page that included the syntax error which messed up the infobox? Monty₈₄₅ 22:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Only with the syntax error, the current version of that page is fine. In fact the core issue was the systematic removal of coordinates and footnotes from a template.--Nero the second (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well in the future, I would strongly recommend that when you dispute only a part of an edit, it really helps to manually undo only that part that you object to. It helps to get a discussion started, and is generally not as likely to offend the person being reverted as a summary revert of the whole edit. Calling another one of the edits botched, and including their name probably didn't help anything. That doesn't excuse the escalation by Guardian of the Rings to calling you nefarious, but it does help to understand how it got there. Reverting an editor across multiple articles is also likely to agitate them. If there is an issue with multiple edits, it can save a lot of grief to go and talk about it first, and certainly before additional reverts. Monty₈₄₅ 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In which, as I will quote myself, you, Mr. Emperor, had a knowingly false or ignorant edit summary (copied from here): On at least three articles, you falsely claimed "WP:EANP, no valid reason for reverting", when my previous summary explains clearly the loss of information imparted by Underlying lk in his previous edits. GotR ^Talk 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go, just minutes after his avalanche of edit-summary insults he's back to being mocking and condescending (just now).--Nero the second (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop dodging my legitimate concerns about your actions. Remember Eleanor Roosevelt's old saying: "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people". And I'll leave it to others (certainly not you), to decide to what extent you are rabble-rousing. GotR ^Talk 22:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'll leave it to others to decide to what extent such messages are antagonizing, and to what extent they make a normal discussion with this guy even conceivable.--Nero the second (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go again. It is indisputable that you have zero will to discuss the three edits in question. We'll see if this post turns into a highly-effective boomerang. GotR ^Talk 23:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had suspended any edits in the hope that you could be convinced to behave respectfully towards others, and that a conclusion agreeable to both parties could be found, but if anything your behaviour has worsened since this discussion was created. Now you make blatantly false accusations of hypocrisy, ignorance, and whatnot, and more in general (as can be seen from messages here) you demonstrate zero goodwill. You are making it impossible to discuss anything.--Nero the second (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistant disruptive edits on articles labeled "LGBT People from Italy"

Three months ago, the same user began to make systematic disruptive edits from different computers on Benvenuto Cellini, Poliziano, Torquato Tasso and Lucio Dalla among others.

The different IPs used by this person, probably Guido Lonchile (talk · contribs), are, for the more recent ones :

217.203.129.136 (talk · contribs), 95.74.248.0 (talk · contribs) and 109.52.145.74 (talk · contribs) for Torquato Tasso

217.203.139.73 (talk · contribs), 95.75.19.58 (talk · contribs)and 109.52.145.74 (talk · contribs) for Benvenuto Cellini

95.74.240.181 (talk · contribs), 217.203.139.73 (talk · contribs), 109.54.162.138 (talk · contribs) and B. River (talk · contribs), specifically created on this purpose for Poliziano.

Isn't it possible to block that person ? Frimoussou (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The pages in question are currently semi-protected, but I think a rangeblock might be a good idea in this situation. I've never done one before, but it looks like 217.203.129.136/20, 95.74.240.0/20, and 109.52.145.74/14 would be the ranges, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)