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

Legacypac's persistent bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WV conduct

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

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ban of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, and topic bans are not a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

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

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

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

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

this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang?

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

ArbCom found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Questions

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

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

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

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI [26] (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: [27], at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively [User:X] demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016. P.S., there's more at Talk:Fluoxetine#Kapit et seq.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, Geogene astutely observed that this case might test the community's collective intelligence. Unless a clear line is drawn to indicate that Elvey's conduct will not be tolerated, then I guess that the answer does not reflect very well on us. No, I'm not going to ping anyone, but I think that it is ridiculous that editors are conflating the legitimate investigation of COI with the dishonest tossing around of COI aspersions without any intention of backing it up with evidence, because the aspersions are being cast in a transparent attempt to discredit editors pushing back against POV pushers. The comments that led me to write the sentence just before this one were subsequently redacted by the editor who made them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe ANI is incapable of dealing with this and it will end up back at ArbCom, I don't know. But I will say quite clearly to Elvey that you have used up all of your rope, and any continuation will be treated very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to draw clear lines against a lot of kinds of behavior to show that they will not be tolerated, to ensure neutrality of articles. If the polices and guidelines were actually enforced across the board, without prejudice or bias, then things would work around here. Also note that it is a relative judgment as to who is a POV pusher and who is an editor pushing back against POV pushers. Conjectures as to motivations are also subject to error quite often. The policies and guidelines are clear. We need them to either be enforced equally, or ignored equally. Otherwise, we have biased enforcement, which of course leads to a bias in empowerment of editors, which of course leads to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If problems with Elvey's editing are under discussion here, then I may as well draw attention to this unfortunate comment by Elvey, which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of or respect for copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT: I am an unregistered editor, but would hope that my comments here be allowed to stand: "WikiPedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Last year, I, amongst other IP editors, was involved in a so-called 'content war' with User:Elvey at the Carlos Castaneda page. I and others had tried to edit erroneous information and spurious references therein, also to post new information that had come to light regarding Castaneda's personal history and regarding some of his critics, only to have User:Elvey continuously revert with a distinct POV bias. In my opinion, I followed Wiki procedure to the letter, explaining my edits in the edit summaries and expounding on the TalkPage, waiting for due diligence before editing, only to have User:Elvey arbitrarily and disruptively revert every edit, whilst accusing myself and others of 'vandalism' and disruption. The culmination of all this was that User:Elvey, together with User:Shii (now inactive) managed to implement a year-long IP editor ban on the Carlos Castaneda page. All the evidence is there on the Carlos Castaneda page and Talk Page and I would like to think that a responsible editor (of whom there are many) would look at this history that I have outlined and revert the ban, which I feel was completely uncalled for. Thankyou for your time. 80.44.144.26 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added linkage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

I propose the following resolution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OSMOND PHILLIPS

OSMOND PHILLIPS showed up several months ago, and most or all of his edits have involved adding a group of nineteenth-century American pictures to biographies of nineteenth-century Americans. However, these images have problems, and he persists, as seen in particular at Talk:Billy the Kid#Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall. He claims that each one depicts so-and-so, but aside from the lack of evidence for that, some of his additions conflict with reliable sources, e.g. at Talk:BTK, claiming that File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg (derived from his upload) is the same guy as [39], which has here been uploaded as File:John Tunstall seated pose cropped and retouched.jpg.

Moreover, the images he's uploading come from The Phillips Collection, part of an online magazine that admits that it has no provenance for any of these images — it's just some magazine that found them in an antiques shop, and some months ago he said that he is "THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION". He routinely says "they're confirmed by professionals" or "they're supported by researcher [name]", e.g. [40] and [41], and his userpage (speedy-deleted as U5, but identical to his Commons userpage) is filled with unsourced claims that he expects us to trust, but he repeatedly fails to provide evidence that would give anyone here reason to trust his claims. There's no evidence that these claims these are authentic, no evidence that these images can be trusted, and no way to verify his claims that they're the people he says they are, but he edit-wars to ensure that they remain (reverted here, with more reversions at [42]; and reverting multiple people at [43]).

And finally, consider his conflict of interest: we don't tolerate people who promote their own organisations by dumping lots of their stuff into articles (e.g. [44], with nine of his uploads) and edit-warring to defend that stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We routinely block accounts who are here only for advertising and/or promotion. This seems like he's here only for promotion. Katie^talk 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add that I'd block the guy myself but I've edited Billy the Kid rather extensively. Katie^talk 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, the issue of the images added by PHILLIPS is already being discussed on Commons here, a discussion you are already part of. PHILLIPS has offered to provide a "check list here of all the ways we research a photograph to help identify the person." That discussion is ongoing.

Your insistence that PHILLIPS states the photos have no provenance is a red herring. The full title of the the web page you linked to stating the images do not have provenance is "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance". The substance of the discussion ought not to be about old school provenance, as long required by museums and art collectors, but whether EN:WP editors are willing to take advantage of modern forensic methods that are being used to determine the authenticity of photos whose origins cannot be proven using traditional methods. This issue is part of that discussion on Commons. As noted there, experts in the fields of forensic photographic analysis have concluded that a photograph found in a thrift store, without ANY traditional provenance, is of Billy the Kid and is genuine. They are running into the same disbelief here on wn:wp that experts initially treated their images with. These experts appear to be changing their opinion. Apparently PHILLIPS is engaged in an effort to supply similar evidence for the photos they've uploaded.

Nyttend, on Commons you state, "discussions there have no authority here, discussions here have no authority there." So why do you propose here on en:wp to engage in a discussion of the images' and PHILLIPS' credibility when the images are on Commons, and that conversation is already being had there? You can't have it both ways: insist that en:wp and Commons are independent, and suggest that PHILLIPS be blocked here for images they added there.

PHILLIPS began contributing to WP on July 1, 2015. They are still a relatively new editor. They apparently have some expertise in the area of Old West images. WP is bleeding editors and fewer and fewer people are contributing. I have been acquainted with a number of exceedingly worthy editors who have abandoned WP due to harassment and uncivil behavior. I believe the multiple attempts to remove his images and his account here, here, and on this page border on uncivil.

Experts on WP are especially few and far between. The Old West Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through the halls. Since PHILLIPS is a professional and business owner, I get the impression they don't watch WP like a hawk as some editors do and may not respond to these concerns as quickly as some might prefer. Following the principle of don't bite the newcomer, I think it would be extremely premature and contrary to good faith to block him at this time.

I agree that PHILLIPS has reverted edits made by others when they should not. I attribute this in part to the fact the they are a newcomer and likely unfamiliar with WP's byzantine methods of conduct, its dozens of pages of policy, its dozens of policies and procedures, and WP's 5000 word long Five Pillars. Let's try to remember that some people actually live a full life without checking WP daily for comments on their contributions. I suggest a cooling down period and allow PHILLIPS to provide any evidence they have about the images that support their contention that they are of the individuals named.

In any case, the discussion here on en:wp ought to be restricted to whether PHILLIPS is engaged in promoting their business. They appear to be trying to contribute potentially informative and revealing images about a number of Old West figures. I don't see how their business benefits if PHILLIPS is releasing images into the public domain. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not merely that PHILLIPS is promoting his business: that's one problem, but as well, he's repeatedly adding images to articles that fail our verifiability and copyright standards. Uploading bad images to Commons isn't reason for sanctions here, but using bad images in violation of our standards is reason for sanctions. Moreover, note that PHILLIPS' website has lots of ads: making his collection more prominent through Wikipedia will obviously increase the number of people viewing the website, increasing ad revenue. We already sanction people when they attempt to promote nonprofits or personal websites; attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily." True. It that is, indeed, the case. And it's proven to be so. I'm not very comfortable with what seems to be a real lack of good faith and biting going on here. If that isn't what's intended, I'd love to see someone say that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing that has concerned me since I first saw the Phillips site is whether, if this were text, it would be considered a reliable source. After reading the contents of "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" pages linked above—the text written by Catherine Briley—I was left feeling very uncomfortable as to the reliability of the site and thus the images being presented. Mr. and Mrs. Owner buys photos, they suspect (but do not know) that it was collected by Phillips based on photos that they think may be of the Phillips family mixed in with the photos that they believed to be of rather more famous Old West individuals. I've never seen a similar chain of guess and surmise being allowed before on Wikipedia: these are basic verifiability issues. And if the source isn't deemed sufficiently reliable, how can photos from it be deemed reliable, and especially as the photos themselves do not appear to have been marked as to the subject, but are apparently being classified by eye, including Mrs. Owner's artistic eye. Putting a definite name to a photo that isn't self-identified on the original is an extraordinary claim, and I don't think there has been adequate support/documentation to justify those claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits I reverted was only the photos. If I am not allowed to revert how can they be allowed to remove the photo. I am doing the same action as the person who removed them. Yes, I am a newcomer and have a lot to learn. Is it okay thatNyttend decided for himself to remove all of the photos? Should he be warned, temporarily banned? Put up for deletion like me? I don't know the rules as yet. He made the decision to remove all of the photos for all of us.

The Phillips Collection has nothing to do with the online magazine texasescapes as Nyttend states. All of the ads are on texasescapes. We receive no money from advertising from their online magazine. The editor believes in the photos and allowed us to write articles there to starting getting the collection known. We have made strides in research identification since then. The collection was originally collected from the 1890's to the 1930's we have evidence that proves this. The collection has gangsters from the 1930's and then stops collecting. We have NOT uploaded any photos to wiki that are after 1923. The oldest photos on Wiki is circa 1900. There were not as many publicized outlaws after that until the 1920's. The current owners of the collection purchased it in the mid to late 1990's. So it is not a recent find as they have had it for around 20 years. The collection is over 85 years old. They knew what they had but didn't know what to do with it. I was hired to have it researched and promoted if the research proved to be positive.

Photo's have been deleted when I first came to wiki because I was new and didn't even know they were up for deletion. I would not have known how to support them at that time. I submitted the Philips Collection resume of professionals and family descendants research on my user pages not knowing where to put it. Users against these photos were quick to remove the photos and the resume list. The same users are against the professionals stating that they aren't professionals. Yet these professionals get paid for their experience. We use professionals in the study of Photography, Victorian clothing, Historians and Forensic Arts. The forensics used, is the same forensics used to convict or prove the innocence in our court of law. Would these same users against the photos decide not to use the same forensics that may keep them out of jail? It doesn't matter what I put on here these same users will fight these photos. Nothing I can say will be good enough. That will be easily proved in reply's to this comment.

The majority of people believe that the Billy The Kid croquet photo is of BTK and others without provenance. Should people decide for us what we can see or what we should believe in. These users do not want anyone to see these photos and make up their own mind whether they are of the person or not and whether the public can see them and decide for themselves. These users are throwing away history. It is not for them to decide. To stop these photos they have put me up for deletion. So they will use any means to keep our history from being shared with the public. There is almost hundred photos that we are working on now to provide to wiki administrators the type of photo and the photography stamp information. We will need a little time. These users will try to have me removed before I can submit the information. I will be adding a long check list of the processes we go through with professionals to identify each person claimed in the collection. Last on the list is forensic analysis on higher profile people. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I realized that our checklist would be scrutinized just like our resume of professional people researching these photos. So I am going to walk you through the analysis of this photo we believe to be of Virgil Earp and his daughter Nellie Jane. I am sure the following will be picked at as well. Regardless of the research.

File:Virgil Earp-Nelie.jpg

Virgil Earp-Nelie

This is a cabinet card photograph. Cabinet cards were first seen in the mid 1860's and continued to circa 1900. The cabinet card is easily recognized because of the size which is around 4 1/4 by 6 1/2 inches. The style of the photography stamp whether printed or cursive, type, weight and color of paper, gold trimmed, scalloped or plain edges can help you narrow down the long years of the cabinet cards popularity. Along with decorative borders, color of ink, and back stamps. More information can be found on Wiki here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_card The photography stamp is WL [intertwined] Latour, 11 Main St. Joplin, Mo. There is plenty of information on the internet about Latour. Wiliam Latour [1845-1914] learned the trade at age 11. He studied the daguerreian photography art under the tutelage of Augustus Plitt, one of the St. Louis' most respected artists. From his instructor, he also learned ambrotyping and the aesthetics of photography, etc. He was known to have a business in Sedalia and Joplin, MO. One of the sites with this information is http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=2356& Another site states he quit the business circa 1900. This information tells us he was in business while Virgil was alive. The style of the cabinet card and later business years works with Virgil's age. When we cannot find information on the photographer we look in the census records to see when he was in the area and what his occupation was. The writing on the back states "To Alice from Josie" It is believed to be the handwriting of Josephine Earp. We have another photo of one of the Earp's with the same writing style. Examples of her writing can easily be found on the internet. Her writing changed as she got older. We also have a photo of Josie on her horse and her writing on the back about her favorite pal. Virgil had a niece named Alice. She was the daughter of Newton Jasper from Nicholas's first wife. This can be found on Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=3164. Evidence shows that it could be indeed Josephine and Alice of the Earp family. Virgil died in 1905 at the age of 62. This can be found at a reliable source called Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Earp Its also states that Virgil had a daughter Nellie Jane that he wasn't aware of until 1898. He visited her the next year and obviously other places. We have had, as an example, people say Virgil never was known to be in Joplin. We have found by these photography stamps that if the person wasn't good or bad and made the local paper or signed documents etc, you cant really say they was never there under most circumstances. Some of the photo stamps do match the area the person was known to be in at the time. A picture of Nellie Jane can be found on Find a Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40289053. Photos on Find a Grave can usually be trusted because most are uploaded by descendants. This is one of the places where we find family members and get their opinion on our photos. The photo of Nellie Jane matches well along with another photo we have of her taken in CA. Anytime you can identify additional people in the photograph it increases the probability tremendously. Virgil was shot in the left arm and lost the use of it. That is what historians believe. His elbow was damaged and completely or partially removed. Could Virgil actually be able to bend his arm like in the photo? We found another photo owned by Craig Fouts of Virgil, his wife Allie and John Clum. [We have photos of Allie and John Clum that match as well] Virgil's left arm is bent in both photos. Whether he had some use in his arm or he used his other hand to place it. The photo shows he could. Fouts is a known collector of historic old west photographs and is well respected. His photos of the Earp's are in all the Earp related books and Wiki. If this photo was a tintype we would know that a tintype is a reversed image of itself. Like looking in a mirror. We would know that Virgil's left arm that is shown bent is really his right arm. Virgil Earp's ears are distinguished. He has long ear lobes as does some of his brothers. He likely got them from his mothers side as Nicholas's lobes are not as long. More can be said about Virgil's facial features and hair but the ears are the best indicator as they do not change with the exception of the lobe getting longer at times. The clothing fits the era. Nellie dress style is correct for the late 1890's along with the color of it. Earlier dresses were dark unless it was a graduation or another special occasion. Wedding dresses were typically not white either. Nellie's rolled back hair style was only popular in the 1890's. Virgil's suit and his removable collar that would be stored in a collar box was still used in that era. Several styles of these 1890 and early 1900's collars can be seen on the internet. We also check for jewelry, like Nellie's wedding ring to see when she married and does it work with the photographers years in business. We study the age difference between Virgil and his daughter. Whether Virgil is wearing a wedding ring or not. Virgil never married Allie but she was his common law wife. We look for moles, scars and any other identifying permanent marks. We try to find descendants, contact museums who has information on the individual. We contact authors and historians. We search old newspapers for information like this site Chronicling America by the Library of Congress. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/. We have joined ancestry sites to study their family trees to find clues of who the names are on the back of the photo if it isn't of the person photographed. Most photos have the names of family or friends that they are sending it to. Some of our photos do have their names on the back of the person photographed. Finally we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis. We only do this analysis on higher profile people because of the cost. We have not done Virgil's forensics yet, but we will. This information tells us that this is a circa 1900's cabinet card with the photography studio being in business during Virgil's later years. He is photographed with his daughter. Both are wearing the correct period clothing of the time. The cabinet card has the later color of grey with an embossed decorative pattern. The script is cursive and is appropriate for the time. The ink in the photo is the typical rich soft tones used in the later years of the cabinet cards. The writing on the back has known family names. We have around thirty photos of the Earp family members which enables us to compare with, even though they are unauthenticated. Many are with other family members. All of this information in a court of law would be enough to confirm their identity even without forensic facial analysis. Yet it is not good enough for some of the Wiki editors who want to stop all photos without a chain of provenance. It should not be up to a few, to keep the interested public away from such important history. How many of Abraham Lincolns photos have no provenance. Yes, he is easily recognized. Just because someone does not have the experience or talent to identify photographs does not mean the photo should be withheld. This photo was on Virgil's Wiki page to share with old west enthusiasts but was removed. I will be adding comparison photos soon. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:COI. Nuff said? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, for Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But also, arguably, Here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that, as and when the copyright issues are sorted out over at Wikimedia, it might possibly be reasonable to use some of these images, with suitable prominent caveats and subject of course to individual discussion on talk pages. A hint to OSMOND PHILLIPS: we would need checkable versions of the arguments for authenticity of each and every picture. Banning strikes me as counterproductive. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Like one person mentioned. The owners artist eye could not be used for identification. The owner who found this collection in an antique mall had the artistic experience to recognize the possible faces of these outlaws and lawmen. Therefore saving this collection and adding to an important part of our history, This is the resume of one of our Forensic artists. Her art skills are considered an advantage to helping her with forensics making her one of the top forensic experts.

Extended content

Carrie Stuart Parks P.O. Box 73 Cataldo, Idaho 83810 Forensic Art Experience Forensic illustrator 1981-Current: Stuart Parks Forensic Consultants, Cataldo, Idaho Criminal and civil forensic art. Courtroom exhibits for prosecution, plaintiff and defense. Courtroom sketching for KXLY, KHQ, KREM television. 1981-1989: North Idaho Regional Crime Lab, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Serving the police and sheriff's departments of the ten northern counties of Idaho, the Department of Fish and Game, the city and county of Spokane, the FBI, and the Department of the Treasury (A.T. & F.) Numerous other agencies. Qualified as expert witness: forensic art, memory: Idaho and Washington Fine Art Experience Professional Artist 1974-Current The Art Studios of the Coeur d’Alenes, Cataldo, Idaho Watercolors, acrylics, mixed media for corporate and private collections Teaching Experience-Forensic Art Achievements: Researched, developed and taught twelve different 40-hour classes in forensic art including: • Composite Drawing for Law Enforcement • Composite Drawing Workshop I • Composite Drawing Workshop II • Composite Artists Seminar • Certification for Composite Artists • Facial Reconstruction and Unknown Remains • Facial Identification for Visual Information Specialists • Advanced Facial Identification • Skill Development for the Composite Artist • Demonstrative Evidence: From Crime Scene to Court Room • Courtroom Sketching • Children and Forensic Art Courses approved by and/or offered by numerous state P.O.S.T. training agencies: • Law Enforcement Television Network • Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission • FBI Special Projects Section, Washington DC • United States Secret Service • Royal Canadian Mounted Police • California POST • Institute of Police Technology and Management, University of North Florida • Bridgeport Police Training Academy • Cincinnati Police Training Academy Training approved by the International Association for Identification for meeting certification training Demonstrative Evidence approved for CLE credit: Idaho State Bar Certified Forensic Artist, International Association for Identification Law Enforcement Trainer of the Year,1st runner up finalist, Department of the Treasurery, Federal Law Enforcement Academy, Glynco, GA. "Spirit of the American Woman" (Woman of the Year) J.C. Penneys' Career Excellence Award Presented at the Women's Forum Career Excellence Banquet. Educator of the Year, first recipient of the Lewis Clark State College Alumni Association Award. Lewiston, Idaho John Edgar Hoover Memorial Medal and Citation Awarded by the American Police Hall of Fame, Miami, Florida for leadership in law enforcement instruction. Watercolor: Best of the West Juried Invitational Exhibit, Boise State University Merit Member Idaho Watercolor Society 12 Best Centennial Artists of Idaho Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation Idaho Artist for "Art in the Home Show" Southern Homes Magazine, Atlanta Bachelor of Science Lewis Clark State College, Idaho Double Major: Fine Art and Social Science Presidential Honors (4.0 GPA) Forensic Art Training 80 hours: Composite Art and Photographic Retouching FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 15 hours: Techniques of Facial Sculpture School of Forensic Science University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 40 hours: Interview and Interrogations Institute of Police Technology and Management University of North Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida The Police Artist in Identification, Special Seminar University of South Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana 40 hours: Composite Drawing Workshop School of Forensic Science, University of South Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana 40 hours: Forensic Animation of Motor Vehicle Collisions Road Safety Research Centre Ryerson Polytech, Toronto, Canada 16 hours: Child Sexual Abuse Treatment, Special Seminar Idaho Network for Children/Lewis Clark State College, Idaho Demonstrative Evidence Training Seminar Seattle, Washington Train the Trainer one day seminar Creating Visuals-Professional Education Seminar Dynamic Graphics Education Foundation, Washington DC Identikit School Idaho P.O.S.T., Boise, Idaho Forensic Art Training Seminar International Association for Identification 72nd Annual Educational Conference, Washington DC 73rd Annual Educational Conference, Sacramento, California 75th Annual Educational Conference, Nashville, Tenn. (By Invitation) "International Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Mass Disasters and Crime Scene Reconstruction". FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. SCAN Content Statement Analysis, LSI Publications-books written and illustrated: Secrets of Drawing Realistic Faces (author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003 ISBN-13: 978-1581802160 Secrets to Realistic Drawing(co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2005 ISBN-13: 978-1581806496 Secrets to Drawing Realistic Children (co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2008 ISBN-13: 978-1581809633 The Big Book of Realistic Drawing Secrets (co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2009 ISBN-13: 978-1600614583 Secrets to Painting Realistic Faces in Watercolor (co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2012 ISBN-13: 978-1440309045 Drawing Realistic Faces Workshop(co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2012 ISBN-13: 978-1440321535 A Cry From the Dust Harpercollins Christian: Thomas Nelson. Publisher, August,2014 Winner: the Carol Award for best suspense/mystery/thriller 2015 The Bones Will Speak HarperCollins Christian: Thomas Nelson. Publisher, August,2015 Publications-books illustrated: Seasons of My Heart, by Barbara Peretti, illustrated with 40 original watercolors, JackCountryman/Word Publishers, September, 1998 Publications-DVD’S: Don’t Lie to Me, DVD and Workbook “Unlocking the Secrets to Drawing Faces” “Drawing Secrets: Realist Faces” Produced by Artists Network “Watercolor Secrets: Realistic Faces” Produced by Artists Network “Drawing Secrets: Pets” Produced by Artists Network “Drawing Secrets: Techniques for Realistic Results” Produced by Artists Network “Watercolor Secrets: Realistic Animals” Produced by Artists Network “You Can Draw Your Face” Children’s DVD “You Can Paint in Watercolor” Children’s DVD” Publications-Magazines: “Five Portrait Drawing Fix-its” Artist’s Sketchbook, June 2006, Pages 40-44 “Drawing Your Life” Artist’s Sketchbook, April 2005, Pages 12-13 "Composite Art Without Artistic Talent" Law and Order Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 10, October 1992 Pages 50-54 Publications-contributed: Big Book of Drawing North Light Books The Artists Toolbox North Light Books Drawing & Painting People-The Essential Guide North Light Books The Weekend Artist-You Can Draw People LeasureArts, F & W Publication Have You Seen This Face: 24/7: Science Behind the Scenes: Forensics Children's Press(CT) (May 2007) Publications-Listed: "The Artist's Life-A Sketching Sleuth" by Tucker J. Coombe The Artists Magazine, Vol.10, Number 4, April 1993, Pages 36, 38 Forensic Sciences, Volume III by Mathew Bender, Criminalistics, Index of Experts/ Identification Experts. Modern Visual Evidence, By Gregory P. Joseph, 1991, Appendix L, Graphics Experts. Who's Who of American Women Publications-Illustrated Over 25 limited edition prints Cover-North Idaho College Spring Catalog (international award winning) Limited edition print for Pacific Printing Industries Limited Edition Print: Con-Ag '94 Show, Las Vegas Coeur d'Alene Arts Directory and Calendar Cover Hospice of North Idaho Poster and Signature Wine Label Old Mission Centennial Skills Fair Poster Special Presentations (By Invitation) "Interviewing Children for Composites" The Governor's Task Force on Children at Risk, Boise, Idaho Papers "Forensic Art" Pacific and Northwest Region Criminal Justice Educators Seattle, Washington, October 1986 "The Art of Forensic Science" National Association of Medical Examiners, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 1986 "Special Problems in Composite Identification" International Association for Identification Forensic Art Training Seminar International Meeting, Washington DC, August 2-7, 1987 "Forensic Art for Law Enforcement" Northwest Command College, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, Port Ludlow, Washington, March 1988 "Demonstrative Evidence” “Composite Art for Non-Artists" Approved for CLE credits-State Bar of Idaho -American College of Trial Lawyers, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho -Idaho Association of Defense Counsel, McCall, Idaho -Idaho Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho -Shoshone County Bar Association "Forensic Art Without Artistic Talent" International Association for Identification General Assembly, International Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 1990 "Courtroom Exhibits and Evidence" Criminal Law, The Idaho Law Foundation, approved for CLE credit Boise, Idaho, August 1992 Pocatello, Idaho, August 1992 “Forensic Art, Discovering Untapped Resources” American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers International Conference Anchorage, Alaska, January 1995 "Composite Drawing" "Demonstrative Evidence: From Crime Scene to Courtroom" International Association for Identification International Meeting, Little Rock, AK, July 1998 "Would I Lie to You? Recognizing Truth and Deception" Domestic Violence Conference Post Falls, Idaho Professional memberships International Association For Identification, Forensic Art Lifetime Member Appointed Forensic Art Subcommittee 86-90. Chair: Education Committee 87-92 Juried Shows -Idaho Watercolor Society Juried Membership Exhibition Boise Blue Award 4 Honorable Mention Awards 7 Chosen for Traveling Show -Art on the Green, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho -Western Women's Art Showcase -National Art Show at the Dog Show Wichita, Kansas One Woman Shows Featured artist in Sun Valley Artwalk, Sun Valley, ID “Partners in Crime” Lewis Clark Center for Arts & History, Lewiston, ID Artwalk I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII Sandpoint, Idaho Featured Artist, Sept., Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Boise, Idaho Reflections Gallery, Sandpoint, Idaho Frame of Mind Gallery,Coeur d'Alene Colburn Gallery, Spokane Vintage Wheel Museum, Sandpoint Invitational Juried Group Shows Elllensburg Western Art Show Art on the Green, Coeur d'Alene Sandpoint Art Festival Celebration of Western Art-Olympia Ridpath Western Art Show, Spokane Sample Corporate Collectors Coeur d'Alene Resort Six commissioned originals and print for each room Halekulani-Waikiki Original paintings commissioned for Royal and Presidential Suites, Honolulu, Hawaii Kahala Hilton-Waikiki Honolulu, Hawaii Boise Cascade Corporate Office Boise, Idaho Magnuson Hospitality-Wallace Inn Commission original and prints for each room Wallace, Idaho Sterling Savings Seattle, Washington Harpers, Inc. Showroom, Post Falls, Idaho

OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof? Once again, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; dumping someone's resume here, without evidence, is no basis. You have, however, given us proof that you're relying on original research to make your decisions. Continued agency and promotion on behalf of your business, together with persistent original research and edit-warring against people who enforce our policies, means that you need to start editing in completely different fields if you want to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'm a little unclear about how you come to the conclusion that PHILLIPS is engaged in OR when they attempted to add the very specific procedures they go through to validate the authenticity of an image. For reasons I can't fathom, Robert McClenon labeled this edit as disruptive, removed the edit, and warned PHILLIPS that he could be blocked for his actions. Nyttend, you're saying they are making this stuff out of thin air, when they are trying to provide substantial information on the experts they've used.

I'm at a loss as to how PHILLIPS can provide substantive evidence of their methods for authenticating the photos, which those clamoring for removal of the photos are demanding, when he is blocked from doing so because it constitutes promotion. I am not getting any sense that several of the editors hot on PHILLIPS' trail want to work with them to resolve this, but are determined to delete his images and boot him off WP.

I noticed that Robert McClenon and Dat Guy believe that PHILLIPS' additions to this page constitute self promotion and vandalism. I encourage fellow editors to try to give OSMOND PHILLIPS some allowances. They have been a WP editor since July 1 and are still a newbie. They were attempting to provide a list of the methods that they have used to authenticate the photos that are the subject of the ANI discussion. They don't know the rules and policies of WP. Allow a little bit of good faith.

Gentleman and Ladies, unless we can back off a bit and give PHILLPS a little time and room as an amateur contributor to WP to figure out if there's a way these photos can be authenticated, I fear that these actions will continue to showcase WP's hard ass attitude towards newcomers and reinforce why new editors don't stay. Is anyone up for a little patience and moderation? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First, while I understand assume good faith, I will point out to User:Btphelps that assume good faith has limits. It is not clear that the editor in question is an amateur contributor. They are promoting their business. Rather than lecturing other editors, why don't you reason with this editor whose enthusiasm (maybe commercial enthusiasm) is being disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say to OSMOND/PHILLIPS COLLECTION that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm seeing blatant advertising and it sure sounds like hornswoggle to me. These extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand why I consider it original research, consider the definition of original research: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. You've produced a large group of portraits without any provenance: as far as you know, nothing's been said about their subjects in any way whatsoever (let alone being said in reliable, published sources), so you know nothing about these images other than certain facts (e.g. the photographic techniques and elements visible in the pictures), from which you perform research such as examining clothing, conducting handwriting analysis, examining jewellery, and identifying locations. Or consider WP:SYNTH (a section of the original research policy, which says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

Saying "this is a daguerrotype; that one has Uncle Lu written on the back; the other one was taken by a photographer active from 1850 to 1890" is fine, but "because of those facts, we know that this is John Doe" is original synthesis. And finally, on the evidence issue: do we have any online reliable sources that speak about these experts authenticating these images? Are there any articles of this sort in reliable print sources? All we're being given is claims that so-and-so said such-and-such: anyone can make such claims without any difficulty, so there's no reason to believe these claims without backup from independent sources. We're being told that OSMOND PHILLIPS has all these qualifications, too; read Essjay controversy to see a prominent past example of what can happen when people rely on an editor's claimed-but-not-proven personal qualifications. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The research process used to identify these photos is the same process that was used to identify Billy the Kid's croquet photo. That photo is well represented on Billy The Kid's page. It states, "The image was reviewed by experts on Old West history in order to authenticate it.[87] On October 5, 2015, Kagin's, Inc., a California-based numismatic authentication firm, verified the image to be authentic after a number of experts had examined it for over a year. A special show describing the examination of the photo was shown on the National Geographic Channel on October 23, 2015. Other experts do not believe that the photo shows Billy the Kid or the Regulators." Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Earlier today PHILLIPS, in response to other editors' requests that they prove that the images they have added are genuine and not a mere attempt to promote a business, attempted to add a list of the procedures they engage in to validate and authenticate the images. DatGuy apparently took a hasty look at it, perceived it to be vandalism, reverted it, and immediately fired off a Level 3 notice to PHILLIPS warning him that he could be blocked. Given that PHILLIPS is a newbie, I believe this was excessive and bitey.

Editors have challenged PHILLIPS statements about the authenticity of the images and accused him of engaging in original research. Their reply was an attempt to answer those accusations. They state they are relying on considerable outside experts (and, in overkill, posted the entire resume of a university professor and expert) whose paid work evidently supports PHILLIPS' belief that the images are authentic. It was NOT an attempt to promote their business, but a direct response to the challenges made by other editors about the nature and conduct of their business. To further the discussion, I am reposting these steps below:

---

Method used to verify the identity of the historical people in the Phillips Collection of Old West photographs: (as provided by PHILLIPS here)

1. Style of photo: We thoroughly studied the history of the historical person and created timelines of their lives. Getting to know our subjects involved buying and reading biographies, buying old western books, reading books through interlibrary loan, internet research, reaching out to Universities and museums, and poring over old newspapers. It also involved reaching out to living descendants. All of this was in an effort to know the subject’s whereabouts and to verify that were of the correct age to match the style of the photo. The photos in the Phillips Collection range from the 1860’s to the 1930’s and include a majority of cabinet cards but also tintypes, CDVs, daguerreotypes, and one glass negative. Tintypes (or ferrotypes) arrived around 1856, and were generally popular from 1860 to 1870. But, they were made in some portions of the country until the 1890’s even though that was more of a rare occurrence. CDV (Carte de visite) photos are small photos placed on a thin card material that typically measure 2 3/8 inches by 4 inches. They arrived about 1859 and were most popular from 1860 to 1880, but were known to be made up until the late 1890’s, but this was certainly not common. Cabinet cards appeared around 1866, and were most popular from 1875 to 1900, but lasted into the new century for a few years. These photographs can vary greatly in size, style, and color. Cabinet cards can be further dated by the decoration on the card or the lack thereof. Photos from the 1870’s were often mounted on plain brown thinner-stock cards and lacked any identification as to the photographer. However, that was not always the case. Some photographers opted to spend the extra money for a more decorative card. That completely changed in the 1880’s with the name of the photographer routinely either on the front or back, or both, in decorative script. By the 1890’s, cards were even more decorative and sometimes the edges of the cards were decorative.
2. Clothing: We verified that the clothing of the subject was historically accurate. This involved researching books on historical clothing and fashion, internet searches, and involving experts.
3. Photographer: The photographers were researched using various sources. These sources include: census records, internet searches (there are several websites dedicated to providing information about 19th century photographers and when they were in operation), researching old newspapers for ads or stories, genealogical websites, Google books, contacting historical societies, museums, contacting descendants, etc. Once we knew the timespan that the photographer was in business, it was compared with the subject’s life timeline to verify that they could have been there.
4. Handwriting: Some of the photos have handwriting. If available, handwriting was compared to handwriting samples.
5. Other people: If there was more than one person in the photo, positively identifying the other person(s) in the photo as a friend, relative, spouse, or child makes it far more likely that they are the historical figure.
6. Descendants: Reached out to descendants of the historical people to have identity further verified. Often relatives have photos that are not available online to use for comparison purposes.
7. Museums: Contacted museums to verify identity of subject. Again, museums often have comparison photos not readily available elsewhere. They also have experts who can aid in identification.
8. Jewelry: Some ornamentation worn by the subject in an authenticated comparison photo is visible in Phillips Collection photos, adding to the verification.
9. Other physical identification marks used in comparison: Scars, hairlines, shape of ears, shape of eyebrows, shape of lips, shape of nose, etc. We also compared body type and size. Learning the history of the subject’s was very useful in this method because physical descriptions were often given in old accounts of the subject. For example, it was reported that Doc Holliday was blond but was going bald towards the end of his life. We verified the loss of hair for the Phillips Collection photos of Doc Holliday.
10. Location: For some of the photos that were not studio taken, the physical location is visible behind the subject. We did research on those locations. For example, for the Billy the Kid in New Mexico photo, we made two seperate trips driving 14 hours to locate the rock he was sitting on and matched up the mountain range in the background.
11. In some instances, the name of the person is written directly on the photo. The collection has a photo with “Uncle Lu” and other information written on the back, which is a photo gangster Lucky Luciano.
12. Forensic testing. The Phillips Collection contains nearly 500 photographs and one glass negative. We believe that the collection was amassed over several decades. The collector was very thorough; he collected not only historical figures but their families as well, and/or the various people involved in a historical conflict. I can give two examples.

• The collection not only has three photos of Billy the Kid, but also nearly 50 photos of the players in the Lincoln County War and their family members.
• The collection has not only Wyatt Earp, but nearly 70 photos of the people involved in the events surrounding the shootout at Tombstone and their family members. When it is noted how many photos the collection has of a historical person, and also the people closest to them, it increases the likelihood that the photos were collected directly from family members. Criticism has been directed at the collection as being just “look-alikes.”

It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

---

According to PHILLIPS' statement above, "we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis." So in addition to the research they conduct, they engage experts. The photographs have not been published before because they are only recently authenticated, as described above.

It should be noted that these images have apparently never been published before. PHILLIPS provided via OTRS on Commons a copy of the contract designating him is the legal representative for the owner of these images. WP policy allows owners to release their images to public domain.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mess. OSMOND PHILLIPS gives us a longwinded proof that this photo is a genuine image of Virgil Earp. Sadly, he has flubbed even the most basic research. The image in question was not taken by William Latour, but by one of his sons. Judging from the mounting used, it is likely later than 1905. It may be Virgil Earp, but it most probably isn't. Nasal Ant Horn (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate, after all the talk about forensics and proof, that such basic errors are being made. Throughout, OSMOND PHILLIPS has compared his images with the recent croquet photo that was featured on television: Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. There is no magic conveyance of provenance from the one photo to this collection's five hundred. Every photo is its own puzzle to unravel, and the resources put into attempting to verify the croquet photo were quite large. I would be surprised indeed if equivalent resources had been lavished on every photo in the "Phillips Collection". Then there's this extraordinary claim: It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. Each photo looks exactly like these outlaws and lawmen, when even the published side-by-sides are in many cases not even close to the naked eye. I don't see how we can trust that the names that have been attached to these photos are accurate with these sorts of extraordinary claims, absent equally extraordinary evidence. Even if an image is pre-copyright, how can it be usable without real proof of who the image represents? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this guideline. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What aspect of WP:WATERMARK would be relevant here? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all [45]. Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay. And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Steve Comisar annoyances

This biography article has repeatedly had "fans" of the subject advocate for inclusion of various things, and people actually threaten editors who had removed them (see ANI archives).

One common thread with a few of these advocates had been that, instead or in addition to making their point on the article's talk page, they have spammed the personal talk pages of every editor involved with the same long statement. You can witness the latest incident of this sort at Special:Contributions/205.115.188.114. Should this be ignored and should it be assumed to be good-faith behavior? LjL (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim bexley speed, TheThoughtfulOrc, Ruby Murray, Cwobeel, Tokyogirl79, DanielRigal, and Onel5969: pinging you as the involved parties who received the talk page message this report is about. LjL (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This story has something for everyone: Canvassing, probable sockpuppetry and possibly also paid editing. Discussion is ongoing here too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TonySpraks. I am assuming that this will lead to the people responsible getting blocked very soon and then it will all calm down. I'd be sad if it meant that Comisar lost his internet access completely (or if that is already the case) as there is so much scope for education and entertainment that he could be taking advantage of instead of wasting his time trying to manage his own reputation. If Wikipedia stands for one thing it is to bring knowledge of the whole world to anybody who who is interested, prisoners included. I find it genuinely sad that he is not interested in any of that, only in himself. The talk page messages are unwelcome and somewhat annoying but I am just rolling them up on my talk page. So long as he doesn't start with the snail mail again I'm not going to get too angry. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Don't forget the offline and online harassment, if I'm reading the article's talk page correctly. At one point Comisar was sending out multiple letters to at least one editor's home address, which was viewed as harassment given the amount of letters sent AND the fact that one of the sockpuppets began making threats. The IP shows up as being located in Jacksonville, NC and is through the Naval Network Warfare Command, but I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Now if this is accurate and the IP is someone in the military editing on behalf of Comisar, they need to stop. The military does not take well to people taking part in harassment campaigns, which is essentially what's happening here. They might not be making threats like TonySpraks, but these accounts and IPs are all making the same claims based on the same, unusable sources. This shows some clear off-line coordination so even if this is a case of different people, it's still clearly meatpuppetry. This unfortunately also makes it difficult to tell if this person is one of the same people that have already posted or if it's someone who is spamming the page with the same requests because they're all being told to go to the page and use these specific sources. I'm leaning towards this being multiple people using a script to ask for changes because Maniamit (one of the more vocal people recently to lobby for Comisar) wrote something similar and claims to be located in India. Can we lock the page to where an admin would have to approve any edits to the page? This has been going on since 2011 and it's only going to get worse once he gets released from prison. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm usually opposed to full page protection unless there is continuous vandalism that cannot be dealt with timely enough. Here, for now, we seem to be able to revert the dubious edits just fine with semi-protection alone, so, I would leave full protection for another day. I note that this IP editor directly claimed we "educated" them "on the Wikipedia editing process", so I would say that's an admission that they are the in fact one of the same people that have already posted. LjL (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an annoyance at this point. I was simply going to delete messages like that to my talk page, and just keep an eye on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One of Comisar's puppets threatened me in a very ugly fashion about five weeks ago. WMF legal got involved and asked if I would talk to law enforcement about it. The next day, I got a call from a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigator who confirmed that the threat came from a Navy IP address, and that they were trying to figure out who was responsible. Comisar and his puppets want the article to state that he is an experienced actor as well as a multiple convicted con artist. He is also reaching out to any actor in Hollywood who has been in jail or prison. He is clearly lobbying for an acting career when he gets out of prison. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, is there a reason the article's set to PC1 instead instead of full SPP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• That'd be me - I tried doing some page protection but borked it up. If you want to fix it, feel free. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• No problem. Consider it done! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jethro's team will solve this mystery! LjL (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason anyone should watch that show is if a kidnapper shows up and says, "Watch an episode or die!" --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Update: the IP I've reported here has been been blocked for a week for disruptive editing; the SPI involving them has concluded, but unsurprisingly, no word has been stated about the IP; anyway, most of the spamming at the Steve Comisar talkpage has been hatted, and it seems like it will continue to be as it happens in the future. LjL (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser won't link an IP with a named account, but there was sufficient behavioural similarity between it and Curiouskitten777 for the week-long block to be applied. There's also enough here to pursue any new IP or account that comes by with the same set of actions (spamming usertalk pages with requests to make proxy edits saying Comisar is an actor). So, yes the socking will likely continue, but please re-report at the SPI if a suspicious new IP or account appears - it should be quicker to resolve than it has been in the past. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: is this a good example / test case? Maniamit was determined by checkuser to be unrelated to the sockfest, but the pattern is the same, and some editors have conjectured he might be a meatpuppet (paid editing or similar). In any case, it was in his plain sight that others who pestered editors with this lobbying were hatted or even blocked, and yet he just went ahead and made a personal editing request to Tokyogirl79 on the article's talk page. LjL (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Content/3RR and Lack of civility on List of people with autism spectrum disorders

We're coming dangerously close to violating WP:3RR on List of people with autism spectrum disorders, though reverting mass removal of content where such removal goes against the underlying guidelines for inclusion on the page probably does not violate it. Eventually, an RfC was opened in an effort to stop the edit warring, which failed as User:Galerita removed the content again, which I reverted again. Additionally, Galerita came pretty close to violating WP:CIVIL, if not crossing the line, here on the RfC. Some admin needs to step in before things get out of hand. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The lead of this list article should be enough indication that this is a potential, if not actual, BLP violation. It was nominated for deletion and kept, but that was in 2007. Hint. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't really see the incivility. There's mention of one editor being accused of having created an unbalanced article, but that's it. This discussion also is indicative of the BLP violating potential of such a listing--note the suggestion we create Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime. Like we have Homosexuality and violent crime. Wait. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like you are both close to violating the three revert rule. I will say, though, that Galerita's edits to that page aren't acceptable, as that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did. Chesnaught (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did" I completely disagree Chesnaught. When the appearance of cause and effect is created by association, and NO causal relationship exists, then some appropriate comment is required. This standard in the media, and not to do so can result in defamation proceedings. Galerita (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Which is a good reason not to have such articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Our family has several members with ASD. It is distressing to say the least. So I searched for "famous people with ASD" and this was the first hit. I was shocked by the inclusions on the list. It took some time to discover that the crimes committed by individuals on this page were unrelated to ASD. Even including this disclaimer in the header would be insufficient as I didn't read the header, just the names.

In its current form the page creates the impression of a causative relationship that doesn't exist. There will be distressed individuals with ASD seeking solace that some famous people have ASD to find they are in the company of serial killers. ASD is already difficult to live with for families and individuals themselves. Sufferers have high rates of psychiatric illnesses, suffer rejection, isolation, unemployment, difficulties functioning in society and have high suicide rates. Compounding this with the inevitable prejudice created by this page is insensitive, offensive and probably injurious.

Here's another test. Would it be appropriate to write to the living noncriminal entries on the list and ask if they are happy to remain on it? I'm happy to do so if no one else is.

The page should NOT remain in its current form. Some ideas: deletion; restrict it to people noteworthy because they have ASD (rather than noteworthy people with ASD); or restrict it to noteworthy people who publicly identify as having ASD (i.e. advocates).

Finally, my apologies for being robust in my editorial approach. I am an occasional rather than experienced Wikipedia editor. It should be self-evident that experienced editors are better able to preserve and defend the content they create, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. I can see this page is inappropriate even though I don't know the detailed rules.Galerita (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Galerita: As these people are already notable it would be perfectly suitable for you to state that their ASD didn't cause them to do what they did on their articles rather than the List of people with autism spectrum disorders. Having AS myself, I can fully understand why you wish to clarify that said condition did not make them commit whatever crime they committed, and I do hate how the media portray us sometimes, but that page is a list of people and nothing else. Chesnaught (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: I think this is inadequate as it does not address the issues I have raised. The impression of a causative relationship is created by this page, NOT on the pages of the individuals concerned. I think the only solution is to delete the page. Galerita (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• In my understanding the article violates WP:COATRACK. It focuses too much on people with ASD who have committed crimes, and hence creates the impression that ASD is causal in those crimes, when it is not. To quote from WP:COATRACK, the "article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The context of WP:COATRACK is that subject is the subject of the article, not necessarily an individual person. Galerita (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw request and move to close: Galerita, by his own admission, is a new editor and seems to have learned from whatever mistakes he may or may not have made here. Let's just move on. Calton, on the other hand, clearly has not learned, judging by his lengthy history and continued incivility in this AfD and elsewhere, including ANI itself, and I don't want this ANI staying open to distract from the integrity of that one, as has been suggested. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault RfC

Hello, there is currently an active RfC going on at the Talk:Campus sexual assault page regarding whether or not to use in-text attribution for a statement. When the RfC was first opened, User:Flyer22 Reborn (who supports not using attribution) phrased the question as two opposing areas of comment: 'Don't use' and 'Use'. I requested on her talk page that this be changed to a simpler, one-question format. She did not change it, so I noted my objections on the RfC page and left my comment only in the latter section. Another user, User:FoCuSandLeArN, also noted on Flyer22's talk page, "It is my opinion the RfC !voting space was indeed very poorly organised. Having to support and oppose several points in the same RfC is indeed very impractical, which is why I only !voted once." and left a comment only in the latter section. As the RfC progressed, it collected a total of 7 comments in the latter section. Today, five days after the discussion was opened and the objections were noted, Flyer22 has added a new note to the latter (and only latter) section which reads "Note: There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)". As the time to compromise has passed and this note is suggesting that an active area of the conversation be ignored (either entirely or for new votes, depending on the interpretation of the wording) I move that the note be struck from the conversation, at least as it pertains to suggesting that participants ignore any part of the discussion at this point. Given that the note may impact an active RfC discussion, I have attempted to comment it out pending the resolution of this issue. Please advise the best course to proceed. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the discussion's transpiring nicely. There are points where both parties are willing to compromise, and it appears there are attempts at drafting modified content per the results of the ongoing conversation. I think we can ignore this little bump in the road and interpret the consensus accordingly. I assume Flyer22 was just trying to correct that incongruity. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Scoundr3l brought the matter here because I made it clear on his talk page that I would seek to get him blocked if he kept messing with my comments like he did here and here, which is a WP:Talk violation. There was nothing inappropriate about the note I left in the RfC, which was to clarify that there is no obligation for editors to vote twice in that RfC; that editors can vote once or twice in that RfC is made clear by the way editors have been voting in it thus far. It's also made clear by this discussion on my talk page. FoCuSandLeArN seemed to question if he had to vote twice, and so I left the aforementioned note in the RfC that there is no obligation to do so, just like there is no obligation to vote twice if a RfC has a Support and Oppose heading. The only reason things have escalated this far is because of Scoundr3l's need to debate every little thing, and because Scoundr3l and I bickered with each other at the talk page; see this link for what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I began writing this before Flyer22 left a comment on my talk page. My motivations were not swayed by idle warnings on my talk page but by a desire to remove confusing statements like "Feel free to ignore voting in this section" from a section which is currently being used for comment. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Trolling over there now coming over here. Seems like a discussion is getting somewhere over there, though it's pretty tl;dr. The statement is so WP:POPE obvious that it is clear we have the "men's rights" trolls just there to cause drama, but looks like the actual content issue might be getting resolved anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I clarified my note with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let's just keep cool heads and let the issue move on. No need to let petty grievances take over. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Frankly the RFC looks to be a real mess, but I don't think there's any way to solve that now. However I do agree it's a little weird to only have the comment for one of the options in the middle. Even if it's felt it wasn't needed for the first, I don't see why it wasn't mentioned for the third option. I think it was particularly bad with the original wording.

It would have been best if the lack of need to !vote could have been clarified at the beginning (not that I'm sure why it needs clarification, people participating in RFCs should know we aren't voting so there's no obligating to to vote in any specific maner). But the beginning of that RFC is such a mess that I have no idea, and no desire to learn what it's about and I suspect many potential participants are just going to completely ignore the beginning of the RFC.

Anyway, to avoid dispute, I've included a modified version of Flyer's comment under the other two proposals that people seem to be !voting on. The new wording from Flyer is better, but there's still no reason why it only belongs in the middle option.

P.S. Personally I find it hard to call commenting out (or better simply removing the additional poor wording) included in the beginning of the middle option only, a violation of WP:TALK. People should remember that RFCs are supposed to be worded and structured neutrally. And if they're modifying an ongoing RFC, they need to take great care not to violate that principle. If their actions violate it or appear to, undoing their actions until the issue is resolved is a fair call.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I remembered Flyer 22's name from a dispute over another RFC. At the time writing above, I couldn't recall if they were the one who's actions I had mostly criticised. But a quick check has now confirmed they were. I do not believe my above comments were significantly influenced by any memories I had of the previous experience with Flyer 22, but I obviously can never say for sure. I have no particular desire to involve myself in either RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I'm sure you remember it was me you mostly (rather only) criticized in that previous discussion, despite the clear-cut personal attacks, etc. from two administrators directed toward me, including this mess; that discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Administrator User:Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. As seen there and now in this discussion, you and I have different ideas of what a WP:Talk violation is. It is also quite clear that we never agree. And I don't see how your edits to the RfC, which is going fine except for the occasional bickering, helped. The note I left was placed in the second section because people will see the first section first. And the note for the third section, which you added, was not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I do my best not to hold grudges and so don't remember the name of precisely who did what unless I have a reason to (like they are an editor I feel I need to keep an eye on) or they come up often enough that I do remember, or I happen to remember for some other reason. I considered and consider your actions there wrong, but they weren't so wrong that I had any reason to keep an eye on you, nor was I particularly likely to encounter you again in my own editing. So as I said in my second reply, I did not remember you were the one who I criticised when I left my first reply (which includes the edits to the article talk page).

I did remember your name, but I did not think you were the one who I criticised until I checked. When I thought about it a bit more, I began to wonder if you were the one based partly on your actions here and since I did have a vague memory I felt your behaviour somewhere was unresonable. I didn't actually look for the discussion, instead I looked at the RFC and was easily able to figure out from what it was in fact you.

(Now that I've looked back at the discussion and read your final comment which I never read before, my concerns combined with my concerns about what happened here are even stronger. It sounds like you didn't and I'm guessing still don't understand how RFCs are intended to work and why they are intended to be a community discussion, not simple one random person's ideas which may include including stuff you don't yourself support but believe the community wants or may want to consider. Or making a proposal which isn't your preferred version and not including your preferred version in the interest of compromise based on previous discussion. Whatever else may or may not have gone on, I'll freely admit I didn't look that closely. What I did see was that it was quite clear you committed a major error and where unable to see you had done so and that this error was quite serious since it risked damaging any RFCs you were involved in. So maybe I will remember you now, although why you would want that, I'm not sure.)

Anyway, I hope you are willing to WP:AGF that I was and am telling the truth when I say I did not remember you were the one when originally replying.

I obviously disagree that the notes I left are unhelpful. Firstly as I said above, your original wording was seriously wrong in an RFC, something which you haven't really acknowledged. (You've improved your wording, but haven't said anything to suggest you understand it was a major problem and people were right to be seriously concerned about it.)

Your second wording was better, still while it may be more likely people will read the first section there's never any guarantee, so telling people they don't have to !vote in only one section is out of place. I'll admit though I made a mistake in my original wording. I simply copied yours without thinking too much about it but your wording still has the flaw that it's only discouraging !voting in one section. (There's no more reason why people who've !voted in the second section need to !vote in the first section.) I've now improved my wording [46].

Unfortunately this means the middle section still has the poorer wording. However from all you've said and done so far, I suspect if I delete your wording and replace it with my signed wording you'll complain. And the problem isn't significant enough that I'm going to bother to try.

And in case it's not clear, it does matter, since even with the improved wording, leaving the wording in only the middle section leaves the impression it's some sort of secondary proposal that doesn't matter. The first and second proposal may be mutually contradictory so can't both be implemented, however that doesn't mean people have to !vote on the third proposal, they don't have to as they never do.

It's of course possible for someone to !vote support for both the first and second proposal. Often they may give some indication of which they prefer. But on the other hand some people may think it doesn't matter so they will support both equally. Since this is an RFC aimed at achieving consensus and not a vote, whoever closes the discussion should take their comments on board based on strength of argument and grounding in our policies and guidelines as they should always do regardless of who !vote what & where. Not that many real votes with multiple questions require you to vote in both for your vote to be valid anyway.

As I said before, the far better thing would be for such notes to be left at beginning of the RFC. Except the beginning is such a royal mess, it's fairly likely that very few people will actually see the comment. Mind you, the reason why this often doesn't come up is that normally if there are only two possible mutually contradictory options, it's better to simply include one option. While it's still important to get the wording right in such cases to ensure you aren't biasing in favour of any specific option, it makes things clearer and avoids such needless confusion. (Of course including both options seperately is no better when you are going to say "There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section" in only the second section.

Anyway as with the previous discussion which I now sadly remember much more than I ever wanted to, I've spent way too much time here so won't likely be commenting further. If editors wish to reword or even remove my notes in that RFC, feel free to replace or delete them as you believe is fair and there is consensus for. Don't however take this as carte blanche to do anything which may bias the RFC. If you've had problems before in that direction, I suggest seeking consensus first before making any changes to avoid that issue.

P.S. Whatever is achieved in that RFC, that shouldn't be taken as a sign it was handled well. Any RFC where when someone visits it, the first thing they are greeted with is a very, very long (significantly longer than this very very long comment of mine) discussion between editors, rather than a neutrally worded summation of the issues and main points is a mess. While RFCs growing organically out of existing discussions is a good thing, this doesn't mean people should ignore the basic tenets of making a good RFC when starting them. (And this is ignoring the confusing and seemingly unnecessary inclusion of the only two possible mutually contradictory options which effectively lead to this ANI in the first place when the comment was added.)

And while achieving a result if that happens is good, RFCs are generally best when they have maximum participation and it's fairly likely people have and will visit that RFC, see the very long beginning and go "um okay, whatever, bye". I suspect most of those who do choose to participate are going to jump straight to the !vote parts. The trouble there is while they will hopefully get an idea of what the issues are from the !vote discussion, they may not particularly those who visited early on because there was no such simple introduction and summation. Therefore they may not be well informed and may have trouble coming up with their best policy and guideline based argument. I suspect only a tiny number of new participants are going to read any significant part of the initial discussion.

P.P.S. It looks to me like the personal attacks you referred to include "obnoxious" and being basically referred to as a troll. Personally, while calling someone obnoxious can be uncivil, it's also the sort of thing which can be a harsh but fair description of behaviour. (I'm not saying it was fair in that case, simply that it can be.) And funnily enough, when searching that ANI, I few threads down I found someone else was called obnoxious in ANI itself. Calling somone a troll is more serious since it's in many ways an even more serious accusation of bad faith than vandal so should IMO be reserved for clear cut trolls. However it's complicated and the OP of this thread was effectively accused of trolling and being a troll in this very thread. Despite your apparent strong concerns about calling some a troll being a PA, it looks like I was the first to raise the issue. Which to be clear, I don't think is something worth worrying about.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you sated, "I do my best not to hold grudges and so don't remember the name of precisely who did what unless I have a reason to (like they are an editor I feel I need to keep an eye on) or they come up often enough that I do remember, or I happen to remember for some other reason. I considered and consider your actions there wrong, but they weren't so wrong that I had any reason to keep an eye on you, nor was I particularly likely to encounter you again in my own editing. So as I said in my second reply, I did not remember you were the one who I criticised when I left my first reply (which includes the edits to the article talk page)."

I stated that we never agree, and that's true. I have a very good memory, as a number of editors at this site know. Any time I am involved with a WP:ANI thread and you happen to weigh in on it, I have come away with the conclusion that you strongly dislike me. So you are one of the administrators editors I have pegged as knowing not to come to for help. When I see the type of comments you made in that previous WP:ANI thread focusing on me the way you did with the mess I was put through and downplaying bullying tactics by two administrators, I am left taking your comments regarding me with a grain of salt. Plus, there was this edit by you soon after that matter, which I consider you having felt the need to keep an eye on me, as though I was the main disruptive one. After all, you had never edited that article before, and one of the administrators I was in dispute with made it seem like extra eyes were going to be on me to keep me in line. I received emails from well-respected editors stating that the main administrator in that RfC dispute had been wrong to make a fuss over the headings, especially since the headings represented his views, and that he was completely out of line for his incivility. I received even more emails from well-respected editors stating that this administrator (yeah the one Clpo13 had to revert on that gross personal attack) was over the top and should have been admonished. Yes, Nil Einne that, was a personal attack, whether you want to simply consider it incivility or not, as if that would make it better. These editors all agree that the Jennifer Lawrence RfC was formatted fine. And, indeed, other than the bickering between me and those two administrators, it was a successful RfC and will be closing soon. I know how to format RfCs (I've been doing it since about 2007, either then or a little afterward, when I started editing this site), though I occasionally misjudge what is the best formatting. Just because you wouldn't have formatted the Jennifer Lawrence RfC that way...it doesn't mean that it wasn't the right format. From what I see, it was the best format for that type of dispute. As for the current RfC formatting, that's clearly not my best work. And I still feel that your edits there were not needed. But either way, this simply marks another case where we have disagreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose my memory is not always as good as I think it is. Looking at User talk:Nil Einne/Archive 3 (at two sections I posted to your talk page), I see we were on better terms before, and that I perhaps used to think fondly of you. At some point, that changed. In Wikipedia years, 2009 was a lifetime ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The above 'troll' comment certainly appears to be a PA. Uncivil at best. But it also appears to simply be a pattern with that user's commenting style. I don't pay it much mind as I imagine most users don't. If there are any sincere concerns over trolling, the original discussion is still on display. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

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

• Economy of Ukraine
• Economy of Turkey
• Tourism in Lebanon
• Tourism in Turkey
• Economy of Suriname
• Economy of Argentina
• Economy of Venezuela
• Economy of Paraguay
• Economy of Colombia

...And many many more.

This has justifiably been reverted by a lot of users including: Hammersbach, SegataSanshiro1, Elie plus and many more. It also appears he works for the Lebanese government ([47]). And now he's edit-warring to get his way. Something needs to be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the user who just reported me

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the user who just reported me

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks by User:Blethering Scot

• Blethering Scot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:St. Mirren F.C. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any suggestions on how to dissusade User:Blethering Scot from a series of personal attacks across two RM discussions, which are repeated in edit summaries (contrary to WP:ESDONTS)?

Some examples among many:

• [48] " saying you lied is not a personal attack" - edit summary "You did lie, you are a liar"
• [49] "you were called out on your lies". edit summary "you are a liar"
• [50] -- edit summary "Stop replying if you truly want it to be enough"

The last one is a clear statement of intent to drive me away from a discussion of which I was nominator.

I have asked them several times to desist, and discuss the substance ([51], [52]), but it only makes things worse.

What to do? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Blethering Scot notified[53]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't personally think this is worth an ANI filing. If you don't like the way Blethering Scot is expressing himself, don't engage with him further. It's a survey(s), not a debate(s). Blethering Scot's points are that the vast majority of other Scottish teams with "Saint" in their name use the full stop on Wikipedia, so in terms of WP convention, the convention is to use the period. The fact that Blethering Scot is being rather clumsy in his communication is fairly irrelevant in my view. As always on Wikipedia, focus on content, not on other editors or their behavior. Just ignore the wording, focus on content, and let other people !vote. Don't clutter the page(s) with unnecessary conversation. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought that XFD and RM were consensus-forming discussions in which policy and evidence assessments were scrutinised and discussed, and not just WP:VOTECOUNTing. Closers are certainly instructed not to just count heads, but to weigh a debate.
    As you can see, I did try to focus on content, and did significant research on common usage. But I was just met with tirades of abuse.
    BS's claim is as you say, that "the vast majority of other Scottish teams with "Saint" in their name use the full stop on Wikipedia" ... but reality is that it's 50-50 (3 each way, less than I had initially thought). I would have replied to correct that, but the barrage of abuse is intimidating and explicitly intended to intimidate. Is that really acceptable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

He may have gotten heated in his replies on the two similar RMs but that's something that can be easily ignored and redirected to discussions of content. It's always best to completely ignore insults, name-calling, accusations, etc. and stick only to content. Every single editor on Wikipedia will get name-called, accused of something, or insulted, if they are here long enough. The trick is to overlook that and discuss the content issue behind the words. I don't personally think the blow-up on these two extremely similar RMs warrants an ANI. If this were a longstanding problem across multiple subjects and over a long period of time, and had also been attempted to be resolved over a long period of time, on user talk pages, then it might. But I don't personally see anything actionable here other than a return to sticking to RM !votes and WP naming conventions. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see if others share that view that aggression and personal attacks are just "clumsy communication". WP:CIVIL/NPA/AGF are supposed to be fundamental policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. This is one instance (on two nearly identical RMs). If you had had problems with the user over a lengthy period of time across multiple subjects, and had tried to work things out with the user on their talk page over a lengthy period of time, that would be the time for an ANI. As it is, I personally think the behavior best and easily ignored. (But maybe that's just me; I don't let myself get baited by other people's name-calling, and in content discussions I stick to discussing content, not editors' behavior or the way they express themselves.) Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be focusing on target's strategy for dealing with attacks, rather than on the acceptability of the attack. That seems to me be as misplaced in this context as in any other -- there are many ways in which people can minimise exposure to attack, or mitigate its consequences, but they shouldn't have to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm focusing on your handling of this matter, and whether an ANI was warranted at this juncture. See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Brown haired girl is correct to complain. Unless there is clear evidence of lying then calling someone a liar is a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. I don't think we do the project any favours by asking the victims of personal attacks to toughen up or ignore it, if we don't work to make sure this is a reasonable place to be then the good people will leave and only the stubborn and rude will remain.

@Blethering Scot: is reminded that accusations against editors must be backed up by evidence or they should be kept to yourself. Repeated or egregious personal attacks can result in a block. HighInBC 04:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also Softlavender I don't think that it could be called a first offence or an isolated incident if it is ongoing after a request to stop. Also notice a previous block for personal attacks in October. A warning is sufficient now, but if it continues it is actionable. HighInBC 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree a final warning is warranted. This is a complete overreaction concerning whether an article title should contain a full stop. Not the first time the editor has engaged in personal attacks. Should be made clear that any further similar behaviour will be met with a further block. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: my accusations were backed up clearly with evidence. BrownHairedGirl lied, she had refused to withdraw that lie. i provided clear evidence proving her statement was false. She said enough, but kept replying thats not my fault but hers. You issued a ping reminding me to provide evidence, this indicates you did not read my responses. i provided evidence to prove she had lied in her statement of as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. This was a false statement in my view to mask her mistake and misleading opening. I proved this to be false, yet she thought it acceptable to continue to lie. I do not see calling out an editor for her lies to be a personal attack, nor will i apologise for it. if that means a block then go ahead. It is my view that @BrownHairedGirl: should be frankly embarrassed. She has wasted everyones time because she refused to withdraw a lie. She knows she wasn't correct, she has seen my evidence showing she was incorrect and attacks me. This isn't about a simple ., but about her false statement and misleading opening. If there was a convention stating the . should not be used as she said in her opening then she needed to prove it. She said all Blethering Scot 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot tell the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion then you are indeed heading for a block. You have not provided evidence of anything other than that you and BHG made a mistake or disagrees with you. Now argue the merits of the dispute without resorting to attacking editors or you will be blocked for personal attacks.

It seems that BHG has admitted that the numbers were not as they thought, so why not just move on and stop with the assumptions of bad faith. HighInBC 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Show me where she has admitted or apologised to me. You are frankly wrong and i told you very clearly block me if you can prove I'm attacking her. She lied by virtue of making a false statement, a statement she hasn't withdrawn. Sorry but tell me how saying as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs isn't a lie. Tell me how that statement is a difference of opinion. In the thread I clearly provided evidence that she was wrong. She attacked me first, not the other way around. She has not redacted her lie, or made any attempt to apologise for it. Can you advise where in the NPA policy it states that calling an editor a liar is a personal attack, when it is proven the person is lying. We are only here because Brown Haired Girl handled herself very badly. Had she as soon as I provided evidence of her false statement, redacted and admitted she made a mistake then fine. She choose to ignore my evidence and pile it on. Im embarrassed for her and thats a fact. Please note any block against me must show to me that calling a user a liar when proven she lied is a personal attack or we will be heading to arbcom. Blethering Scot 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition I simply do not care about a dot. This isn't the issue with her move request, the issue was she opened her move request saying to remove the dot from "St." per wikipedia naming convention. When I asked her to show me where the convention was she said The convention does not seem to be documented, but it is longstanding practice on.wp not to use the dot in "St.", as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football club. Essentially it doesn't exist. As she said as reflected in names of other football clubs, I wanted to verify this info so I checked all other football clubs in Scotland and found no such demonstration existed either. When i advised she had mislead she said I was just showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This was antagonising behaviour, because at this point all id said was her initial statements were misleading and they clearly were. I then provided her with the evidence she asked for. She kept saying I hadn't provided evidence, when i provided the link to back up my point. She said i was like an advocate conducting a cross-examination. The fact is all I did was question why here statements were misleading a move request. She should no signs of withdrawing statement or clarifying why she mislead us. The fact is it was lies or at best deliberately misleading. Not something you would except from a sysop. Also its not entirely unclear whether a dot can be considered to be covered by the common name policy. Blethering Scot 21:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Even presuming the factual claims you made are accurate, being mistaken about our conventions when you make comments doesn't automatically make someone a liar or imply they delibrately mislead. Refusing to admit you were mistaken (again presuming your claims are accurate) is problematic, but again doesn't mean someone is a liar or delibrately mislead. I don't see where you've presented any evidence that BrownHairedGirl knew she was wrong when she made the statement which is implied by your claim she lied or delibrately mislead. And frankly calling someone a liar or saying they delibrately mislead without significant evidence is a far more serious thing than being wrong about our naming conventions. So unless you do have evidence it's far more important that you withdraw your claim then she withdraw her claim about our naming conventions (presuming she is wrong). P.S. I had a brief look at the discussion so I'll add that WP:COMMONNAME is one of our naming conventions, one of the most basics ones. As to whether it should apply to the dot in an abbreviation, I would say yes, but I don't think that's a discussion suitable for ANI anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going to leave this for another admin to decide. I don't like it when people dare me to block them, and I don't really feel like playing this game with you right now. HighInBC 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't daring you to do anything. You said you were going to block me, if i believed she was lying. I said go ahead if you feel you have enough evidence it is a personal attack and can prove that BrownHairedGirl did not lie or try and mislead. I think its obvious at best she was misleading and at worst she lied. I won't apologise for that when the evidence is clear to see.Blethering Scot 23:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

How about you just make your argument based on the facts of the dispute instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks. If you think the fact claimed by BHG is wrong then make an argument to disprove it and gain consensus, there is no need to assume bad motives. Comment on the content not the contributor. This is Wikipedia 101. You can believe whatever you want, we are only concerned with what you do. HighInBC 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I am happy to discuss the substance of the issue, including BS's concerns over my assertions ... but only with an editor who behaves in a civil manner. I have no problem with some discussion of a disagreement, but I will not engage in substantive discussion with an editor who assumes bad faith and repeatedly engages with personal attacks.

I would not stay in any workspace or other meeting in meatspace with people who conduct themselves like that, and per WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia editors are entitled to discuss disagreements and allegations of error without being repeatedly called called "liar", and without facing an editor determined to bully them out of a discussion. Wikipedia's decision-making process is consensus-forming discussion, but consensus-forming cannot happen in the context of such aggression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would point out to User:BrownHairedGirl that the conversation was civil until she said I was displaying signs of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, all because i asked her to clarify the policy she was referring to & challenged her ascertain that the policy was reflected in the names of other Scottish football clubs. She also accused me of being like a barrister because i was wanting her to clarify her comments. None of this displays a civil attitude towards me. She specifically asked me to provide evidence that there are no other clubs in the SPFL called Saint that use the displayed name without the dot. As provided in the RM St. Johnstone F.C. and St. Mirren F.C. are the only clubs named saint in the SPFL. Click on the league links on the spfl tables on the official website to see this for yourself. Her failure to acknowledge this and her belligerent style make me fully believe she intended to mislead therefore i have to come to the conclusion she lied. At the same time i looked at Category:Football clubs in Scotland. As you will see there are only a further 4 with the name Saint. These are St Anthony's F.C., St Roch's F.C., St. Andrews United F.C. and St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C.. That means of 6 Scottish football clubs named Saint, only 2 use the naming style without the dot. That means clearly there is no deliberate reflection in the names of other Scottish football clubs. It is my believe that BrownHairedGirl is showing evidence of behaviour not befitting an admin, and because i called her out on it brought this here.Blethering Scot 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume BHG is referring to this, clear articulation in the MoS. I really can't fathom why therefore, this has all blown up over a full stop. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne Im fully aware of the common name policy and one I agree with, however i think its debatable whether it applies in this case. However BrownHairedGirl pulled it out as an after thought when called out on her misleading facts. Im glad u acknowledge that her behaviour is problematic if proven. I have very clearly provided evidence that she was wrong, yet she fails to acknowledge that fact. She know full well there is no reflection in other Scottish football articles. Blethering Scot 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Fenix down it has not blown up over a dot. It has blown up over BrownHairedGirl failure to admit she provided misleading evidence to a WP:RM. This is problematic behaviour not befitting an admin.Blethering Scot 18

55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Being mistaken is not the same as lying. People have disagreements on Wikipedia and that doesn't make them liars. It was inappropriate to use that term - and multiple times yet - even if her information was incorrect, and even if she didn't explicitly acknowledge that. After all, part of the reason to have the discussion is to gain a consensus as to what should be done, including verifying what the facts are, if they are in dispute. Rlendog (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont believe that to be the case. As far as i can see she wasn't mistaken, she misled. Im not going to withdraw that view in anyway. She is still belligerently ignoring that facts and refuses to acknowledge despite evidence being presented to her. As for my repeatedly repeating my view, given she started the attacks on me, again I won't apologise for that. She is an admin and I am not, therefore she should be setting an example. She has not set an example by accusing me of being a barrister for asking her to clarify her statements and i mean ask her, she has not set an example by not acknowledging the facts. Frankly this is not about a dot but the fact she won't admit she was wrong and tried to hide it by pushing me.Blethering Scot 19:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This should never of been brought to AN, had she apologised and said sorry I was wrong, redacted her false statements, then i would of apologised to her. The fact it was brought here without any acknowledgement on the RM or here makes me think whats the point.Blethering Scot 19:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here's where it all blew up. BS wrote As you've said to me show me your evidence to back up your lies. ‎ As for I dont like it thats just you trying to hide the fact you are being evasive. If you can prove common name applies to a ., then please go ahead. However dont make false statements

I replied[54]

| have provided evidence of common usage, and of usage by the club itself. That is what matters in Wikipedia policy.
You have offered no evidence in support of any other names, and so as noted, your comments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
You now seem to be trying to find flaws in my comments as if you were an advocate conducting a cross-examination, rather than a fellow en.wp editor trying to reach a consensus. Your latest statement, with its accusation of "lies" is a direct personal attack and assumption of bad faith, so I will not discuss any further with you. If you persist with such a personalised approach, I will consider seeking sanctions.

From then on, BS just kept on repeating "liar", and repeating the impossibilist demand that I somehow prove that a generic principle applies to a particular aspect of a name. The hostile advocate-in-a-courtoom-bullying-a-witness approach makes it impossible to have a dialogue about any concerns over evidence and assertions. For the record, one of my assertions about other usage on Wikipedia turns out on checking to be a little overstated, but given the evidence of common usage I think it is immaterial.

There is a fairly simple way to handle assertions that appear incorrect. Simply say what you have found, and ask the other to explain the difference. If we had had that discussion, then I might for example have pointed out to BS that part of the difference was because I had referred to "football clubs" whereas BS was talking about the much more limited set of SPFL (premier league) clubs. But such misunderstandings don't get unravelled when an editor immediately assumes bad faith and responds to every reply by yelling "liar", and by abusing edit summaries to make that attack.

The edit summary "Stop replying if you truly want it to be enough" is a clear statement of intent to drive me away from the discussion. This isn't consensus-forming; it's a blatant attempt to shout me down and not only drive me away, but deter any other editors from joining in. It's WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Sorry, no i referred to every Scottish football club with a Wikipedia article. There are only 6. Actually no you said Enough, then said [55] enough again. My reply was to say if you are truly saying enough to me then stop replying to my posts. Because i have to reply to yours. You are still trying to misinterpret facts.Blethering Scot 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

BS, please read WP:AGF. Disagreement over facts, or difference of interpretation or understanding, or even an error, can be due to an mistake or to a difference of view or to nuances of language. It is not, as you claim yet again, "trying to misinterpret facts" -- that is an assumption of and faith, which the core of the problem with your approach.

That phrase "trying to misinterpret facts" is just a rewording of your cruder yelling of "liar". I don't now how many editors need to warn you stop doing this assumption of bad faith before you will listen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Well you are. You made out above it was me that started the enough's, when in fact it was you and my enough was in response to yours, which was an attempt to close down discussion. You made out above I didn't provide evidence of all Scottish clubs, when i did both SPFL and the other 4 clubs outside. The issue is here you are showing no sign of acknowledging anything, therefore it is very difficult to assume good faith. As another user said above thats evidence of problematic behaviour. Why won't you admit you made errors, the more you insist you didn't the more it looks like it was deliberate. Seriously thats all you had to do, two days ago. I would of apologised at that point. The more this drags on the less i see to apologise for.Blethering Scot 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

BS, I give up. You are quite entitled to say that you believe I am wrong. You ae quite entitled to point out how you think I am wrong. You are not entitled to call me a liar or to assume that I acted in bad faith.

I am quite happy to discuss a disagreement, but not with an aggressive, abusive editor who persists in assuming bad faith. If that is your assumption, then any discussion is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Where in this recent conversation am i being abusive or aggressive. Im not swearing at you, I'm not shouting at you, I'm simply asking you to acknowledge your errors. Nobody can blame me for not assuming good faith when you never with me (and its clear you didn't) and it does simply look problematic when two days later you won't admit the mistakes. You also above did provide a misleading version of events, that missed some very key points so i highlighted that your version of events did not tally up. You keep denying them despite evidence to the contrary. Saying I'm being abusive certainly isn't the case. Im being perfectly polite during this conversation and have highlighted the inaccuracies that you raise. Im sorry you feel how you feel, but not sorry about anything else. I cannot fathom why you won't just be honest. Its bizarre that you are continuing to deny this, as genuine mistakes are usually owned up to. There is no point continuing this with you as you are showing no signs of ceasing your insistence that you are totally innocent, when you are not. This situation has been escalated by yourself for no good reason.Blethering Scot 22:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway enough is enough. It is clear you aren't going to admit your errors and as such I cannot apologise. And as i would rather improve the encyclopaedia by improving content, not concentrating on trivial matters like this, I think we should both depart this conversation.Blethering Scot 22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Boaxy misbehaving and socking

This user has been consistently attempting to add an LGBT category to Unfinished Business (2015 film) in an attempt to push a political viewpoint. However, I initially disagreed with what the category specifically meant; especially without a verifiable source to back it up. Boaxy claimed that he didn't need a source because it wasn't "original research." [56]

At that point, some unknown user (whose IP kept changing daily) stepped in and tried to undo Boaxy's vandalism. But Boaxy continued to edit war over the inclusion of the category for several days, during which Boaxy logged out and used an IP address (71.116.235.134) to further push his viewpoint. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

At one point, Boaxy finally added a source, but the other user reverted it after he reviewed the source and found it to be unverifiable because it was just a short review with no talk about the film being targeted to an LGBT audience. Boaxy used his IP evasion again, in which I discovered what was going on and decided to refer this matter to this board. [63] [64] [65] [66]

I bring this matter to your attention to also remind the administrators of the fact that Boaxy was previously involved in edit-warring to include LGBT categories on some Sailor Moon articles (during which he also threw temper-tantrums and made personal attacks against other editors - myself included - who opposed the additions) in 2015, and was subsequently topic-banned from editing Sailor Moon articles. [67]--Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Chris

I ask whoever is in charge of this procedure to watch the film. You only need to watch the first fifteen minutes or so to see why the LGBT category is perfectly being fine to be added. I put the category without a reference as the LGBT category is not original research. One of the four main protagonists is homosexual so that automatically warrants a LGBT category. As my oppressor thinks I'm pushing an agenda, I added a reference and they still insist I'm being spiteful. I'm not. The LGBT pop culture category should be removed if I can't use it. It's there for a reason as wikipedia is LGBT friendly and my oppressor has to just deal with it and accept it. Boaxy (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Boaxy tried to be bold and add Category:American LGBT-related films; it was rejected. Given that this is a BLP issue here, the caution says no until there's good reason. I see no discussion at Talk:Unfinished Business (2015 film) so take the discussion there and I suggest Boaxy provide more than personal WP:OR of "you need to watch the film". And this source of not particularly reliability doesn't tell me anything that says to call it a LGBT-related film. But again, I could be wrong so onto that talk page, please. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• • What do you mean tried to be bold? I saw this movie for the first time around Christmas Eve or so, and I always check to see if Wikipedia is up with pop culture as they usually are. I thought to myself, there should be a LGBT category as one of the main protagonists is homosexual and there is lots of lgbt undertones in the movie, such as being at gay parades, gay bars. etc. I look and see there isn't one. I didn't fret that much over it as this movie is still quite relatively recent. So I added the category without a source as I didn't think it warranted one, and it really doesn't. It's quite obvious the film is LGBT related. Some things do not need to be sourced if it isn't original information or things that need to be cited, like box office prices, behind the scenes information, etc. I'm more than willing to add more sources, but what good would it be if they get removed because there is a user who believes I'm pushing a gay agenda? But I also said this seems to be a conflict of interest. I don't know the wikipedia term for that, I'm sorry. Loyalmoonie seems to be stalking me and thinks I'm pushing a gay agenda. I been on wikipedia for 11 years. I don't need to push anything. If someone is gay related, I'm going to tag it as such. If he/she has a problem with that, they need to talk to the wikipedia staff to remove the LGBT tags and projects and shit. I'm sorry. Boaxy (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • And as far as the sockpuppeting goes. I edit on my mobile phone and the app doesn't seem to use my username sometimes. I mentioned this before. I think as long as I'm not sockpuppeting on disputes or etc., it shouldn't matter. It's obvious it's me editing it. Boaxy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats?

Are this (the last paragraph) and this legal threats? —teb728 t c 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't see the first diff (deleted) but yeah, the second one is, even though it's uploaded to Commons rather than Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Related to this, someone at Commons probably wants to take a look at the uploads of Commons:User:Nmkkato. I'm pretty sure they all unquestionably fall out of scope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And they've been cromulently blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some of those uploads have highly sensitive personal info in them. clpo13_(talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Their commons uploads have been mass deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have invited them to explain their concerns without making threats[68], it is not really clear to me what they are complaining about. I am about 70% sure that they got something taken down as a copy vio and they are misunderstanding our licensing requirements with an accusation of copyright infringement. HighInBC 00:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but I think this individual probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia even with a retraction of the legal threat. It looks like the whole purpose of her presence here is to push information about a lawsuit against BMI. And honestly, that little of an analysis is charitable. But from the look of the documents and how she's conducting herself elsewhere, I feel pretty confident a retraction won't happen anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I was less concerned about a retraction and more concerns about figuring out what they were concerned about per WP:DOLT. HighInBC 01:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears it's their taking "your content has been removed as copyvio" as "Wikipedia is commiting copyright violations on me". And/or a a failure to grasp Wikipedia's licensing requirements w.r.t. content that has been posted (and thus copyrighted) by themselves elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the legal threat in this case appears to be an ongoing lawsuit against wikipedia and wikimedia. At least that's what the upload and comment [69] seems to imply. If that's really the case, then retraction of the threat requires the lawsuit is resolved (whether it's dismissed perhaps because they drop it or ask for it to be dismissed or it goes to court and achieves some outcome). Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

More incivility in autism AfD

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

---

There is more incivility in the AfD for List of people with autism spectrum disorders article mentioned a few days ago, this time by User:Calton. See here, here, here, and here, all directed at the same anon IP who is making efforts to improve the article to address the concerns expressed in the AfD. According to his talk page, Calton has a history of incivility, so I'm not inclined to assume good faith at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: He also posted uncivilly on the IP's talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here [70] he told me I needed to "get new reading glasses" and then offered to recommend retailers that sold eyeware. He recently told Neutralhomer that he was "delusional" and "self-absorbed" [71] while here he apparently accused a different editor of suffering from schizophrenia [72]. It appears he's previously been blocked 9 times for incivility on charges ranging from "taunting" to "racist edit summaries." [73] LavaBaron (User talk:Lavaetalk) 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is Calton's SOP, insult and keep insulting, rules be damned. How he is still an active, unblocked user is beyond me. I personally believe that Calton needs to be blocked indefinitely as he doesn't offer anything positive to the project. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)f

It does seem odd. Maybe 10 times a charm, though - at this point - more drastic protective measures do seem in order. LavaBaron (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that you selectively quoted part of a page claiming that it supported your idiosyncratic opinion whilst utterly missing the immediately following paragraphs that contradicted it, then it's a fair question to ask how you managed to miss it. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. "You deserved it," is certainly the most novel defense of CIVIL I've seen, but I guess there's a first for everything. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "you deserved it", it's "you don't what you're talking but should, why is that?" SO: you don't know what you're talking about, but should: why is that? --Calton | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As for Smartyllama's yammering about "good faith", considering his attempts to lard List of people with autism spectrum disorder with criminals using laughable sourcing -- "his mother said he had Asperger's on an online forum" is good enough for him -- or even create a separate criminals-with-autism list despite there between no connection whatsoever between the two elements, he set fire to his own expectation of good faith in what he's trying to accomplish. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the AfD. Your conduct is at issue here, separately from whether you may have had a point. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, my proposed "separate criminals-with-autism list" was nothing of the sort. It would discuss the numerous studies which show no correlation, and incorrect claims by certain individuals to the contrary. It could even discuss the recent controversy over President Obama's proposed gun control measures which would prevent certain autistic individuals from owning guns and was opposed by several autistic advocacy organizations. Smartyllama That being said, after looking over the sources again in more detail, rather than just looking at the publication and seeing if it was reliable, most of them were not reliable, and the ones that are (such as Adam Lanza) have remained in the article. I have no objection to the removals that were made at this point. (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. I reviewed the diffs offered by the OP. Nothing egregious stands out, other than the usual heated discussion. I blame the lack of structure in AfD discussions. We need less free for all and more regulation. Perhaps we should limit all participants to one initial comment followed by one discussion reply. We need less talk and more action. Some things don't need to be endlessly debated. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - There has been a pattern of issues cited in the last 30 days that should be addressed first, particularly in light of the (astonishing) nine previous blocks for the same issues to which the editor of this ANI has been subject. Even in the ANI itself, the subject of this report seemed unable to contain himself, using words like "yammering" to describe Smartyllama's input, for instance. LavaBaron (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Nine blocks for incivility and his responses here show Calton isn't going to change. This isn't a "heated discussion", it's Calton's SOP of nonstop insults and snark with zero positive contributions. This, this, this, and this are all from yesterday (minus the Autism AfD ones). All laden with insults and snark, no positive contributions. Just to add to this, he actually uses TWINKLE to revert "most wins" to "winningest", even proper english and sentence structure doesn't stand a chance with him. Some serious sanctions regarding his incivility, insults and snark, or just a long-term block are needed for Calton. This is not business as usual here, this is a problem editor who has proven time and time again that he will not follow the rules. So, we as a community, must make him follow those rules or show him the door. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• This abysmal "winningest" junk is turning up everywhere. My experience is that the people pushing to include it don't just want to lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but the tone of every conversation about it. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Gotta agree with ya there. I have even heard it on the news (ex: "the winningest coach"). If I had used a word like that as part of a sentence, I'm pretty sure my 7th grade English teacher would slap me with something. :) I even use the Oxford comma and a double space after sentences, both of which are rarely used anymore. I can thank my 3rd grade English teacher for that one. :) So, in the greater scheme of things (Calton's incivility, etc.), it isn't super important, but I thought it was worth mentioning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, the latest salvo in Neutralhomer -- as this incarnation is called -- and his long-running, years-long petulant attempts to get me blocked. Given his history, you may wish to take anything he says with a grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is my community and AN approved sock for my mobile device. It's on the userpage for the account. Please check this next time before making accusations. This is about you, not me. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 10:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- Calton is right about the substance of this dispute. That's a crappy article, and unsubstantiated claims on an internet forum are no better than "I heard it from a bloke at the pub". But Calton sure does have a way of making you want to disagree with him even when he's right, with constant sarcasm and insults for no good reason. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know. It seems to me that people here are distracting from the underlying problem with the article and why it's at AfD. I am not the least bit interested in analyzing or examining Calton's tone or personality. I'm more interested in what he's saying. There's way too much discussion on this. Put it through AfD, one comment per person, and then close it. Stop arguing about trivialities and find something else to get offended about. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD can be discussed there. Even if Calton is right, he went about it the wrong way and that needs to be addressed. If he had no previous bans for incivility, I might be inclined to assume good faith and be done with it, but he has nine, so I'm not. And the very anon Calton attacked has made significant efforts to improve the article and address the AfD concerns. Smartyllama (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Calton's conduct in the AfD can be discussed here, as well as his recent conduct elsewhere. For example, it might be discussed whether telling an editor on sight to "go away, you are supremely unqualified to edit here" is a statement on the merits of the article under discussion, or something else. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• And in the case of his statements towards me on this very ANI, it shows he is often either willfully ignorant or unable to comprehend the arguments others are trying to make. To quote the article's talk page, here is what my proposal was.

"I don't think we need a specific list article for that [referring to infamous individuals], but we could have an article called Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime or something like that which discusses the individuals in question as well as the lack of overall connection between the two in more detail than the main ASD article, this list, or the articles on the individuals themselves can provide. That would also be a good place to put forth the factors any additional diagnoses might have played in those individuals, provided such claims are reliably sourced and not original research. But this article is not the place for that. We could add a "See also" at the bottom once said article is created though to make it easier for people to learn more." So in fact I specifically said I did not support a separate list article for infamous individuals as I understood another user to be proposing. Rather, I was proposing a detailed, non-list article to discuss the studies in question which show no connection, as well as individuals who falsely proclaim there to be a connection, as well as the fallout from this controversy (which would include the recent gun owner controversy and a Congressional proposal barring the Social Security Administration from cooperating and enabling the law to be enforced.) Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI doesn't deal with content disputes. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that, as Smartllama claims, that "willfully ignorant" was a synonym for "entirely accurate". Or maybe it's not, and he's simply proving my point for me.

This is not rocket science: if you create an article called "[X] and [Y]", you are connecting the two subjects "X" and "Y". And if you do that, you'd better have an actually reason for doing so, either because there actually is a connection or because there is a specified belief in such a connection. Your comments above make it clear you think there IS some sort of connection being made. Unless you have some evidence that someone, somewhere actually is making this connection, creating the article -- or, in your case, advocating for the creation of such an article -- is creating the connection out of thin air. Wikipedia policy won't let you pick random unconnected things together -- Redheadedness and crime, Autism and hair color, Dwarfism and alcoholism, Leo (astrology) and astigmatism -- to make articles, even if you promise to put a disclaimer in it, because of the implication the very existence of such an article entails. In effect, you're borrowing a page from creationists and their Teach the Controversy tactic. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If nobody's making the connection, this whole AfD is rather ridiculous and pointless since it's predicated on the fact that people are, in fact, making the false connection. And that's still a separate, non-ANI issue, regardless, and should be discussed elsewhere. And again, nowhere did I propose creating a separate list, which you claimed I did. You can't have it both ways - either people are making the connection, in which case by your own admission the new article is acceptable, or they're not, in which case the AfD is based on false premises. And that still has nothing to do with your incivility, which is the reason for this ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a content dispute. Please keep this discussion off ANI. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As I mentioned above, but just stating for the record. Calton's personal attacks need to be addressed regardless of whether he has a point. The AfD concerns and the concerns about Calton's actions are not mutually exclusive. And changing the entire structure of AfD as user above proposed would require more community input than a single ANI request. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. This is the second concurrent ANI thread on the same topic you've started in the last several days. Please stop. All discussion needs to be confined on the discussion pages. As both ANI threads show, this is a content dispute, despite attempts to show otherwise. Please close both threads. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: So you would like the community to just overlook continued behavior by a user, 9 blocks for incivility, and an unwillingness to change one's behavior because Smartyllama started another ANI thread? I'm hoping you aren't actually serious.

I can't speak for the other thread, but this one should not be closed until Dalton's ongoing behavior problems are addressed by the community. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 06:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I decided to go back and check: you and your original block-evading sock have been blocked twenty times (not counting administrative reblocks), including 5 indefinite blocks and 8 blocks whose edit summaries explicitly mention harassment and personal attacks. That's not counting your other sockpuppets created to harass me. So, should the community overlook that, too? --Calton | Talk 06:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is about you, not me. This is about your behavior, not mine. Sorry, you can't turn the tables on this one. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 10:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD is not the appropriate place to discuss lack of civility by a user. And this was a different user and a different page than the original, so I fail to see your point anyway. And besides, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so even if incorrect procedure were followed in creating an ANI, which it wasn't, that's not a reason not to act. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution: ~6-Month CBAN

Since the above discussion appears to have run its course, I'd like to proffer a concrete proposal for consideration. Based on the preference indicators expressed in the views above, I suggest a six-month sitewide WP:CBAN could be applied on Calton. The question I propose for resolution is:
By community consensus taken in accordance with the WP:RECIDIVISM decision, and due to a pattern of past incivility evidenced by nine blocks for the same - a pattern which continues with no indication a change of behavior is forthcoming - Calton is banned from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances (except as otherwise specified) until 1 August 2016. He may continue to post to his Talk page and edit his userspace during this period. The community further expresses its will that an indefinite block be placed on the Calton account should this CBAN be violated.
I am pinging everyone who participated in the preceding discussion, namely, Viriditas, Smartyllama, Reyk, Neutralhomer, Calton, 50.185.134.48 LavaBaron (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support for reasons previously stated by me in response to Smartyllama's OP. LavaBaron (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: As I said above, Calton "is a problem editor who has proven time and time again that he will not follow the rules. So, we as a community, must make him follow those rules or show him the door.". This proposal forces him to follow the rules of Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 06:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Calton has nine bans before. Clearly he hasn't learned and we need to step things up. Smartyllama (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose second transparent attempt in one week to get an upper hand in a content dispute by silencing critics and running circles around active discussion already taking place in the appropriate venue. The forum shopping and asking the other parent needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What? Are you talking about me? LavaBaron (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think he's talking about me, since I opened this. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil discussion about the article in question. Calton, it seems, is not. Stop treating the AfD and this ANI like they're mutually exclusive, because they're not. One deals with the contents of the article, one deals with the actions of a specific user in said AfD and elsewhere. Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The content dispute is the central theme of this and the other thread up above. Please keep the content dispute where it belongs. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who's bringing the content dispute here. Not me. This has nothing to do with the content dispute. This has to do with Calton's lack of civility, in the AfD and elsewhere, as I and others have said repeatedly. Also, I now believe Galerita was acting in good faith in spite of whatever civility and/or 3RR issues he may have had, and have moved to close that ANI. Calton, on the other hand, has a repeated history of this and has exhibited such behaviors recently outside of this AfD, including in matters in which I have no involvement, and thus no bias. Smartyllama (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment supports my contention that this thread (and the other one up above) should be immediately closed. I don't see a lack of civility, I see you trying to get an upper hand in a content dispute. I also question your judgment. I have not participated in any related article or discussion about this subject, nor have I discussed it anywhere. This entire thread is about your dispute, and Calton's comments are directly part of that dispute and on point. You're trying to silence your critics by pretending this isn't about your dispute. Luckily, people like me can see right through this. As an uninvolved editor I oppose your attempt to silence the opposition. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the difs above? I don't know on what planet "sucks to be you" could be considered civil. And as other posts above (which were not by me) show, he was also uncivil to LavaBaron and Neutralhomer in discussions I wasn't even involved in and thus couldn't possibly be biased in. And those weren't civil either - calling others delusional and telling them they obviously need glasses, among other things. Not to mention I'm not the one who complained about those, and even if you ignore the AfD issues, which you shouldn't, you still have failed to address other users' concerns about those. If you want to civilly discuss the content dispute, I have no problem with that. Otherwise I would have reported every single editor who opposed me instead of just the one who resorted to personal attacks. Smartyllama (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you asking me if I read the diffs when I said in my very first edit to this thread that I did? I'm beginning to sympathize more and more with Calton the longer you continue this IDHT campaign. I think a topic ban on you and others might be warranted if this disruption continues. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you continually making this a content dispute when I've said several times it isn't? I'm not disputing the content right now - that's what the AfD and RfC are for and I'll abide by whatever comes out of it. This is an issue of Calton's repeated incivility. And even if we ignore the incivility on The AfD because Lord Almighty Viriditas says I'm biased and that alone is sufficient reason to ignore what I'm saying, that still doesn't address his repeated recent incivility to other users which I wasn't involved in, which I didn't report (they did) and which you have repeatedly failed to address. It just seemed like you hadn't read the difs because if you had, I don't know how you could possibly think in good faith that they were civil. And I should note you have a history of bans for incivility even lengthier than Calton's. Perhaps he's not the only one who needs a ban for incivility right now. Smartyllama (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

By all means, keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Your intolerance for opposing opinions is hereby noted and supports my proposed topic ban on you from all autism-related topics. You are continuing a content dispute here on ANI in two separate threads. You are disrupting Wikipedia because you refuse to consider opposing opinions might have merit in their critical approach. Instead you frame all criticism as ignorant and uncivil. Thank you for clearing this up. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I've been reasonably nice to those with differing opinions who express them respectfully and in compliance with Wikipedia policy, including Galerita once he started discussing the matter and stopped edit warring. Calton and yourself have shown a lack of willingness to discuss things civilly, and that is what this ANI is about. Not the content dispute, which I am taking up in the right channels and have said repeatedly I will abide by whatever comes out of it. At this point, and judging by your past ban history, I am convinced you are showing an utter lack of AGF in addition to your incivility. Calton isn't the only one who needs a lengthy ban in my mind. Smartyllama (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck trying to ban and block everyone who disagrees with you. I'm seeing several admins and at least one arb who are opposing your arguments. There's nothing uncivil about telling you to stop misusing ANI with your content dispute and your attempt to canvass supporters for the AFD. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like you're the only one opposing my arguments on this ANI. And the merits of the AfD, as I have said at least a dozen times, are irrelevant to this discussion. That you still don't understand that shows you are not acting in good faith in this matter. Smartyllama (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the unusual event that someone actually falls for your rhetoric, I would like to set the record straight: in a ranking of contributors who have added content to list of people with autism spectrum disorders, you are listed third.[74] Not surprisingly, you have voted to keep your contributions in the AfD.[75]. Unfortunately, consensus is to delete the article. So you've been trying to stir the pot with multiple ANIs. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Try again. I'm listed sixth. Another false claim by you. And as I've said 15 times, the AfD isn't the issue. I don't care about the AfD. Let that fall where it may. It's a civility issue. And you have repeatedly and willfully lied, and this time it's blatant. Smartyllama (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is important. As the above link shows, you are ranked third as an editor who has added the most content (by bytes). You are ranked sixth only by the sheer number of edits. In other words, five editors have made more edits than you, but only two have added more content. Instead of repeatedly making personal attacks based on your reading comprehension problem, it would be better if you took a break from the content dispute. You have acted incredibly uncivil here and throughout this thread because you are a vested contributor whose contributions are about to be deleted by consensus. Both ANI reports are an attempt to distract the community from your poor contributions. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about the content dispute, which I have't been involved in for several days. This is about Calton's incivility. I don't know why you can't seem to understand that. Smartyllama (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Couldn't figure out about to whom he was referring. I didn't think I'd even edited the same article as Calton ever, let alone had a content dispute! LavaBaron (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. 6 months, or indeed anything close to that, is unwarranted. Drmies has just now blocked him for a week. I'd say that should suffice for now, and this entire thread should probably be closed. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to closing admin: Please note that Hallward's Ghost issued an Oppose !vote to this proposal, but posted it elsewhere [76] (I recommend that they post it here, in the correct place). Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my reasoning below. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It may not have been fair to ban Calton while this ANI is still in progress as now he can't respond. Perhaps we should undo that ban, and if this measure fails as too extreme but there is support for some sanctions (as Softlavender proposed), reinstate it at that time. Smartyllama (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Calton wasn't banned, he was blocked. Please learn the difference. And I haven't proposed anything beyond Drmies' one-week block, which is entirely sufficient to this case. Again, now that Calton has been blocked, I recommend closing this entire thread before it starts to WP:BOOMERANG on Smartyllama. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though I supported this proposal (and still do), I believe there are plenty of eyeballs on Calton so that when his block ends he won't repeat this behavior at least for awhile. With that said, I support closing this thread. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 12:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with NH. Block #10 will definitely be the one that changes his behavior. Support closing this thread. LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for mixing up the terms "block" and "ban". I take full responsibility for inadvertently using the incorrect terminology, though I don't think that's as big an issue as Softlavender is making it out to be. Still, I'd support closing this too - hopefully Calton learns his lesson, and if not, we have a bunch of people watching him. As for the rest of what Softlavender said, I know you proposed no additional sanctions, but unlike some in this ANI, you did feel there was incivility and some sanctions were in order - namely the one-week block which has already been implemented. Sorry for the confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution: ~6 month CBAN on Viriditas (plus above sanctions on Calton)

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

---

I'm starting to think Calton may not be the only one being uncivil here. Seeing as Viriditas has a history of bans for incivility and WP:AGF violations even longer than Calton's, is exhibiting the same behaviors in this very ANI, and is showing a lack of ability and/or willingness to comprehend what civility even means, Viriditas is banned from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances (except as otherwise specified) until 1 August 2016. He may continue to post to his Talk page and edit his userspace during this period. The community further expresses its will that an indefinite block be placed on the Viriditas account should this CBAN be violated. 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per what I just said. Smartyllama (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As an entirely uninvolved editor who has had zero participation in the disputed article in question or its related disputes such as the AfD, this proposal substantiates my claim that Smartyllama is misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and attempting to canvass support to fight his opposition on ANI. Smartyllama's attempt to threaten any editor who opposes him and criticizes his opinion is the problem, not Calton. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• A claim you have absolutely no evidence to support, and which I have explicitly said on multiple occasions is not the case, thus supporting my claim that Viriditas is not assuming good faith. I have repeatedly said on multiple occasions this is about Calton's lack of civility, and if you'll notice I didn't report anyone who was actually civil. I reported a 3RR issue by a new editor who didn't know any better, now that he does I have had no issues with him and discussed the matter civilly. I have also not filed ANIs against the ~15 people who civilly supported the deletion without edit warring. As for the one edit war, I'm willing to assume good faith that the editor didn't know better, being new, and drop it. Calton and Viriditas have been here long enough to know better, and have repeatedly not done so. Viridita's claims against me were, and continue to be, completely unsubstantiated, thus proving my own point. If the AfD results in deletion, as it looks like it will, I will abide by that result. That's not the issue, as much as Viriditas wants to make it one. And Viriditas seems to admit that my one minor editing spat on the main article didn't even violate 3RR. Plus he has a lengthy history of AGF violations and baseless accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Your accusation of canvassing for votes in the AfD is equally baseless and not at all supported by my edit history. Smartyllama (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: You are not exactly "covering yourself in glory" with this kind of WP:POINTy "proposal", Smartyllama. In my experience as a (usually silent) observer of ANI, these kind of "proposals" often WP:BOOMERANG on the proposer. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whatever the merits of the arguments over comments related to the AfD, all Viriditas did was offer opinions here. Let's not compound the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't wish to post on each of the CBAN proposals, so whoever eventually closes this discussion, please consider this post my blanket oppose to all of them. They all smack of trying to silence their opposition using ANI, at least in my view. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 22:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And with regards to Calton's incivility towards other users in completely separate discussions - they're also trying to silence the opposition by complaining here? Smartyllama (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Raggz BLP violations

Raggz (talk · contribs) Repeated violations of WP:BLP policy; drawing own conclusions (WP:FRANKIE) from multiple sources to apply controversial labels not stated in the sources. Labels considered incendiary in US politics (Marxist, communist, Trotskyite, supporter of revolution) are being used based on combining membership in the Socialist Alternative (United States) with other sources that draw conclusions about that party. Reputable sources that have followed Sawant's political career have consistently called her a socialist and given little or no attention to the Marxist and Trotskyite labels.

Diffs:

• [77] -- calling a citation for blocking a street during a protest, later thrown out by a judge, "criminal activity". No reputable sources have ever called Sawant "criminal"--Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It was not a civil trial but a criminal trial. His edit was better phrased and I accepted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

• [78][79][80] -- Communism, Trotskyite, etc--Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Socialist Alternative Party is a revolutionary Trotskyite Marxist party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

• [81] more of the same after final warning

BLP/NPOV policy warnings: [82][83][84][85][86] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am just an editor with no political agenda regarding this article. Dennis is all of this true for you as well?

I am not acquainted with the subject, nor am I am not a member of this revolutionary Marxist party. I have accepted some of Dennis's edits and agree that these improved the article. In particular the criminal issues were better addressed with his edits.

Well, I suppose that I do have an agenda here to state. I dislike politicians that mislead us as to their true political agenda and political philosophy. I have edited this article with the intent to ensure that the Reader is not misled. I had never heard of her and could be mistaken, but this is not a forum for that discussion. Dennis, why are we even here and not on the Talk page? Have you even once engaged in Talk?

Bottom line recommendation, explain to Dennis that we talk about our edits and try to reach a consensus before we come here. Raggz (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

In biographies, the default position is to remove the disputed negative material until a consensus is reached that it is suitable for inclusion. In this case, it's my observation that relentlessly attaching the phrase "Marxist" or "Trotskyite" to every single mention of her political party affiliation is not good writing style, never mind BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what the big deal is here. Multiple RS describe Socialist Alternative as Trotskyist - e.g. ... MSNBC [87], Seattle Weekly [88], Seattle Post-Intelligencer, [89], etc., and the diffs of Raggz' edits show the addition of descriptive prefixes to the party, rather than to Sawant's name. (Also I know this isn't admissable but, purely as an aside, in conversations I've had with officers of the SA they've described themselves to me as Trotskyist, and, IIRC, it could be I'm wrong on this, but SA is a member of the Committee for a Fourth International, aren't they?) The question about "citation" vs "criminal activities" I agree with, however, it seems Raggz deferred and accepted the change so not sure what the prob is there either. Maybe I'm missing something. LavaBaron (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Why does this BLP still contain disputed, controversial assertions? {{disputed}} does not belong on any BLP. The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS is "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." These disputed epithets and labels need to go now. Reach consensus on the talk page before restoring any controversial claims about a living person.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Epithets" seems a little hyper-dramatic for what's been described. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Block of Omar-toons

I have indefinitely blocked Omar-toons (talk · contribs) for being a sock-puppet of globally locked Omar-Toons (talk · contribs), and for POV-pushing including routine misrepresentations of sources and mistranslations of foreign-language terms. The latest examples I am aware of are here and here; this was previously discussed at AN/I here. In case people might feel I'm too involved since I had previous run-ins with Omar-toons' POV-pushing, I'm bringing it here for review. Huon (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see, redirected from Omar-Toons in 2012 (which looks like the time of the last block on en-wp with no activity since), history indicates lost password however rather than globally locked? And since there is no evidence they have been running multiple accounts simultaneously, where is the socking? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I wish people would *provide* the background instead of just expecting others to trawl for it. Global lock here. I prodded Vituzzu since he placed the original lock, and it looks like from his notes he did intend to lift it at some point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Too much heavy lifting, OiD? Good thing you had the strength to let us know. Don't work too hard. Tiderolls 14:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on the "contribs" link I provided will show the global lock. Sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear. Huon (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: This issue was raised up in August 2012 (see: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Omar-Toons/Archive#27_August_2012). But, the case was closed by Mailer diablo and AGK with no action. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was pinged from Talk:Spanish protectorate in Morocco about Omar Toons's edits there. I have little to add, and only want to express my despondency here. Thank you Huon. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Hi guys, first of all my apologies to @Vanjagenije: who already asked me about this issue, I wrote him a reply but I forget to save it in time before the failure of the radio bridge I'm using! Anyway, my lock was, originally, meant to be temporary. But since OT went on editing as anon I never unlocked him. Laterly I found his new account which seemed to be a bit less problematic (also being editing fr.wiki without major incidents) so I choose not to lock this too. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Vituzzu. Since its clear Omar is using one account and Vituzzu has stated the original lock a)meant to be temporary, b)didnt unlock it because Omar had been editing without major incidents on another account, can someone unblock his current account with a reminder to only use that one? Its been 3 years since the original lock and he hasnt been re-blocked significantly in that time. Unless there are new editing issues that suggest he should stay blocked indef up for discussion.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I did mention the repeated misrepresentation of sources and mistranslation of foreign-language terms, all to support POV-pushing, didn't I? If there were no other issues with the account, I'd probably have considered that old lock ancient history and ignored it. Unfortunately Omar-toons at best has gotten better at POV-pushing, he hasn't ceased. Huon (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page

There have been multiple incidences of incivil behavior at Talk:Parapsychology, including the following most egregious examples by editors JuliaHunter and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701589880&oldid=701589805

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701403715&oldid=701403508

75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My evaluation of Brian Josephson's status in the academic community is harsh, but it looks to me to be fact and isn't really disputable. Plainly identifying the way a believer in paranormal phenomena is perceived by the WP:MAINSTREAM academic community really isn't a contradiction of the terms of WP:CIVILITY by my reading. jps (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with jps. Brian J. is no stranger to the mainstream view of his, shall we call them, beliefs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't often see the word "agnotological", does one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. could I send Brian some of my bent spoons?

How embarassing; I had to look it up! Keri (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Using this thread to make User:Brian_Josephson your punching bag saves me the time and trouble of copying and pasting diffs. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly log in to your main Wikipedia account? Or, if you are concerned about WP:OUTING (which is legitimate given that account's username), would you perhaps start a new one and privately declare your old one to arbcom? Thanks. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Those comments do not look civil to me. What happened to "Focus on Content"? One may disagree with a person but to say those things shows a level of hostility that is not welcome on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, similar incivility is simultaneously going on at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Weak statistical evidence?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:FOC.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:DENY. We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.jps (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in calling me an advocate - I am an advocate of civility, one of the 5 Pillars of WP WP:5P4.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, according to arbcom. Please read WP:Civil POV pushing for more on your tired tactics. jps (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to me as a POV-Pusher?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the shoe fit? jps (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give a direct answer. Otherwise, I will AGF that you have no evidence whatsoever that I am a POV-Pusher and therefore you would not make such an incivil accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, you must be aware that you are banned from alt. medicine, GMO and agrichemicals for violating WP:NPOV? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of this. Please provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What? See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions , Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, [90], [91]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

None of these diffs show that sanctions were imposed on me for violating NPOV, which is what you stated - please read WP:Casting aspersions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It would clutter this thread. But assuming they weren't for POV pushing, what were all these topic bans for then? Please tell. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"It would clutter this thread" - that has to be the weakest argument I have ever read for not presenting evidence - evidence which simply does not exist. I remind you that we are on a noticeboard which requires you to provide evidence of such aspersions. I invite you to now strike your totally false and unfounded aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Again: why were you topic banned? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do your own research.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The simplest route to solving this is topic-banning Brian Josephson from all pseudoscience topics. He is otherwise a good (great actually, they dont give Nobels to dunces) scientist (in his field) who also believes some laughable rubbish. Ban him from the areas he has problems in where he tries to promote pseudoscience crap, conflict disappears. If anyone wants to take a closer look at NPOV, FRINGE noticeboards the last few weeks, there are a couple more who need to be punted from science-related topics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I would be thrilled if he would help edit the Josephson effect. jps (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Simon Singh was interesting on the subject of Josephson: he described him as a really nice guy who is keen to be fair to people who propose weird and bizarre stuff, but is easily swayed by the zeal of the True Believer. The example was homeopathy (which is, of course, unambiguously bullshit): Singh explained the evidence, Josephson was convinced, but days later he spoke to a True Believer again and was right back to believing the woo. Topic ban? I think that would be excessive, but we've topic banned people who have been less persistent over much less time in giving undue weight to fringe beliefs. start at 1:00 Guy (Help!) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have actually read/heard Singh's views on him and they are indeed interesting. The problem with people who can be productive in their areas of expertise on wikipedia is that so often they are distracted by getting into pointless arguments elsewhere. I am sure we all remember how Mathsci ended.... Had he been suitably restricted earlier it might not have escalated to the stage it did. At this point Josephson is being disruptive to others, and to himself. So if it helps, think of a topic ban not as a punishment, but as a guiderail to prevent him bowling into the next lane... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification on discretionary sanctions, please I have just noticed that the Parapsychology article is under DS. Does that mean that because this article is the source of the thread here at AN/I, this thread is also subject to DS? (I am naive in these matters - perhaps ALL threads at AN/I are subject to DS?)DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The 'topic' of Parasychology is under discretionary sanctions. This means wherever the topic is discussed, that discussion would also (potentially) be subject to it. Which means when you open up a topic on ANI on a subject that has DS attached to it, any administrator can pretty much take any action they want as enforcement. Given the amount of admins who watch ANI, sensible people dont poke the bear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I remind all editors that WP:Discretionary sanctions states While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. I think we are now all warned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To follow up, discretionary sanctions apply not only on article pages (to edit-warring and [[WP:OWN|article ownership), but to talk pages (personal attacks, aspersions), and to project pages. Editors should be aware that many of the readers of this page are uninvolved admins and can impose sanctions. Have all of the editors been properly alerted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rude, incivil, and bullying behavior

... is indeed going on here. And it's being accepted, and stamped with the seal of approval of Wikipedia. If the systems that exist for enforcing the policies and guidelines do not work -- and in fact ramp up the rudeness and incivility instead of addressing them, and even threaten to topic-ban a person who has just been subjected to rude and incivil behavior ... then we're completely lost here. SageRad (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a suitable editing environment, and the very mechanisms that are supposed to address problems with civility are in fact being used to rub salt in the wounds of the original recipient, and then to attack those who may comment against the "bully consensus" with things like this, which is addressed of course at me and DrChrissy:

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well since both you and DrChrissy were topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms I'd say it was fair comment. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@User talk:Mrjulesd - I suffer from Type 2 diabetes. I have infections in my feet which prevent me from walking and my Drs are considering amputation. Your support of "...out for a stroll" is a personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Paranoia gang" is uncivil and potentially a personal attack. "Out for a stroll" is not, despite your unfortunate medical issues, however, because nobody knows that until you tell us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bushranger - yes, I understand and thank you for pointing that out. I guess this incivil comment is really a extremely good example of why editors should focus on content, rather than contributors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also DrChrissy has showed signficant problems with advocacy of quackery, hence his other topic ban, so has a pre-existing agenda against skeptical sites specialising in alternative-to-medicine claims. I know why SageRad opposes the specific skeptic site under discussion, and it would be better all round if he backed off that one.

Unfortunately WP:CRYBULLYING is the new WP:CRYBLP. The "bullying" in question is, as far as I can tell, primarily telling advocates of fringe material that no, we will not reflect nonsense as if it were reality. Firmness is not bullying. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, please provide evidence of my supposed advocacy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 § Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG is the topic ban, if you are blessed with the bare minimum of self-awareness you will readily identify the problem there. I personally think you are not so blessed, and I don't propose to waste any time trying to persuade you to your own satisfaction of things that independent observers accept to be true - not least because you have an unfortunate history of misrepresenting such explanations as "bullying", "uncivil" and "harassment". Guy (Help!) 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore the obvious attempts at taunting and the personal attacks, but will state that I am self-aware - I just passed the Mirror test. Instead, I will focus on the content. I'm afraid it is lost on me how the diff you have provided in anyway shows that I "showed significant problems with advocacy of quackery". Please will you provide a more specific diff?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No one on AN/I is required to provide evidence of DrChrissy's bias and POV-pushing. That evidence has already been presented, and has resulted in multiple topic bans for the editor, from both the community at large and from their elected representatives, the Arbitration Committee. That DrChrissy dcannot seem to accept that his behavior caused the bans is his problem, not ours. If DrChrissy continues to maintain that behavior pattern in other subject areas, I have absolutely no doubt that the topic bans will get broader and broader, and will eventually lead to a site ban, as the editor is apparently unable to control their behavior -- or has no interest in doing so. BMK (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: What is the motivation behind your posting above? How is it relevant to the thread?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is, I believe, obvious to everyone here but you: every time any one comments on your POV-pusing behavior your response has been "Show me the proof of that," but we don't have to show you the proof, because the proof lies in the very existence of the topic bans, which you choose to interpret as not being about POV-pushing, but which are, in fact, very much about that.

As for my motivation, it is to make it clear to all who read this thread that you do not come to the table with clean hands, that your complaints are -- as they always have been - intimately related to your WP:BATTLEGROUND state of mind and your entrenched non-neutral fringe POV. The only people you ever complain about -- and you complain about them a lot, in many different venues -- are people you disagree with. Without knowledge of that, people might think that you actually had a valid complaint, without realizing that the crux of the problem is not the people you interact with, but that those people are interacting with you. Given these facts, quite obvious to anyone who's been around a while and has anything like an open mind, projecting your future on Wikipedia is hardly a difficult thing to do, since many of us have seen it happen over and over again, to people on both sides of the fringe/mainstream divide. You're following a classical line of development for a non-neutral POV-pushing warrior. BMK (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, everyone should keep in mind that the "civility problem" is not the most important problem on Wikipedia. Yes, certainly, uncivil behavior helps to make the editing environment unpleasant for the editors, but the bottom line is what goes into the encyclopedia. That means that pushing a non-neutral POV is much more detrimental to the project than mere incivility, since it effects our product, the thing we're all supposedly here to improve, the encyclopedia. Folks who haven't done so might like to read the essay on WP:Civil POV pushing. It's best to be civil, but I'll take a potty-mouthed neutral editor over a sweet-talking partisan one any day. BMK (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's this kind of view that makes Wikipedia a toxic and unpleasant editing environment. It is a false dilemma to suggest that the only options are (1) civil editors pushing a non-NPOV, and (2) non-civil editors maintaining WP:NPOV. Civility and reason are the tools of a good editor, and they are available in abundance. If editors have to resort to incivility, then they haven't got a good argument, and shouldn't be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Would you mind if in the future I refer to you as a "self-appointed, paranoid, witch-hunter"? If you object to this, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have stopped beating my wife, thanks for asking.

DrChrissy, I gave you straight talk, and you want to play silly little games. Please go peddle your papers elsewhere, and don't ping me again - you're really not worth my time or effort. BMK (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At BMK (but not pinged as requested). Take a look at the thread development. At the time of my last posting you were not giving me "straight talk". Your last comment had been "You're following a classical line of development for a non-neutral POV-pushing warrior" I dislike very much being called such names. It indisputably violates WP:Civil This is exactly the type of bullying that several editors are complaining about, and the usual action is to subject those editors to even more bullying in an attempt to silence them. What gives you the right to feel you can call me such names ignoring one of the very pillars of WP, i.e. civilityWP:5P4. Your repeated bullying makes me frustrated and, quite normally I think, I feel motivated to call you names, but I do not because I wish to remain civil. My "silly game", was my attempt to find a method of venting my frustration at you while not violating WP:Civility. As for "peddling [my] papers", I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I have published (many) scientific papers, but not in this subject area. I certainly hope your wife recovers from her beatings.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this train wreck, I will assume good faith that although you don't intend to behave in a way that mimics Civil POV-pushing (the "I didn't know Joseph Mercola was a pseudoscientist" defense) by behaving in the way you are it makes it very difficult for other editors to see the difference. If this is the case, what I fail to understand is your refusal to change ways. Editing fringe areas is difficult, and yet you continually arrive at such pages and repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It would be one thing if you just allowed that you don't know what you are doing and allowed others to clean up your problematic edits as you do them, but you simply don't let that happen. You argue constantly about fringe material and you always take the side of the fringe-proponent. This is about the limit that many of us can take. I have tried to clean up a lot of messes you've made, and there are still a lot of articles on the list. It's only made worse by the fact that your edits are a complete mishmash of uncontroversial attributions and poorly-vetted material. It's a slog and when you reflexively revert every editor who tries to clean up your contributions, you are exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior that throws up warning signs for those of us active in these areas.

Much of what you consider a lack of civility is really just an attempt to contextualize your activities. You find it problematic because you don't think you fit the mold. What I'm telling you (and others are as well) is that your actions, whether you intend them to or not, do fit the mold. One of the only ways we have of fixing the problems you have created is by quarantining your edits, and as we try to do that the characterization that best fits is that of a Fringe POV-pusher.

If you don't like that, then there are lots of other things you can do at Wikipedia, but I don't think you are going to be successful keeping up this particular tactic of claiming that it is all the fault of the people like me who bully you for supporting the fringe-POV.

jps (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are prolonging what you call a train-wreck, but you nearly got there! You nearly posted an entire message without resorting to incivil name-calling which I am now construing as WP:Harassment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you not see how this response is just indicative of the political positioning of WP:Civil POV-pushers? It's almost as if you want to prove my point for me. All I can say is that I have seen this line of argument a lot over my 12 years here at this website, and it has invariably ended with those taking your approach either retiring, being banned, or being completely sidelined. jps (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Please could you supply a diff of where you or another editor has had to "clean up" an edit of mine on a fringe article, as you stated above. In fact, please just supply a diff of my editing a fringe article; I have looked at my edits over the last month and could not find a single one.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's simply rude and uncivil to say the things in the original post's diff's, and many things said in response here on this ANI messageboard, including the remark "Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang..." -- it's uncivil. It's name-calling. This is a serious business, the editing of "the sum of the world's knowledge", and we need an environment where people feel able to edit without getting called names all the time, and without prejudicial poisoning of the well to be done all the time. We can be relaxed and joke, but not at the expense of other editors. We cannot call names, and we cannot say things that are clearly intended to "get to" another editor psychologically, which is the core action of bullying behavior. It's all pretty simple. It comes down to respecting others. We can talk about ideas here, and Wikipedia is a miracle. It's the most amazing discourse on the planet, in my opinion, where we can figure out what is a point of view and what is acceptable to be told in Wikivoice according to sources. There is so much amazing philosophical and intellectual learning that can happen here. People can see when their previous beliefs are not in line with evidence, and people can open their minds to new points of view. It's an amazing place, but when people run around with intent to trash others, it degrades to a schoolyard with bullies. SageRad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

To the closing admin Please look at what has happened here. An issue was raised, incivil language started and 2 editors, @SageRad: and myself, reminded editors that WP has a strict policy regarding WP:Civility. We have then been subject to personal attacks, accusations of NPOV, aspersions about support of various topics, and others. Why should editors, calmly and politely reminding other editors to remain civil according to one of the pillars of WP be subjected to this unacceptable behaviour? It is clearly wrong and needs to be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Someone needs to ping ArbCom here, I think, in hopes of some member of ArbCom not just going on a lunch break. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would anyone do that? Arbcom cannot currently find its own arsehole with a compass, map and a mountain rescue dog. The above at worst is snark bordering on mild disrespect to someone who is pushing woo. You *personally* have opined that the community has not laid out clear civility policies (despite there being at least 4 policies to the contrary) so frankly expecting Arbcom to do anything about it is a waste of time when they cant even do their job enforcing wikipedias standing policies. Unless of course you were referring to the various discretionary sanctions available on all the fringe/pseudoscience topic areas, in which case taking it to Arbcom would result in a "Take it to AE!" response, but wait! Since Arbcom in its wisdom decided closing an AE report as 'no action' is an arbitration enforcement action that cant be overturned, no one wants to take actual serious shit to AE now in case it prevents future enforcement actions. Of course as an admin you could do something about it, but that would require you to actually do some independant thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You said poopy words. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Tu quoque: "Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own."
2. "No personal attacks": "Comment on content, not on the contributor"
3. WP:ASPERSIONS: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence

--Iantresman (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As Jimbo would say, "Knock it off and be good to each other!" SageRad (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it perfectly clear what this ANI entry has shown: Wikipedia is a place where bullies rule, and if you dare to raise the issue, you will be attacked. SageRad (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your two comments above are mutually contradictory. The issue is that when people keep advocating a fringe view or some other thing that is not going to happen because it violates core content policies, other people eventually become exasperated. Firmly resisting POV-pushing is not "bullying", the problem in most cases comes down to WP:STICK versus WP:SPADE. The alternative is WP:RANDY. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, man... people can call a spade a spade, about content but when it comes to a comment like "oh look, it's the GMO paranoia team out for a stroll" simply because i spoke against uncivil comments, and then against further uncivil comments here at ANI, and then becmoe the recipient of further uncivil comments here for doing so.... it's not calling a spade a spade. It's just being mean for meanness sake. There's a problem here and i'll not have it minimized or redefined. Civility is a core policy, by the way. And, watch out how you characterize others as POV pushers, as that is all completely relative. Who you call a POV pusher may actually be a POV remover, and be getting flak for that because they are resisting the POV pushing by another editor or group. It comes down to policies, like NPOV, and also CIVILITY. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion ANI should be the prime example for usage of citations (ANI = requirement to back up comments with citations). Suggestions, opinions could be moved to a different venue. prokaryotes (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with SageRad. The principle of Tu quoque does now allow us to attack an editor because you disagree with their POV. If you get exasperated then take a break. To suggest WP:STICK versus WP:SPADE is a false dilemma, "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks" (WP:SPADE). --Iantresman (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's juuuuust a coincidence that the only ones acting like this bullying talk holds any water are all folks who just so happen to wear the same jerseys in the Battle of the POVs, eh? Sure. Don't care one way or another about your POV, but anyone looking at this who actually knows what bullying and abuse is, knows what the real kind is like-- you look like you're trying to wield that big nasty word bullying like a weapon to win your battles, and doing that seems very underhanded and disingenuous to say the least, leaves a bad taste in the mouth-- watch me commenting on your actions, not your actual selves, and if you make the fallacious assumption that doing so much as that is ~bullying~ that just proves my point. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If I feel like I am being bullied because someone is being uncivil to me, I will call it how I see it. It is usually easy to spot objectively "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (per WP:NPA). It may be just words to many editors, but any victim will tell you, that being persistently belittled, deprecated, insulted, and blamed for criticising uncivil behavior, is not on. This is why Wikipedia has "respect and civility" as one of its Five Pillars. --Iantresman (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if Iantresman would stay away from conversations concerning pseudoscience. He is never helpful. jps (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (

Wait, what? When did this become about you being bullied? Wasn't it Sage and Chrissy specifically that jps was slagging off? Sheesh.

I can't say the whole "GMO paranoia gang" comment was helpful, or most of jps' comments here are helpful really; ad hominem and general sneering is always super annoying and lowers the tone of debate, but it's to be expected on the internet, it's not Happy Funtime Friendship Land-- best practice is to ignore PAs completely, take the high road, and stick only to the first 3 tiers of this when it comes to the actual intellectual substance of the disagreement, which everyone trips up on, not just one side or the other. Still, with a lot of ANI shite, a lot of arb shite, a VPP thread about an anti-bullying policy (that got shot down most likely because it would come down to trying to codify "civility" again, and codifying/enforcing civility properly is like trying to find a Higgs boson with a lump of granite and two sticks)... and that's without looking at the actual articles they're involved in-- no wonder people are getting annoyed. Arbcom didn't rule against these two in the GMO case for nothing; there was enough evidence to agree on that they weren't playing nice. Instead of trying to change their approach (at least to the point where I can actually see any difference pre-case against now in how they behave), they're painting themselves as champions of some Grand Antibullying Movement which is noble at face value, but seems altogether like a distraction, an attempt to overplay their victimization, or at worst an attempt to use it to their advantage to shut up the anti-fringe people by painting them as The Big Meanies, which is just... gross. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to poison well against others in a dialog, as the above comment does. You do not know that a past judgement was accurate, abs in this case it really wasn't. Ad hominem has no place here. Prejudicial statements have no place here. Personal attacks have no place here. There is a culture of abuse here. It is not inevitable, and is not okay. We can change it if we own it and address it culturally. It takes a critical mass of people standing up against abusive behavior for it to become anathema. Right now it's implicit endorsed. Right now we might as well burn the civility policy for all it's worth. I respect when I see people standing up for decency. Without it, we have devolved into bullying and McCarthyism. Not good for the encyclopedia, for editors, or for the world. SageRad (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Apart from that imaginary stuff , you're ok with discussion? Begoon ^talk 14:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You do not know that a past judgement was accurate, abs in this case it really wasn't. So... are you saying you don't consider Arbcom's judgment accurate, or am I missing it here? 74.205.176.200 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as an experiment

• Support/s> a topic ban on SageRad plastering his imaginary blather about "bullying" everywhere. It might not pass, but it would sure reduce the drama. Begoon ^talk 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, I don't consider trying to remove editing privileges from a user who is trying to reduce bullying, to be funny, and does appear to meet WP:AGF. I apologies if this was meant as a joke, but you can appreciate that the humour is reduced for the person that is the butt of the joke. --Iantresman (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to Iantresman for standing up for me here. I appreciate seeing the integrity. It's far too rare and we need more of it to achieve a critical mass, to overcome the problem of abusive behavior here in Wikipedia.

To Begoon: Wow. Really... bullying is a real thing and it does happen. There are behaviors that are intended to chill, to drive away, to hurt people and when used over time, they add up to bullying. I've seen the behavior here on Wikipedia far too much, and it's real. There's also a notable fraction of editors who react like this -- getting up in arms at the mention of the word -- which i think speaks to the power of the concept and its reality. In other words, if it weren't on target, then it would just sound ridiculous and it wouldn't get people upset. There really is a psychological tactic called "bullying" and people really do it. On the Internet, it's easier than in person, and i feel like a lot of people get their "kicks" or "ya ya's" here by being bully-ish, like a power trip. Anyway, a lot of people have agreed with this observation and independently said it of the environment here, as well, so it's not just me. I find this to be ridiculous that you say this here. I stood up to say that i found behavior against another editor uncivil, and then others decided that was an invitation to open season on me and another editor who had also voiced opposition to the abusive behavior. Then i voiced opposition that that abusive behavior and got more abuse. And now i get this... thank goodness i have a thick skin and some serious self-confidence, so i survive this, but it's not alright. It's not acceptable. It's schoolyard tactics. And it shows the power and reality of the concept itself that people want to silence me when i speak about it. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Begoon: Please consider striking this proposal - it's not going to stick and if anything is just going to cause more drama -- samtar ^whisper 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I have looked at your contributions and you are certainly not a stranger to AN/I. Surely you realise that making a frivolous proposal here is sanctionable. This not a threat - I'm simply suggesting that making such a posting in the heated atmosphere might no have been well-thought out. Please strike it. The last thing we need is more drama.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing frivolous about my comment. Are you bullying me? Begoon ^talk 16:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for misconstruing your proposal as "frivolous". And no, I am not bullying you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Next time maybe less "opposition research"? Up to you. Begoon ^talk 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment while a TB against claims of bullying probably isn't feasible something will likely have to be done in the near future. Perhaps some one way IBs would fix the issue as Sage never seems to jump into conflicts they weren't involved in prior unless it concerns the same editors they've already had issues with. This board has quite a few threads about claims of incivility yet you'll note this is the only one Sage felt the need to piggy-back onto. Capeo (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that SageRad is more familiar with certain editors than others, perhaps because (s)he has come across them while editing. It seems quite reasonable to me to jump into any conflict one isn't involved in, if you spot incivility and bullying, after all, we'd all rally against a bully in real life, wouldn't we? --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, pseudoscientists of a feather flock together. C.f. Iantresman and his pseudoscientist credentials! jps (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Jps - please read my clarification above that this thread is covered by DS[92].DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a big problem with people such as yourself, SageRad, and Iantresman propping each other up when you're all documented with diffs in various arbcom cases to have promoted pseudoscience to the detriment of the quality control of Wikipedia. This is a problem Wikipedia has a hard time dealing with. jps (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that I have "promoted pseudoscience". I remind you that this page is under DS and you should familiarise yourself with what that means in terms of casting aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you reinsert Mercola as a source. Mercola is a pseudoscientist. Ergo, that makes you... a promoter of pseudoscience. FTW! jps (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of links in that - but all to no avail. I am not an expert in this area - but let's not forget, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. I did not know at the time I inserted the quote that Mercola is what you categorise as a pseudo-scientist. Once this was pointed out to me, I did not challenge its reversion. By stating that my using a quote of someone you believe is a pseudo-scientist makes me a promoter of pseudo-science is like calling me a promoter of Nazism if I was to quote Hitler. Absolutely proposterous.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And now that we've reached Godwin's Law, I think it's clear that there's nowhere to go but sideways. You quoted Mercola as a source for information and reinserted the source after it was removed. That's about as promotional as you can get. jps (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is a new one for me, but I don't see that it has anything to support your argument. It is simply an observation of general editing habits. Anyway, back to the proper subject. Yes, I reinserted the edit, but I did not know at the time that Mercola was labeled by you as a pseudo-scientist. How can I be promoting a POV when I do not know a source I am using has a POV? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: You used a label above which included the term "paranoia". I am seeking your permission to refer to you in the future as a "paranoid, self-appointed, witch-hunter". Do I have your permission for this, please? If permission is denied, I would be grateful for an explanation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I really don't mind if you call me that. I wish more people would call things like they see them. jps (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, Godwin's Law is when a conversation hits rock-bottom through the use of, or comparison to, Nazism/Hitler/Facism/Stalin/other big bag meanies and ideologies. It is not an argument (or shouldn't be), but merely an observation of the state of a discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban on all discussion of bullying by User:SageRad. I am aware that SageRad thinks that false allegations of bullying, like false allegations of rape, very seldom happen, and that bullying is seriously underreported, and so nearly all allegations of bullying are true. It is my opinion, on the contrary, that bullying is both often not reported and often falsely reported. I am aware that some editors think that SageRad is performing a service to Wikipedia with a campaign against bullying, but I strongly disagree. In my opinion, SageRad's opposition to bullying is based on a one-sided concept of bullying, that, while he honestly believes he is objective, he tends to see disagreement, or even reasoning, as part of bullying. His anti-bullying campaign has been deeply divisive. Let other editors continue the campaign for him. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Robert. You are correct by saying that SageRad's anti-bullying campaign has been highly disruptive. However, this disruption is because we have vocal editors who believe that the problem exists and equally vocal editors that do not. However, this is not SageRad's fault. Punishing SageRad by sanctions would be a tragic case of "shooting the messenger".DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand firm on everything i have said here. I find this circus here absolutely shameful and ridiculous. Look at this ANI thread. It's a farce. SageRad (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad I concur with you. I'm not sure how you feel, but to me it feels as if the problems that the editorial behavioural problems that ArbCom GMO was supposed to address have simply shifted topic. This has all happened because you and I decided to politely remind other editors to remain civil. It really is unbelievable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Topic ban on discussion of "bullying" by SageRad. The editor clearly does not know when to quit. BMK (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose a topic ban. It would be be pure victimisation. The diffs at the top of this thread clearly show bullying and POV-pushing against those who dissent from the anti-pseudoscience cabal's zealous determination to use en.wp as a forum to dismiss as "fringe" any view they disagree with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I don't think SageRad is the worst offender here - not by quite a margin. There is a real issue with rebuffed POV-pushers howling "bullying!" (they remind me of the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, shouting "Help! I'm being repressed!"). This is not about any "cabal" (TINC) opposing things they don't "like", it's about the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most important places for any crank to have their crank beliefs reflected as "fact". This is clear in many, many places - homeopathy, Rossi's e-Cat, remote viewing - and it is not getting any better. So I think what we need to do is find a quicker way of producing near-permanent resolutions to frivolous demands. I advocate more use of RFCs, giving a solid baseline of consensus on article content and a cutoff of debate so that if people continue to repeat rejected demands after the RfC is closed, they can and should be sanctioned. It will make it easier to separate those who are committed to NPOV and Wikipedia's intentional bias towards empirical rationalism, versus those who want Wikipedia to be more sympathetic to woo. And if they want to change policy so that we *are* more sympathetic to woo, they can then address the policy, rather than attacking the articles. I am pretty confident that any attempts to change policy to make Wikipedia less skeptical, will be rejected, but it may be that the community actually does want to give some kind of equivalence to the views of creationists, climate change deniers and the like - and if that's the case then we need to have the fight just once, at the policy page. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, i appreciate your lukewarm support, though i am not an offender. I'm saying that it's not okay to act abusively toward anyone. I see what you're saying in the rest of your comment, surely, but it's really relative. Wikipedia is important, so saying the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most important places for any crank to have their crank beliefs reflected as "fact" (minus the word "crank") is simply and accurate statement. People do care about Wikipedia as it is supposed to reflect the sum of human knowledge, and people do get eager to change it when it can be improved, and often this is when it's to establishment. There is indeed and establishment bias to many articles and this is often held in a lockdown by some editors who are very skilled and who also use abusive language and tactics. Filibustering would be disruptive and sanctionable, but equally is WP:IDHT and strawman argumentation and other forms of dialog that lack integrity. In the face of these tactics, someone seeking to change an article may seem to be angry and too persistent, but that may simply be a reaction to the bad tactics and lack of good dialog being used by the defenders of the existing POV. It is complex, and many elements of the story are relative to what POV you hold. We must be a civil environment to work out how to represent a world that contains multiple points of view. It's wonderful work, if we can do it without abusing each other. SageRad (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem arises where there is significant disparity between public discourse and scientific opinion. The two are different in important ways, and Wikipedia, by design, describes the public discourse but follows the scientific view. Some areas have endless circular discussion, with climate change and the Subject That Shall Not Be Named being recently particularly prominent. We have ways of settling disputes: RFCs for example. So the solution here, I think, is specific RFCs on article talk pages, and ultimately sanctions for people who refuse to drop the stick.

Science may be wrong. It's allowed to be wrong, because it is, by design, objective and self-correcting. Belief cannot self-correct. No scientific evidence will ever persuade a homeopathy believer that homeopathy is bullshit, or a creationist that life evolved by natural selection of random mutation over billions of years. If scientific evidence emerges to show that recent changes in global temperature are consistent with random variation, then scientific consensus will change. Actually the trend is the other way.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan

I won't discuss other examples because the aim here is not to booby-trap you. The point is that science is inherently neutral and skepticism, which lies at the heart of the scientific method, is entirely consistent with Wikipedian ethos. There is an important difference between informal and formalised statements, in every subject. Take Dawkins (please, do take him, far away). He is a world class expert on evolutionary biology, and a complete dick. He annoys the hell out of a lot of skeptics because he makes unskeptical statements outside his area of expertise. Skeptics try (in as much as the fallible human can) to draw a distinction between opinion and objective truth; the major problem with most of the contended areas is that they are a battleground between those who try to do this and those for whom truth is measured primarily by ideological consonance.

"Big pharma" abuses science. Example: Vioxx. Science catches up with such abuses. It is frustrating for those who see the abuse early and are impatient for fast recognition of the problem. Hence the All Trials initiative, created and driven by skeptics such as Edzard Ernst, Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre - all of whom are routinely attacked by quackery proponents as "pharma shills", even though they have done more to stop the abuses of science b y "big pharma" than all the quacks in history. Quacks hate science-based anything because they know that objective reality is their worst enemy.

Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. According to quackery shills, it's a hatchet job against "natural cures". Any dispassionate reader will see that most of it is actually a very pointed and rather devastating critique of "big pharma". The difference in perception comes entirely from the disparity between the skeptical POV, which abhors bullshit, and the True Believer POV, which abhors all ideas that cause cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy. I think you are mixing two completely different issues. Willfully pushing a singular POV is prohibited, and should be addressed accordingly. But it does not, per Tu quoque, give any editor the justification to be uncivil. --Iantresman (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad >> ... People do care about Wikipedia as it is supposed to reflect the sum of human knowledge ... << I have no problem with that. However, there is a difference between knowledge and crap. Cardamon (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note. I withdraw my support, per the Brown haired girl. Apologies for any inconvenience. Begoon ^talk 14:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I thank you for that. --Iantresman (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommend closing this thread

• Recommend closing this thread with no action. The OP supplied only two diffs (not even from the same user). The heat-to-light ratio on this thread is now approaching infinity. Suggest closing it down before we waste any more time here. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, but it gives the impression that you can be uncivil if you do so only twice? Your Honour, I only punched them in the face twice, and I've always been let off the previous times I've punched someone in the face. --Iantresman (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. The two diffs are two different users. There was never a case made here, by ANI standards. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support close as a USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. That editor bullied this one, but this one was a dick to that other one, but that other one was mean to that one, and oh no I've gone cross eyed. Let it stand that we should all be better to each other, edit in a polite and professional manner, and follow WP:CIVIL a little bit more. There are several million articles, last I checked - plenty of room to go edit something else for a while rather than fight continually. All of you - cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Repairperson needed because of undiscussed page moves and simultaneous cut-and-paste-moves involving multiple articles

Calerusnak has made a total mess of a number of articles by first moving them around and then making cut-and-paste moves. The currently affected article names are, as of latest count, Mercedes-Benz ML, Mercedes-Benz ML-Class, Mercedes-Benz GL, Mercedes-Benz GL-Class, Mercedes-Benz GLE and Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class. I know the standard procedure is to tag with {{histmerge}}, but this also involves (AFAIK at least) undiscussed moves, so the best fix would be to move everything back to where it was when Calerusnak started the circus... Thomas.W ^talk 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I have fixed everything up, except I need an admin to move Mercedes-Benz ML back to Mercedes-Benz M-Class. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@OSX: The page histories still need to be fixed since a number of edits have been made after the cut-and-paste-moves were made. Thomas.W ^talk 22:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess if you see this as necessary. All Calerusnak did was change a few small things that got reverted anyway. He did not actually improve the page. But if an admin wants to history merge, I have no objection. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What a mess - thanks for straightening it out.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ML > M-Class fixed. It might need to be moved to GLE-class is that is now the official name but that needs to be done through a Requested Move. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

promo-seo.co.uk

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

---

Large numbers of user accounts have been set up in the past few days, each making a single edit adding a spam link to one of a number of related websites offering tennis-court surfacing or similar services. First reported on talk:Spam-blacklist, but it seems to have outgrown the scope of this option. Example edits include:

• [[93]], [[94]], [[95]], [[96]], [[97]], [[98]], [[99]], [[100]], [[101]], [[102]], [[103]], [[104]], [[105]], [[106]], [[107]], [[108]], [[109]], [[110]], [[111]], [[112]], [[113]], [[114]], [[115]], [[116]], [[117]], [[118]] . . .
• Mean as custard (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please list on the spam blacklist, we have automated tools there for blacklisting the spammed domains. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Added. I've also started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobblehat99 to out any more accounts and domains. MER-C 03:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Davey2010, early AfD closures and incivility

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.

---

WP:NAC#AfD permits non-admins to close AfDs subject to certain conditions. Davey2010 (talk · contribs) (not an admin) has been habitually closing WP:AFDs early, before the full seven days are up (in some cases after less than six days), contrary to WP:NAC and also WP:CLOSEAFD. On or since 23 January, they have closed the following fourteen AfDs:

Page	Filed	Closed	Actual duration
Unfinished Grateful Dead Album	11:20, 19 January 2016	19:45, 25 January 2016	6 days 8 hr 25 min
Jigyasa Singh	15:01, 19 January 2016	19:43, 25 January 2016	6 days 4 hr 42 min
Ashburne Hall	20:53, 19 January 2016	19:40, 25 January 2016	5 days 22 hr 47 min
Zach Bauman	23:57, 19 January 2016	19:38, 25 January 2016	5 days 19 hr 41 min
Harry Riebauer	09:31, 18 January 2016	00:24, 25 January 2016	6 days 14 hr 53 min
Peter Holecko	22:52, 18 January 2016	00:21, 25 January 2016	6 days 1 hr 29 min
Antonio Pierro	00:02, 17 January 2016	21:59, 23 January 2016	6 days 21 hr 57 min
Hadith of the two weighty things	08:06, 17 January 2016	21:57, 23 January 2016	6 days 13 hr 51 min
MarqTran	05:07, 16 January 2016	00:47, 23 January 2016	6 days 19 hr 40 min
True Original	08:37, 2 January 2016, relisted 05:32, 16 January 2016	00:46, 23 January 2016	6 days 19 hr 14 min (from last relisting)
Shaman (Cannabis)	16:40, 2 January 2016, relisted 05:33, 16 January 2016	00:46, 23 January 2016	6 days 19 hr 13 min (from last relisting)
List of festivals and events in Cumberland, MD-WV	18:14, 2 January 2016, relisted 05:47, 16 January 2016	00:38, 23 January 2016	6 days 18 hr 51 min
Betty Lou Holland	14:00, 16 January 2016	00:36, 23 January 2016	6 days 10 hr 36 min
Pocket Platoons	16:54, 16 January 2016	00:35, 23 January 2016	6 days 7 hr 41 min

Not one of these was allowed to run the full seven days after nomination or last relisting.

When asked to explain their closure of the Ashburne Hall AFD after less than six days, their excuses seem inadequate, particularly their easily-disprovable claim that it was "only closed 4 hours" early. Further attempts to discuss rapidly became more abusive, as they reverted me thus and thus. Although they have reopened the Ashburne Hall AfD (and no others) I am less than happy with the "close comment" in this edit. This is not how I expect XfD closers (admin or not) to behave. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I should point out all closers close the AFDs around 12am (UK time) and until now not one person's had an issue with my closure times, I do admit I did close the ones today early (perhaps too early!) but most were obvious outcomes and whether I close them now or in 2o odd hours or whatever it is the outcome's going to be the exact same (The closure time with AFDs has always been problematic as no one ever knows when to really close them), Some people have in the past had an issue with a close and I've always happy to reopen (and even relist) - I don't believe my closures or the times they've been closed are problematic (If they were then I'm sure many many people would be unhappy....), As everyone knows I tend to get annoyed easily hence the language (To be fair my day's been crap & lack of sleeping isn't helping!), –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting the early AFD closure thing on hold for a second; Davey2010, how do you justify being so incredibly aggressive and uncivil towards Redrose64? (Hint: the proper answer is "I can't") I've dropped an NPA warning on your talk as a result. Suffice it to say that, if you lose your temper like that again, you'll be facing a block. Whether or not you're tired or have had a bad day has no relevance here.

As for the AFDs - I may not the best person to weigh in here, as I have also closed AFDs early if circumstances were appropriate (snowball keeps, special circumstances). However, I'm not sure if those decisions should be made so readily by a non-admin. What is your rationale for closing the AFDs above earlier than posted? Or is it just 'they were going to be keeps anyway'? m.o.p 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said on my talkpage I tend to get annoyed easily here and IRL ..... I more often than not keep a lid on it....

Well yeah most (not all) were easy keeps and I don't really see the point in relisting to death when no one comments but I guess that's just bad-assuming really, Some AFDs get loads of !votes and some get relisted to death so I more often than not close the most obvious ones and leave the controversial ones... –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have had a problem with Davey's closing times [119]. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope that shouldn't of happened and I apologize for that!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also shouldn't have happened: [120]. Why do things that shouldn't happen continue to happen? Geogene (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've explained on my talkpage the reasons behind the colourful language. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In effect, 'I get angry because people annoy me' isn't an apology. It's an admission that a problem exists. Geogene (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not just that - If something doesn't go my way I get pissed off ... I generally just get easily frustrated ..... Some people remain calm and civil and all that, Others.... not so much, Aaaaanyway moving on ..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear problem. Any other admin up for opening and re-closing these? Two are more than a day early and this is far from helpful reasoning. I propose that Davey be barred from closing any more AFD discussions for at least a month just until there's some indication of more respect for the actual process here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck out the link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So hang on - It's absoutely fine for everyone to close AFDs early except me ? ... That doesn't make any sense ... I'm not the problem here ... Just apart of it I guess,

Inregards to the link reason - I did state in the edsum "Not helpful" which is why I amended it ... ? –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not appropriate overall but most are snow keeps or barely snow keeps (I don't consider 2-3 votes sufficient) but it's enough to be a concern. Unfinished Grateful Dead Album is a 16 hour early snow keep which I'd close the same, Jigyasa Singh is controversial in that there is an objection but it's dumb since it's clearly a "AFD for cleanup nom" (although it's still entirely unsourced), Hall was a day early and reversed so that's fine. Bauman is a speedy keep but a day early. Riebauer is an early NAC keep but there's no point reversing it. Holecko follows policy. Pierro is mine admittedly and closed with a merge but I'll keep quiet on it. Hadith of the two weighty things is fine. The point overall is you just create possibly argument that can come up at DRV on these things and as someone who is one of the nominators here, I wouldn't want to be dragged through a second discussion because someone jumped the gun crazily. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So really you do agree with my closures except the closure time ?, But if you have an issue I'm always happy to revert and reopen and at times even relist, I hate DRV so I avoid it like the plaque ,

Well what about if I lay off the closures and close the ones that've either been speedied or snow closed ?, To be fair I've gotten barnstars for my AFD work so I can't be doing thatbad ... Sorry not helpful! , –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has a troll regularly take stuff I've had deleted to DRV (one is there now from October 2014 that could be overturned), don't create ways for discussions to be overturned on technicalities, so yeah I do care about the timing. It literally does not help and there's a difference between a seven day proper NAC keep and a speedy close done a day early for a snow keep. I'm fine with them, just wait on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAC#AfD and WP:CLOSEAFD are both clear: except in special circumstances the normal duration is seven days, and if that's not clear enough, it's also stated as 168 hours (I've made the calculation, and 7×24=168). What I was trying to find out was why you went against those precise instructions - would it have hurt to let those AfDs run a few hours longer (in two cases, a day and a bit longer)? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RB - That's actually good point I guess I'm too a point making lifer harder for myself in that respect

Redrose - See I'm not the only one [121], I don't mean to sound funny but many closers are closing early so as I said I'm not the problem ... Just apart of it ... Well I guess "was" now .... Something needs to be done about all closers not just one (ie me). –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the True Original and Shaman (Cannabis) ones are irrelevant here, as once an AfD has been relisted it can be closed at any time if a consensus has been determined - the fact it was closed "less than seven days (after last relisting)" is not an issue. They could have been closed one day after the last relisting and been entirely proper. As for the rest, while I do agree that in come cases Davey has been a little...overzealous?...in closing where there is a narrow consensus (which should not really be NAC'd), it is pretty much considered by most admins that "seven days" means "on the day seven days from when it was opened" and quibbling over hours-minutes-seconds is pointless bureaucracy - the "168 hours" was only added after a DRV this year, so that's new, and it's yet another case IMHO of people deciding that adhering to procedure Because It Is Written should be done Simply Because It Is Written instead of actually improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed about the "seven days" thing, most of the time discussion has completely quieted down by the last day, and if it hasn't it obviously shouldn't be closed by anyone, admin or not. A few hours short shouldn't matter. Maybe we should remove the 168 hours thing per WP:NOTBURO. ansh666 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • From the discussion at the DRV that led it to be added, that would alas lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• A NAC earlier than 168 hours is not a good idea, unless it is labelled explicitly as a snow close, and is truly obvious. I note that some of the closes mentioned above were in fact specifically closed as speedy or snow, and in my opinion were quite justifiable) (Admins shouldn't be routinely closing early either) The 7 days is meant to be 7 full days, and has two purposes purpose:one is to allow people to comment when they choose--I often choose to comment near the end after seeing the other comments, & many AfDs have had the consensus made clear only near the end of the 7 days. The other reason is to prevent would-be closers trying to compete with each other to get there first. It prevents any one person from trying to monopolize the process. It should be enforced as written, for everyone. The Del Rev decision was very clear about that, as it should be. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Trying to summarise. I think there are two issues here: 1/ Early NAC closes of AFDs. 2/ Incivility.

1. There clear consensus (tho not unanimity that) AFDs should not be closed before the full 7 days (168) hours has expired. All closers should be reminded that there are few exceptions to that principle (WP:CSK, WP:SNOW and occasionally cautiously WP:IAR)
2. Davey2010's incivilty, which Davey acknowledges:
   • It's not just that - If something doesn't go my way I get pissed off ... I generally just get easily frustrated ..... Some people remain calm and civil and all that, Others.... not so much
   • As everyone knows I tend to get annoyed easily hence the language

There's only one conclusion. Davey's difficulties in remaining civil are a problem in a project where WP:CIVILity is a policy. It is also policy (WP:ADMINACCT) that "administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions". That obviously applies equally to non-admins performing admin-type tasks.

Since Davey admits to being temperamentally incapable of meeting the standard required of closers, Davey2010 should refrain from all XFD closures. Sorry, Davey, but this is a heat/kitchen issue: closures won't always go your way, and you can't handle that, so don't do them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two questions, 1)Is closing down an AFD a few hours early disruptive? 2)If it had been closed down exactly 7 days after its creation, would the outcome have changed? From looking at the above cases, I doubt the answer to 2) is 'yes', and given that, per WP:NOTBURO, the answer to 1) is 'no'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have seen problems with Davey2010 closing down AfDs prematurely myself (see history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream, for example and his snarky response, though he did apologise after I called him out on it). In the past I have put his attitude down to youthful enthusiasm, though this is completely unacceptable as an edit summary, and worthy of a civility warning. In his shoes, I think a better response would be "okay, fair comment, I'll withdraw the close and leave it for an admin" than trying to pick an argument about it - he's right that it doesn't really matter if an AfD doesn't run to 7 days and not a minute more, but there is a valid point that closing 12 hours early may shut out people in certain time-zones. A frequent off-wiki complaint I've heard is "there used to be an article about 'x' - where's it gone?" - of course it was deleted via AfD but occasional users aren't even around for the standard 7 day period you get for a debate.

I don't think we're at the level of topic-banning from closing AfDs just yet, rather I'd like to remind Davey that Wikipedia is a site for grown-ups, and if you want to play here, you should strive to act like one. I know you like working on transport articles, and on that topic, Redrose64 is a good editor to have on your side, so you really want to pick your battles a bit more carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually disagree - his closes are fine, and yes, I see his frustration rising because he believes he's being badgered over his closes. In order of closure:

"The Unfinished Greatful Dead Album" had all of three responses in 6 days, all for keep, no reason to keep that going, his close is fine.
"Jigyasa Singh" - again, all of three people posted on it, not one closer sugested "Delete", his close is again fine, no sense in dragging out a forgone conclusion.
" Ashburne Hall " yet again , Three votes - forgone conclusion, it's again fine. I agree it wasn't left open 7 days, but remember IAR is just as much policy as anything else, so far, these fit under an IAR rationale.
"Zach Bauman" 6 votes, all keep, not a real active one either, either way, there was no controversy, no delete votes, so his close is fine
"Harry Riebauer" three votes in 6 days, none of them "Delete", once again, perfectly Ok as an IAR close.
"Peter Holecko " opened a full seven days, opened on the 18th, closed on the 25th, with all of three votes, good close.
"Antonio Pierro" opened 6 days, three merge votes, 1 Delete. Okay, in this case 1 Delete vote exists, but without any policy , the merge votes had policy behind them, so this too is ok
"Hadith of the two weighty things " opened 6 days with 6 keeps and one Draftity, no delete votes, again a good close
"MarqTran" open 6 days with 2 votes, both "keep", not one "delete" vote, so again, a good close, no reason to keep it open, IAR is fine here.
"True Original" no way is this an early close, it was opened for 20 days and had only two keep votes, no deletes, it's fine.
"Shaman (Cannabis)" was open 20 days with 1 vote only , not a delete either, so once again, not an early close. It's ok too.
"List of festivals and events in Cumberland, MD-WV" was opened for 22 days with one vote, and it wasn't a delete either, again a good close
"Betty Lou Holland" opened 7 days, 1 delete without policy behind it, 3 keeps , one pointing out sources were added, a bit border line, but still within policy
"Pocket Platoons" opened for 7 days, 3 redirect votes and 1 keep. Good close here too, not an early close at all.

Davey2010 didn't start or vote in any of these AFD's, he NAC'ed them only. Also, RedRose voted on one of these AFD's as well (keep) ("Ashburne Hall" ).

In looking at Davey2010's talk page, he might have thought | RedRose was being pushy on this edit , I realize she isn't but I can easily see where Dave2010 may have though so. No the incivilty cannot be justified at all.

I see no reason to ban or limit Davey2010 from AFD's, further I've seen many NAC's get overturned just because the sysop can do so. His closures are fine, just because some didn't go the full 7 days dosen't mean they're automatically wrong, I'd say his closures on the ones that ran less than 7 days are justified under NAC due to low participation. KoshVorlon 12:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Kosh, I am pretty sure Redrose64 is a "he", the "red rose" indicating a proud Lancastrian; have a read of the Wars of the Roses. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Ignoring the three which were relisted, none of them ran the full seven days: the longest was Antonio Pierro, at 6 days 21 hr 57 min - which was 2 hours 3 minutes early. I won't quote the other durations again, they're in the table above. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What Davey does with AFDs is a good thing generally from what I've seen. We need more like him. In fact I'd argue that he's one of the sanest, rationally minded people involved in the AFD process. Way too many articles are wrongly nominated and many of them obviously shouldn't be at AFD anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I find myself in agreement with both DR. B and KoshVorlon above; Davey should be reminded to take a deep breath before responding to criticism and this should be closed with no further action necessary. Keri (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone had a problem with the actual result Davey called; rather, as Ricky81682 pointed out, we have trolls that will dispute an AfD on the flimsiest of pretexts, so it can be beneficial to play it by the book in order to avoid this. In the specific case of Ashburne Hall, Redrose had already contested a PROD on the article and argued to keep, and I suspect his motification here is not really to have a go at Davey as much as to avoid a DRV of "waaah abusive admin reverted my prod and got his friend to close the AfD against policy waaaaah". I think this thread has run its course though, so let's close it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 - I admit my temper isn't the greatest thing here but over the years I have worked on it and I don't get annoyed so much as I used too, Yes there's the odd occasion I'll lose but not all the time & not so easily ..... If there's one thing I've learned from this thread it's that I do need to get annoyed even less! .... Suppose it could be my New Years Resolution!

The AFDs - I'll try not to close them so early - I'll probably take a step back for a while (I might close the obvious ones but that's it....),

Who knew ... I'd actually learn something from ANI! . –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• Oh well. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Redrose64 - A. I wasn't referring to you I meant anyone in general, B) I'm entitled to ask anyone to stay off of the page, Drop whatever stick you have with me and just move on. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Blocked for a week

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

---

I have blocked User:Davey2010 for a week. Hours after the discussion above was closed, hours after he said here "The AFDs - I'll try not to close them so early - I'll probably take a step back for a while", what does he do? Close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMERICA after 5 days and 5 hours, and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane after 5 days and 1 hour. Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad Block That's a perfectly good close, 6 days with 2 votes, unblock him. Note that he said The AFDs - I'll try not to close them so early - I'll probably take a step back for a while (I might close the obvious ones but that's it....) (emphasis mine). That was an obvious close, please unblock.KoshVorlon 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's two closes, not one, and 5 days, not 6. The second one had 4 keeps, one weak keep, and two deletes. The quoted statement didn't give him a free pass to close these early (he said that he might close the obvious ones, not that he would continue to close these early), the guidelines are quite clear about this; except for snows and speedies, no AfDs should be closed before 7 days have passed. That should have been clear to him after the above discussion, but the two closes he made were actually sooner than the ones listed on top of the above discussion. From the closure of the discussion: "[...]there's a valid consensus that generally even simple AFDs need to be open 168 hours minimum, and at the bottom of this thread Davey agreed to follow that in the future." Discussion, consensus, agreement to follow it, closing statement about it; and then the next thing you do, hours later, is to go back to your previous behaviour (and worse), directly against that close? I fail to see how this is supposedly a bad block. Fram (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good block. It appears to be agreed upon by many users in this ANI thread that he has been consistently closing AFD threads too soon, and that doing so was not proper AFD policy. After the ANI discussion closed, he closed additional AFD threads despite consensus and despite his response stating that he will stop. There was also combative and uncivil behavior as well (although it was not stated as part of the blocking reason). I agree with Fram's uninvolved judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Good block. He had been warned, given an undertaking not to do this again ... but went ahead anyway. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think a week is too long for a "first offence", I think an "okay, that's enough, make one more early non-admin AfD close and there will be a block, understand?" followed by a 24 hours (if necessary) would have done. Still, he said "No doubt the next time I close something early some idiot will take me to ANI so it's not worth the hassle" so he can't exactly be surprised. In any case, until or unless Davey files an unblock request, I don't think there's anything to discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Good block. A week may seem a bit long, but it may be the only way he can understand what a week actually is. He violated the terms of his agreement (not to mention grossly violating policy), and if after his block expires he continues to close before at least one week has elapsed, he should be topic-banned from closing AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane so it can run for the full 7 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pointless though isn't it? It looks to be an obvious keep however the discussion goes, I wouldn't have thought a redirect would be a good solution here. I think the "rules" should be treated less rigidly. I can think of numerous circumstances where a week is too long before closing an AFD. Five days seems reasonable to me. Above all I think common sense needs to be applied per article. Blocking Davey solves nothing and just looks pointy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all for rescuing articles threatened with deletion (eg: Sara Delano Roosevelt, Ruth Guler), sure, just I'm struggling to write much about this one. If somebody else can expand bits in the obituary and books I've missed, I'm sure I can be persuaded to change to vote keep. The article will be better too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked Davey2010 after he made an unblock request. Fram (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've explained it all on my tp and I admit I screwed up entirely but have promised not to close a single one early again!, I think it's perhaps best this gets closed and we all move on, Anyway again my apologies for screwing up!, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, Davey2010, I found your explanation unpersuasive, and I would have declined the unblock request. AFAICS, Fram was in an excessively generous mood in unblocking you ... but now that it's done, I fully endorse Fram's warning that "if you would return to closing AfDs early, a next block may be considerably longer and harder to get lifted". I hope you will take that warning very seriously. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl .... But then the block would've been punitive ? .... As I admitted I mistakenly screwed up and that It wouldn't happen again it would be pointless to let the block continue wouldn't it ?, Anyway ofcourse I'm taking it seriously .... I was taking it seriously the first time round ...., –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, Davey2010, the continued block would have been to prevent further disruption from an editor who made a promise and broke it almost immediately. You explanation seems to me to be nonsense -- an AFD doesn't get closed by accident.

So, in my view, any further promises from you are worthless, including your promise not to do what you previously promised not to do.

You are unblocked now, but you really had better understand that next next time your keyboard gets a fit of mischief and takes it upon itself to "accidentally" find an AFD and "accidentally" close it early ... you have used your ration of goodwill.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So what would make you think what I'm saying is serious ? ... Other than [this I can't really prove it but anyway I'm fully aware I'm on thin ice here so don't worry I'm not going to screw it up again!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This thread was closed a while ago now. Davey is unblocked, let's leave it at that. Ches (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

And so it continues.....

Now Esquivalience has closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane after 6 days and 2 hours. I don't have a problem with this, it looks even more like an obvious keep than earlier (per the above discussion) but it does raise the question - do we let non-admins close down AfDs early, or don't we? We should at least be consistent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I say not. We have a published rule, let's make sure it's honoured in the observance, not the breach. On a highly related note, I left this message for Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs) two days ago, but have received no reply. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make a distinction between non-admins and admins here. Admins shouldn't close discussions early either (apart from the snow, speedy, or withdrawn cases). Fram (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes they should, as IAR is just as much a policy as anything else. In Esquivalience's case, the close was obvious, why leave it open for 7 days just because the rules says so, let it be closed, the close is obvious and Esquivalience didn't vote , he (or she) just closed it, so no problem. KoshVorlon 11:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think an early admin close should be less of a surprise. For example, I'd have thought a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of a not especially notable person that isn't quite up to CSD G10 but still has a bunch of trolling socks voting "Keep - WP:ILIKEIT / WP:NOTCENSORED" on the AfD would be fair game to close early as "delete". However, we have already vetted admins to do the right thing via RfA, whereas any old Tom, Dick or Harry can walk in off the street and non-admin close an AfD as "keep". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

When there is almost 0 chance that consensus at AfD will change after 24 hours (obvious snow), then waiting 24 hours is process for following process and should be ignored. Esquivalience ^t 13:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

...which is a Snow Keep and is not the kind of thing we are discussing here. The discussion is about regular AfDs, and what's the problem if they get closed after 6d23h, or after 6d12h, or after 5d23h, or after 4d12h, or... The discussions at the time of the decision to increase the minimal duration from 5 to 7 days contain some good arguments why closing early, even when the outcome is probably certain, is usually a bad idea anyway. Feel free to start a new discussion / RfC to get this changed again to 5 days or whatever you believe is better, or to remove the limits alltogether, but until you have that consenus, please follow the current rules. Closing an AfD a few hours early is not "improving the encyclopedia", it's ignoring a general rule for no clear benefit at all. Fram (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support making a distinction between Admin and NAC closes. We are all equally able to close something as a keep or redirect. If something is clearly going one way we need to move on. Generally these 6 day some hour closes are on the Page that shows as the same day of the week as today. The 168 hour new 'rule' is silly because 7 days is close enough. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

user Volunteer Marek ignoring RfC, edit warring on Art Laffer

An RfC was held here to discuss the inclusion of identical material inserted across 4 different pages Art Laffer diff, Jude Wanniski diff, Supply-side economics diff and Laffer curve diff. That RfC was closed diff with a result of "The description of the Laffer curve should not include the proposed text or mention of the poll." Despite this, User:Volunteer Marek has been reinserting this material in the Art Laffer page diff diff diff amongst others, claiming that the RfC somehow does not apply despite the RfC making specific mention of the Art Laffer page and a notice on the Art Laffer talk page diff.

I would like someone to ask or force Volunteer Marek to abide by the consensus reached in the RfC, or, per WP:ONUS if he wishes to challenge it, refrain from re-adding that material and seek consensus to do so himself, rather than insisting that I start yet another RfC. Bonewah (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the RfC was held on the talk page of one article, and neutral pointers were placed on the talk pages of the other articles involved, but it was not advertised on the talk page of WikiProject Economics, nor on the Centralized Discussion page. BMK (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the RfC template did all that. If that didnt happen it was due to my inexperience. Bonewah (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The RfC was NOT held for four pages. It was held for a single page, Jude Wanniski. Bonewah then decided to interpret the results of the RfC for that page as applying to any article he feels like. Obviously, there's nothing in policy to support this. A piece of material may be inappropriate (maybe it's off topic) on one article and it may be perfectly appropriate on another (where it is on topic). For the record, this was well sourced material and the RfC centered around the question of whether it was sufficiently close to the topic.

2. On December 24th after all the !votes have been made Bonewah added a message to the effect of "oh yeah, I'm going to assume that the results of this RfC apply to any damn article I choose" [122]. This was immediately objected to, correctly, by at least one user [123] because, well, because it's sort of ridiculous and dishonest (to change what the RfC is about AFTER people voted)

3. Disingenuously, on the article on Arthur Laffer Bonewah then recently argued that the RfC on Jude Wanniski did in fact apply to Arthur Laffer because... people didn't raise objections to the idea that it would also apply to other articles. Well, no shit, since Bonewah didn't bring up the fact that it was going to apply to other articles until AFTER people !voted. And oh yeah, people actually DID object.

4. It's also ridiculous for Bonewah to accuse me of edit warring where it is in fact he who broke 3RR: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert. I did not (this edit is not a revert as it introduces new material and sources] - it also seems to be what motivated Bonewah to go running to ANI)

5. Bonewah has been edit warring over this issue for months against multiple[ editors. In addition to the four reverts in the last couple hours we have: [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. That's edit warring against at least six different editors. You get the same story if you look at the history of Supply side economics, Jude Wanniski and Laffer Curve.

6. When he started this latest bout of edit warring, as soon as his edit was met with objections, Bonewah went running to the one, single, editor who had supported him in the past [132] and asked him to help out in the edit war. This is a totally transparent and blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS in violation of policy.

7. Bonewah is welcome to start a proper RfC for the page in question. They cannot assume that just because they managed to sneak in a "oh yeah, this applies to other pages" into an RfC that was about to be closed, they get to violate Wikipedia policy on either WP:3RR or how RfCs are actually conducted.

8. Content wise, if anyone cares, this involves Bonewah trying to defend a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that cutting taxes raises tax revenue.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I added to the RfC clarification that i intended it to apply in all the articles listed because it became obvious that you would do exactly what you are doing now, ignore whatever consensus came up and insist that I jump through more hoops to satisfy you. The RfC specifically mentions *all* the pages in question, i even said iwhen i opened the RfC "I feel that the optimal text for this issue will likely be different for supply side economics and the Laffer curve as opposed to the bios of Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski, but in the interest of a centralized discussion, i started the RfC here to help resolve the deadlock above. " Despite this, and explicitly calling out the Art Laffer page in the RfC, Volunteer Marek never said one thing about it until after the RfC was already closed. If you really had a problem with the RfC applying to Art Laffer, the good faith thing to do would be to say so up front in the RfC, not wait until the discussion is closed and insist on another RfC. But thats been par for the course for VM, he never responded to any of the concerns expressed in the RfC most specifically that the source fails verifiability, nor did he even bother to state a reason why Art Laffer should be different, despite me asking him to do so several times.

As for the notion that im edit warring, that accusation is false. The edits he sited as proof were across 3 days not one per 3RR. Further, i went out of my way to avoid editing the articles in question diff since november 9th while the RfC took place, despite VM immediatly reverting me diff per wp:Dispute resolution i disengaged and let the dispute resolution process work. Which it did, and yet here we are.

As for the notion that i violated wp:CANVASS, this is an absurd distraction. The user i contacted had already voted in the RfC, diff long before i contacted him, he was already substantially involved. I pinged him in hopes that we could avoid exactly what is happening now, having to resolve this dispute via ANI. VM is simply trying to distract from the fact that he is ignoring consensus, ignoring every good faith effort to resolve this via discussion and instead wikilawering me at every turn.

As a side note, even if the RfC somehow didnt apply to Art Laffer, doesnt the fact that an RfC over literally cut-and-paste identical content was decided in favor of excluding that content suggest that perhaps the WP:ONUS is on him to make the case for inclusion, rather than insist that i re-litigate the same discussion yet again?

Despite the fact that ONUS says exactly that, when i pointed this out to VM diff? Silence. Just like his silence when i point out that he has never responded to my concerns that the source included in the edit does not match the claims made.

Speaking of which, his #8 above is patently false. Ive stated over and over that the issue here is that the source does not back up the claims made, i even exlicitly said so in the RfC diff Fringe has nothing to do with anything, im only trying to follow the Core content policies of Wikipedia, the fact that VM is trying to claim otherwise should tell you plenty about the way he is representing things here. Bonewah (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"I added to the RfC clarification that i intended it to apply in all the articles listed because it became obvious that you would do exactly what you are doing now, ignore whatever consensus came up and insist that I jump through more hoops to satisfy you." - No. I gave no indication that I would "ignore consensus". And neither am I "ignoring consensus" right now. You are just making that up right now, ex-post rationalizing your behavior. "Well I knew you were going to do something bad so I did something bad first, but then you didn't do anything bad but I knew you were going to so my actions were ok". That doesn't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Libertarians claim that cutting taxes will lead to economic growth, and hence a rise in tax revenues. But that middle step is necessary. You don't go straight from one to the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC was on the talk page of article Jude Wanniski. After quickly looking at the RfC, it's obvious that many participants object inclusion specifically on the page Jude Wanniski: "At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski...", "he poll was not "Are Jude Wanniski's claims about taxes valid or not?", "the source makes no mention of Wanniski", etc. This RfC applies only to one page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Im the person who said "At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski", as a part of a larger argument to exclude that material. Bonewah (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Even *you* said, originally, that the RfC applied only to the Jude Wanniski page. It was only once everyone voted and the RfC was about to be closed that you snuck in, unilaterally, on your own, and without support from anyone, the "this is going to apply to any article I feel like". You were - perhaps unconsciously WP:GAMEing the rules.

Also, you only mentioned that similar text was being discussed on other articles in your (somewhat misfiled) RfC statement. You did NOT make it explicit that other articles were to be covered. THAT is why no one explicitly objected to the RfC applying to other pages - because it's impossible to object to something which hasn't been proposed. And now you're pretending that this lack of objection to something that wasn't proposed is consensus for you to do whatever you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess i shouldnt be surprised that you are now taking what i said totally out of context. The sentence you cite was part of a larger post where I detail exactly why this material needs to be removed. Right above the line you site is a bolded "oppose" inclusion. The very same comment in the next bullet point down ends with the line "its absurd to include it here in Jude Wanniski or Art Laffer". If any of that is too ambigous, the same post also contains a whole section about Art laffer wherein i say outright that this information should be excluded. Once again you are lying about what i did and did not say. Bonewah (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This RfC was clearly about only one page. Let's see what other participants who voted "oppose" had to tell: "the article is not about the Laffer curve", "This appears to be COATRACK", etc. In addition, regardless to any RfC, one can not decide to exclude a reference that qualify as RS from a number of pages because that would be against WP:NPOV, a policy that overrides consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for Millennials — Generation X long-term disruption

Somebody who uses IPv6 addresses geolocating to Kansas City has been disrupting Millennials, Baby boomers, Generation X, Generation gap and other articles about generations for almost a year. I am asking whether a rangeblock would be appropriate to stop this persistent person from edit warring.

Involved IPs:

April 2015 – December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D. This was the person's main IPv6 for 2015. August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8B6:AB8F:ED1E:62CA August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C4C6:FACE:7EDF:9DE8 August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D551:3464:77B9:A66A August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:758A:B522:8F2B:FED4 August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:18D3:88B9:16F1:D602 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:917D:A6E8:15EF:E733 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9D63:ED25:9F9F:75F7 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:951C:464:44B2:A3B0 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D52D:1294:44E9:4E3D September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:714E:6E42:AA40:CD11 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:68E7:68E3:A25C:63F0 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:89D9:B47B:2EE4:5CBD September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:145F:F5B0:EFF0:9D18 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:78BF:A2EE:4833:BE55 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D8BD:9D88:22E0:B373 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:801A:9D3D:AF74:9783 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:3D70:68D8:B44D:DADF September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:91D7:A805:75E3:B638 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:342A:1AD8:9C25:3748 September 2015: 2604:2000:A866:6800:6DA6:104B:2DB7:DB8A September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:BC52:57C2:B965:5DC7 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:4C00:BEDC:B78E:422A October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:3024:82D6:2CE5:325F October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:DC0C:A091:942C:1792 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E45A:A705:82E0:9EA2 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:7C9E:89CF:EF08:A9D1 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:91D0:DF17:7661:D4D2 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:CDB6:74BC:BA13:A27B October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:B0AB:153E:F35D:1468 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:EC58:6080:F3EF:6780 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:B1C4:50FC:CB87:9010 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E989:52C0:4C43:910E October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E981:E3CA:532A:A393 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:293A:20B:33CA:9159 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D9FC:27E6:29B5:EBD6 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:886B:8E:6BEC:998C November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C94D:2A22:61F7:459A November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:888E:4ADD:E8AC:2B25 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2. Was reported to ANEW. Complained at RSN. November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C481:3D43:4BED:70F9 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9CB9:9E11:9243:26AD November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C198:9FBE:266A:230E December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:28D7:DD42:5C19:E136 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:49BB:CB6C:B9C:2911 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:F5B0:2C72:C789:A308 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:6DC0:2C17:90AE:A2FB December 2015: 2604:2000:EF48:1400:C161:10CC:33D5:C83D December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E53E:58FF:8FC:8E54 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C8FB:E672:A99C:19D8 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:54CB:27A9:2263:527F December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:513B:1123:3592:8EFE December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:7DE1:9379:A6F:682E December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:B8E5:EA11:1C26:8BB3 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:51B5:400:A52D:3932 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:18E:29B7:1673:8704 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:5DA0:7E4:1677:8A5A December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:DDD4:D48C:D9AD:57DB January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:254E:C788:96D7:4AF3 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8010:94DB:26E:F546 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:F8EA:C78A:8D48:5AAD January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9B4:4B49:15DD:7D82 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C93C:54FC:302C:CCF4 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8CE4:F907:4926:6E60 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:441:5503:67D5:D2CE January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:ADA5:1B:4EDA:F4B4 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:345F:71F7:710D:7DD1 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D03:3CC3:83BD:BB7B January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:94B0:3397:39F6:921E January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE January 2016: 2604:2000:F82A:2C00:ECCF:C2E5:8B09:6757 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:4466:EBEC:7B50:3A81 January 2016: 2606:6000:610a:9000:fdfc:82fc:6123:7a29

In October–November, this person hotly defended some quoted text which was seen by many others as too much detail for the Millennials article.[133][134][135][136] A more recent bit of tomfoolery, over the last day or two, was the addition of the weasel words "some say" to various articles, especially the Millennials article which was defended by edit warring.[137][138][139][140] Other additions of "some say" were laid down in these places and then defended by edit warring: [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149]

Some of the edits are good, adding useful material or reverting vandals. However, the main impression I get is one of friction. This person has posted on the talk pages of a number of editors including NeilN, Phil A. Fry, West.andrew.g, DGG, McGeddon, ScrapIronIV and LjL. Perhaps some of these folks can offer an opinion on the value of our friend the IPv6 editor from KC. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing here that would reach the level of a range block. One man's disruption is another man's legitimate edit. What is the point of this? My impression of Binksternet is that he tends to be overly combative....case in point -- bringing this up here, while diverting attention away from his own deeds today at The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

By which you mean "reverting your LTA edits on the talk page", I imagine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "long-term" about one (1) comment on The Piper at the Gates of Dawn talk page. Please clarify what you mean. 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem like range-block material. Adding some qualifiers by amending sentences with "some say that ..." as a prefix sounds like a very minor content dispute. LavaBaron (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty puny as far as disruption goes, but it follows many months of other kinds of friction. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If of interest, the above 73 IPv6 addresses consist of

One /64 allocation: 2606:6000:610a:9000::/64

Three addresses: 2604:2000:a866:6800:6da6:104b:2db7:db8a + 2604:2000:ef48:1400:c161:10cc:33d5:c83d + 2604:2000:f82a:2c00:eccf:c2e5:8b09:6757

Johnuniq (talk)

Yeah, thanks LavaBaron. Go Kansas City Chiefs -- 2nd in AFC West!! 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh ... okay. LavaBaron (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think all millennials should be blocked from editing. At least until they are my age.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

2606:6000:610A:9000::64 blocked one week for disruption. There's no reason to go adding comments like the one on Talk:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn to an eleven-month-old discussion and then edit war over it if you're not simply trying to annoy Binksternet. Added to his behavior here, he needs a timeout. Katie^talk 05:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have had to request page protection multiple times for generations-related articles because of this editor. I finally gave up on editing those articles completely as being too contentious an area for me to contribute effectively. I know my limitations, and get too frustrated there - specifically because of this IP editor. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie. I share your impression that the person's post to the talk page of "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" was a troll aimed my way, as it followed my reversion of this person's reversions. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment as solicited: I had not realized the pattern of disruption had reached such levels where you can paste a long list of related IPs; I had simply not done the research. On the other hand, I had most certainly noticed having to restore Millennials repeatedly (as in, quite a few times) after its content was somewhat gratuitously broken (often by specifying arbitrary exact years for the beginning and end of the generation), and I would at the very least apply semi-protection, even if a range block were not warranted or possible. LjL (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions

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

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

I've also explained exactly this to Prokaryotes prior to this posting at WP:AE where their behavior is currently being looked at.[150] My only comment actually directed at editors and not on content/subject matter was that multiple editors were misunderstanding some of the concepts behind some scientific content. I'm not interested in addressing the hyperbole that I'm calling editors climate change deniers further, nor do I think we should entertain the silly idea that I was doing that. I was actually careful on wording my posts to focus on the subject and not editors to avoid these kinds of comments as we're subjected to drama pretty often in this topic. Either way, the topic is under discretionary sanctions, so even if someone thought my sourced comments on the subject matter were some sort of violation, that's for WP:AE, not here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

He wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment There is no reason to throw editors who are questioing recent edits by King, Air and Trypto in with climate change deniers, unless you want to distract from the real issue. And it is simple: Jytdog wrote a SYNTH/OR "scientific consensus" statement that after a months-long, well attended RfC, was closed with agreement by all that the wording does not have support with available RS. As no new sources have emerged to support some version of 'no scientists doubt the safety of GMOs', these editors who are now ignoring that RfC cannot claim to be doing it in good faith. So sling mud, then no one will notice. It's a PR statement and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-science establishment mouthpiece. Guy argues that Domingo 2011, which shows that HALF of all independent studies done on GMO food safety found "serious cause for concern", should be ignored by WP and not included in these articles until various governmental agencies have adopted different language (admit that questions of GMO safety exist). We have suggested for going on a year now that the solution to this contentious and unsupported generalizing statement is to simply quote the various groups. We don't do that. WP summarizes upwards of 18 different sources in order to claim that this 'general consensus' exists. Having been through the RfC and the related ArbCom, these facts have been well covered so i won't be added diffs again. WP can continue to host unsupported PR statements that fly in the face of MEDRS, and it can continue to be a laughing stock that people are warned to stay away from. Up to you. But PR doesn't work if no one trusts you. petrarchan47คุก 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

It is clear that an encyclopedia would uphold the notion that we add content, well-sourced and neutrally stated, and then if it can be summarized in a simple statement, great, add it to the intro. I call this a PR statement because for one thing, the opposite happened in this case. The statement was written, and the sourcing was dealt with afterwords, largely through drama board gaming by gangs, as we see today. Even though official WP processes were used to determine that statement is without support, longtime editors can still find a way around this inconvenient fact. I call it a PR statement also due to the fact that any true mention of opposition to this POV is left out of articles, again through these same methods. To this day, WP does not mention the percentage of Americans who favor GMO labeling, even though I have complained about this many times in very public places. I've mentioned many times Domingo, who's paper is the very best MEDRS source available on the subject of GMO food safety, and literally everyone at this encyclopedia snores. So, by what WP does say, and by what is being kept out, we do indeed have a PR statement written by a topic banned editor, now being reintroduced and defended by his buddies. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Geogene, stop following me around. It's becoming ridiculous. petrarchan47คุก 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Geogene has been following me for a long, long time. I had to say it, even if it doesn't immediately apply. Anyone can do a little search and find this to be true. I see no reason for an apology, but it's easy to believe you weren't aware of our long history. You can check Geogene's talk page archives for more. petrarchan47คุก 00:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm asking you to leave me alone. It's been over 2 years. Let it go. We don't need to call the cops. petrarchan47คุก 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drmies, I'll remind you that editors such as Prokaryotes were made fully aware this couldn't be construed as a put-down before this thread opened as described in my original post here, with even more explanation here, and my comments at the AE case. They were implicitly told I was focusing on the sources and the arguments sources put forth and that the criticisms of arguments for "no scientific consensus" being like climate change denialism were also sourced. The only time I ever directed a comment at editors was: 1. Some were misunderstanding some technical aspects of the sources [151] explained in previous discussions. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at the board.[152]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Editors have agreed that denigrating one's argument by lumping them in with climate change deniers is indeed "casting aspersions". As these articles are under DS, I would support some action taken. Guy said:" I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial." In my opinion, it is equally agregious to use these terms as it is to use "shill" (a term I have never used, by the way, and wouldn't support). These needs to be made clear. petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several problems, but one simple solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem does not rest with some anti-GMO faction on WP, no matter how many echo this claim. petrarchan47คุก 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Canvassing by Kingofaces

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

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

POV Pushing/edit warring by user at Criticisms of Marxism page

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

---

Pablo Rosentown over at the Criticisms of Marxism page has attempted to POV push. Does not bother with the talk section, seems to have created a profile just for this one edit and has been reverting the removal of their post from different IPs. It may be vandalism, but seems more politically motivated. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would have brought the issue at the edit warring section, however, it seems that this user has created the account just for this one particular edit. There is no other history other than this edit. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This editor is clearly yet another sock of the serial puppeteer Need1521, and I have submitted an SPI. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Uncivil header on editor's talk page

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

---

Unframboise has added header text to his talk page which is receiving some opposition from editors but he keeps restoring it whenever it is removed as being uncivil. Unframboise does have a history of incivility and, in August 2015 Floquenbeam even blocked him for "acting like a jerk".[153] My involvement with Unframboise has been minimal until this discussion started at Talk:NCIS (franchise). He pretty much abandoned the discussion after deciding he was going to add disputed content to the article regardless. In a subsequent discussion at WT:TV he made the rather uncivil comment "Clearly I overestimated the intelligence of some editors".[154] Subsequent attempts to continue discussion on his talk page resulted in more incivility when he linked to this gif containing the direction "You should fuck off. now." when I tried to discuss another matter.[155] He also replaced all the content on his talk page with Hi, welcome! It's a fresh year, so here's a nice, fresh talk page. If you're here to nag (I'm looking at all you Herr Wikifuhrer brown-shirts, throwing about your barnstars) then please don't, I'll ignore it and go about my business as I usually do..[156] The offending text "Herr Wikifuhrer brown-shirts" was redacted by Drmargi with a note about civility (and other things),[157] and there has been discussion about it on user talk pages. Most recently, Unframboise has attempted to justify the text in a way that doesn't seem any more civil,[158] but since it is causing offence, I thought I'd raise the matter here and ask, should Unframboise be permitted to have this on his talk page? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This header was not meant to cause offense, but instead it was meant to be a jesting dig at the senior editor culture present within the wikipedia community. After stumbling across [159] discussion taking place about me, without my knowledge (further reinforcing my existing perceptions of an existing senior editor clique), I decided I should spell out, in simple terms, the jovial nature with which the header was intended. Indeed, I find it worrying that you and your fellow editors feel the need to frequent my talk page. Of course, if this discussion is just about the header, I would appreciate if it didn't turn into an all out assault (bringing up resolved issues from a year ago, etc.), although I'm fully aware that any time now I'm going to be inundated with notifications from your pals jumping on the bandwagon, as usual. I could dig up past transgressions on your part, but I don't see the point. I think you should - to put it nicely - mind your own business, as this is beginning to feel like a personal attack. The header has gone (because apparently the freedom of speech that is so well spoken of in America doesn't extend to the internet -- Certainly, I don't see why your false perception of this header referring to a European regime causes so much offense, as a citizen of a non-European country. I won't be commenting on this thread again. Its bullying masked as bureaucracy. --Unframboise (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that just because yourself and your "senior editor" friends are subtle in your uncivil behavior (phrases such as "go play elsewhere", "petulant and childish", etc., spring to mind), it doesn't make it any less uncivil. Indeed, I'm sure you've perfected this art over your many years, but if you look at my user page you'll note the vast amount of excellent editing I've put into wikipedia over the past year. How long before you get over the "being a jerk" thing? (Also an uncivil comment, by the way). --Unframboise (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the header was intended to cause offense. Why else would you put it there? It's mean, and it's tasteless. There is no circumstance under which referring to other editors as Nazis/fascists is other than a personal attack, and as such, it has no place on your talk page. Period. The same was true of your misogynist "humor" you directed at me that you claimed wasn't intended to demean -- and look where that got you. As for the discussion on an editor's talk page, there is no requirement we inform you. There's a very simple solution to this issue, and it lies entirely in your hands: knock off the tasteless garbage you try to justify as humor. --Drmargi (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unframboise's latest version[160] took the offensiveness even further than previous versions. The page has been blanked[161] by Drmargi, but I suggest a simple final warning to Unframboise that any more such abuse of their talk page will lead to a block without any further warning ... and that blocks will escalate with each further offence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at anybody in particular, it was witty repartee, much in the same vain as British comedians including John Cleese (circa Fawlty Towers). Obviously this is a regional divide in terms of what we find amusing. There was no reference to Nazism at all, I can't help what you infer. Of course, if this caused offense then I apologise, but I'll be cold and dead before I let another user dictate what I put on my user page without even consulting me first. BrownHairedGirl, I'm failing to understand how an edit to explain the header didn't refer to Hitler's political leadership is *more* offensive. Who knows. --Unframboise (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unframboise, it wasn't witty. It was just offensive trolling.

Read WP:UPNOT. There are limits to what is permitted on your userpage.

If you want to be a martyr, that's your choice. But there will be no statues, and no ballads about you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean. So-called "senior editors" throwing around demeaning comments like "there will be no statues, and no ballads about you." Just because it isn't explicit, it doesn't mean its not uncivil. Wikipedia is a hostile environment if you're not part of the clique. I don't think I want to be a part of this Mean Girls-esque community. --Unframboise (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a hostile environment mostly because you post banners comparing people who don't see things your way to Nazis. When people ask you not to do that, they are not being hostile. They're being reasonable, and asking you to tone down your hostility so we can get some work done around here. --Jayron32 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was recently involved with Unframboise over content at Code Black (TV series). They initially added content about a cast's departure. I reverted them. A few days later (may have been shorter), they restore it. I again reverted as it was unsourced and original content. WP:Burden was seriously disregarded and assumptions were made when nothing had been confirmed (speculation). They then added the same edit, using the most unnecessary edit summary on earth: do I really need to go to this much effort to spell things out to people?. From I can clearly recall, three policies were blatantly ignored. I did see Unframboise's talk page header when I gave them warnings. Drmargi was the one to really give me clear view about it. Whilst I do believe it had been there for quite some time now, I found it highly uncivil, rude, mean, wrong and unnecessary. It's not the first time I had been called nazi-related insults, but it still bothered me. I cannot thank Drmargi enough for having redacted the uncivil comments. Then the user tries to restore the talk page? What's even more insulting is when they tried to justify their comments by actually adding definitions of each word. Who does that? And now mockery is their "thing" with this: I wonder how long it'll take before someone comes and redacts this. So many bees in so many bonnets. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Enough. The trolling of those warning Unframboise[162] shows that their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach is still active ... so I have blocked[163] Unframboise for 24 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

He removed the block message [164], so I restored it.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A user is allowed to remove the block notice while blocked. They are not allowed to remove denied unblock requests. -- GB fan 01:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think more blanking is required: [165]. I googled the quote and I was led to a page about "serious leadership lessons". Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a well-known one-liner from a stand-up comedian. Don't be so precious and move along. Nothing to see now. Keri (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Understand the meaning of the italicized word. And frankly, I don't care about your opinion. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, deep breath ladies. Brown Haired Girl has handled the situation, and unfortunately, Unframboise needs the last word, however petty it may be. It's no skin off anyone's nose. I think the best move is a little WP:DENY. Whatever else your squabble may be about, it might better be taken to one or the other's talk page. In the meantime, perhaps an uninvolved admin might consider closing this? --Drmargi (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• When someone complains of Nazi's, and the first response is to go jackboot over their userpage, its never going to end well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Akash3141

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

User has dedicated several months to rendering The Undertaker a fan page, violating numerous policies including WP:RS, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. As can be seen from the edit history, numerous – more experienced – editors have chided User:Akash3141, but he instantly reverts their efforts to remove his fanclub-esque edits and makes shocking insults like these in his edit summaries: [166][167][168]. People seem to have given up trying to combat this truly relentless individual, who has seriously undermined the credibility of The Undertaker, and insulted many people in the process. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I know everything involving IPs is suspect, so let me just verify their claims. Akash3141 has repeatedly readded similar puffery material to The Undertaker. The user in question has also edit warred and has shown incivility, such as calling good faith editors trolls[169], dumb[170], dumbass, lousy scums, stuck up, etc. They had another account, Akash Bedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which was blocked and their user page was deleted for being an advertisement. Akash3141's userpage is identical to Akash Bedi's. Akash3141 borders on an WP:SPA as 90% of their edits either add bloat to The Undertaker or contribute to the advertisement on their userpage. Akash3141 previously contributed to Akash Bedi before it was deleted.LM2000 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Cliff1911 refuses to add sources and refuses to communicate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obvious sock at Sockpuppet investigations/Wordfunk

Would appreciate someone else reviewing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wordfunk - I learned of the SPI today after looking at edit history on the most recent sock. The socks have thus far all self-acknowledged themselves, so have all been blocked. Due to the self-acknowledgement, I don't think an SPI was even needed - behavioral evidence was more than sufficient here.

The user suffers from a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and continues to utterly miss the point. They seem to have their own idea of what should be Wikipedia policies and how the site should operate, and have refused every step of the way to listen to anyone that has tried to correct their mistaken beliefs.

Wordfunk (talk · contribs) was engaged in a content dispute (don't tell them that, they go ballistic and say that the content was never in dispute), and they were appropriately warned for edit warring by Jim1138 (talk · contribs) (they don't want to hear that even good faith reverts can be a violation of edit warring). The user insisted the warning was not appropriate and went on to harass Jim1138 for what they claimed to be a false warning, insisting that Jim1138 remove it. At various points, both Jim1138 and myself told him if he wanted it removed from his talk page, he could do it himself - strangely, he has this notion that it is a "technical fact" that he cannot remove text from his own talk page. Due to the harassment, two different admins (including myself) told him to leave Jim1138's talk page, drop the stick, and move on to other things. The user continued posting at Jim1138's talk page, and so I blocked the user for 5 days due to continuing the harassment.

The user then abused talk page privileges, resulting in Only (talk · contribs) removing their talk page access. The user then created a sock to post again at Jim1138's talk page, resulting in both the sock and the original account being indef blocked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs).

After a bit over a week, the user returned with a series of socks to post at my talk page - complaining about unjust warning, unjust block, unjust sock blocks, etc. Each block-evading sock has been blocked - and the user advised on their original account and on each of the socks that at this point any unblock requests should be routed through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System - they refuse to hear that too and continue to create new socks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify - when the most recent sock posted at the SPI, I chose not to RBI their post over there. But, I think a reply of some sort is appropriate (but I didn't think SPI was the right venue, so I started this thread). Either enforcing that the user needs to take the issue to WP:UTRS - or presenting whatever alternate response the community feels may be appropriate to any of the parties involved (myself included). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they've mixed up "removal" with rev del, which of course would be inappropriate in this case. Blackmane (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As you said, RevDel would be inappropriate. They also seem to think edit warring can be excused, as all the socks attempt to justify it - and through that they attempt to justify their harassment of others, as well as trying to justify their sockpuppetry. WP:UTRS is their only remaining path - but they want to dig deeper holes for themself here instead. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons completely broken?

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

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T124804

Is it just me, or has someone somehow managed to completely break commons by redirecting all Commons traffic to the Wikimedia foundation's main site? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not just you, it's affecting Meta as well but it's currently being tracked on Phabricator under T124804. tutterMouse (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I have no problem getting to Commons. Maybe it's fixed now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, from reading the "tracked" link, there was a server mis-step, which has been fixed but will take some time to propagate to everyone due to caching. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oh, for heaven's sake!

• At Talk:MOS/Images I proposed a reorganization of the MOS/Images#Size section, intending only to improve the presentation without changing the substance. Another editor -- not I -- went ahead and installed it on the live page, calling it "magnificently superior"; [171] other editors immediately commented on what an improvement it is [172] [173].
  • Flyer and other editors feel that certain language was better the old way, and opened an RfC on that. Depending on how that turned out we could have reinstalled the old language on that one point, or not, but either way leaving all the other new stuff (which no one objected to) in place.
• So far so good, so I gave the same treatment to MOS/Images#Syntax [174]. No objections.
• So I moved on to MOS/Images#Location. With no explanation other than, essentially, "I'm reverting because I can", Flyer reverted [175]. I un-reverted [176], with the edit summary Calm down. If you don't like a small part of a large, good-faith change which is obviously helpful overall, then just change the little bit you don't like, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of doing that, he's suddenly here crying "disruption". Blindly reverting the good-faith (and obviously useful) work of others, instead of modifying and building on it -- that's disruptive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serial copyright violations

• Clairemont, San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SDarchitect (talk · contribs)

Perhaps the user is inexperienced, but it appears that a lot of the prose content they've added has been lifted verbatim from Clairemont's publications. Normally I'd drop a note to Moonriddengirl, to ask for help determining what needs to be cut. Any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I have attempted to communicate with the editor, and asked them to start removing the copyright violations. Not holding my breath. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• I feel somewhat ill at ease with this netbook I'm working on, so I'm not sure if I got it all--but applied rev/delete in that history, starting with the first one I could find. I also moved the article back to its earlier title. Please check to see if I missed something or screwed something up. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dr. I was trying to take it passage by passage, and removed as much as I could that appeared to be either a blatant copyright violation or close paraphrasing. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have hidden some more revisions. The latest ones (which I left visible) seem ok to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.186.134.156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

IP warned, OP given explanation on how to deal with such matters. I'm hoping this leaves the matter...

Resolved

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

WikiBriefed - continued disruptive editing and incompetence

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

---

WikiBriefed has been brought to ANI before for disruptive editing and battleground behavior, but that ANI case went unresolved. WikiBriefed continued the disruptive editing and was blocked on 26 November 2015 for personal attacks and edit-warring by JamesBWatson. WikiBriefed continued the personal attacks and was blocked by Bishonen for repeatedly making unsubstantiated paranoid accusations that I am a "Salman fanbot" (a fan of Indian actor Salman Khan) and that I am on some sort of idiotic hate-fueled crusade to denigrate another Indian actor, Shah Rukh Khan. Pure fantasy.

As to the competence issues, much is detailed on the user's talk page. Most recently, in these edits he restores the word "illegal" in the sentence "The film criticizes the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs in Gujarat." The word was previously removed by DMacks as redundant with prohibition, which DMacks explained. While this sounds like no big deal, it demonstrates that WikiBriefed is trying to maintain a single vision for articles, and is interfering with the productive evolution of our content. In the same edits, he introduces a random blog as a reference. He also adds the following tidbit: "Khan will be seen in a never before seen look from 1980s ghetto Gujarat", which is clearly parroted from here and is also glaringly trivial.

Today I found this gem, where WikiBriefed seems to believe he can indiscriminately copy/paste the entirety of the obviously promotional summary found here, just by adding a ref. He apparently didn't bother to check if the tone of the content was appropriate for inclusion, leaving in rhetorical questions like "how difficult could it be for the world's biggest FAN to get an audience with the world’s biggest Star" and the obviously promotional statement "In an edge of the seat thriller". These are somewhat moot points, since it was inappropriate for him to copyvio the plot summary. Between the battleground editing, the content stonewalling, the personal attacks, and the copyright violations, there's no indication that this editor is capable of participating constructively in this community project and I'd probably recommend an indef until he can convince the community otherwise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indef blocked, at least until we can get some confidence that this user understands our basic principles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• YuHuw (talk · contribs)
• Неполканов (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Warshy (talk · contribs)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
• Wbm1058 (talk · contribs)
• 31.154.167.98 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

It began with my reversion of what I thought was vandalism (I apologized later) of an article here [177]

I looked at User:Неполканов's edit histories to try and pinpoint exactly why they started to harrass me. I found this here [178] apparently canvassing support for against the author of the article, an IP address from the biggest ISP company in Israel whose only contributions were on that article [179] maybe the Wikimedia Administrative Offices can identify if that IP has ever been used consistently by another user before.

It turned out I was not the first person accused of being a sockpuppet for taking an interest tn this at that time foggy topic. The User WBM1058 had also been accused of being a sockpuppet here [180].

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

I was told that if someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you. Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[181] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [182] and the fact (s)he signed later [183] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [184] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [185]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [186], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [187] [188] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

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

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

Backlog at UAA

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.

---

There's a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for any admins who can find a few minutes to stop by and help out. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN, I believe, would be a more appropriate place for these kinds of notices :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

That was very unhelpful and rude, @Oshwah:. Please reconsider how you help other editors on this noticeboard as preemptively closing legitimate requests without doing anything meaningful to address them doesn't help anyone. ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Murder of Anni Dewani

This is a three-part request concerning Murder of Anni Dewani. First, I would like to thank User:Bishonen for keeping things under control. Second, I would like to request another set of admin eyes at the page. There is persistent sockpuppetry in trying to insert BLP violations implying that a person must have been guilty of arranging a murder when he was in fact tried and acquitted of that. Third, for reasons explained at the talk page, I would like to request an opinion from an editor who is a lawyer in a common-law country (and most but not all Anglophone lawyers are common-law lawyers) to address a questionable legal claim by the POV-pushers and sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that sockpuppet investigations/accusations belong at WP:SPI. BLP issues belong on WP:BLPN. The other issue is a content question, possibly best inquired at the WP:Help Desk or WP:RSN, or a WikiProject, etc. I'm not sure it belongs on ANI, especially when worded as "for reasons explained at the talk page" (when the talk page is 368,000 bytes long). (Especially if you have one admin already on the case.) Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking for more admin eyes when a single admin has been doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting is a perfectly valid use of this board. We don't need to split the single issue of extreme disruption at one article amongst multiple notice boards. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

With that said, I'm working on the socking aspect of the case. If another admin or two would be willing to watchlist the article to help Bishonen stick handle the advocacy edits there, it would be appreciated.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've asked for a lawyer at WP:WikiProject Law. To summarize, what happened is that Anni Hindocha Dewani, an Indian-Swedish woman, was murdered in South Africa. It appeared to be a botched carjacking. Several of the suspects were arrested by South African police. They confessed, but they said that the killing had been a contract killing. The only person who was thought to have the reason to arrange the killing was her husband, Shrien Dewani. He was then extradited to South Africa and tried. He was acquitted, and the confessions were found to contain lies, as to the contract killing. One editor continues to maintain that it was legally found to have been a contract killing. That editor has been topic-banned under BLP discretionary sanctions, but is using sockpuppets. That is a summary of what is happening. Thanks, again, to Bishonen, and also to User:Ponyo. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SEO editor - requesting site ban

• Tonyeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidata contribs

Tonyeny discloses on his user page that he is Tony Edward and works for Elite SEM (that is a link to his current COI disclosure). SEM is a digital PR company that does SEO etc. If you look at the history of his user page, you will see that the disclosure has been absent for the past 6 months.

I first encountered Tony at this COIN thread back in July 2015. He had created articles about his company, its CEO, its clients, and edited articles about his clients without fully disclosing, in violation of the TOU and the COI guideline. I and others worked with him, and I spent a long time nicely talking with him on his talk page, here to try to teach him how he can part of the community with a COI. In response to that, he removed his disclosure and vanished for a bit.

Today I stumbled over his account again, and as you can see from his contribs above, he has gone right back to re-creating articles that he had created before, creating articles about clients, etc. with no disclosure on his User page nor disclosures on the article Talk pages. Given the discussion just a few months before, there is no way that his activities were done out of ignorance.

Instead of coming here right away, I again offered him the opportunity to disclose and follow the COI guideline, this exchange on his Talk page. I was sharp and clear in that discussion. One could even say harsh.

He added disclosures to his user page and to a few of the articles, but not even close to all of them. Yet he wrote in the exchange above, "I have added my clients to my user page and to the pages of those clients that I edited." He did not make the disclosure on the TravelStore article, for example, which he edited, and which his firm uses as a case study for how they helped them "become an online entity and gain a branded Knowledge Graph". In that report they specifically mention "Wikidata Profile Creation" and "Wikipedia Page Creation". Here, btw, is a discussion on Wikidata about deleting the Wikidata entry he created for Fullbeauty Brands, another WP article that he created and edited without disclosing and did not disclose when I gave him the opportunity tonight.

In the Wikidata deletion discussion the editors there linked to this article by him where he teaches other SEO people how to use Wikidata to benefit their clients.

This is not some huge Orangemoody thing but I request a siteban for this user and whatever actions we take against companies like this. Perhaps WMF can consider sending a "cease and desist" letter to them about using our name and mark. (Pinging Slaporte)

But I hope an admin here will swiftly siteban Tonyeny for the TOU violation. We can talk about the rest afterwards. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

the problem here is to judge whether he is being careless, or trying to be deceptive. I suspect careless, because these can be tracked down easily, just as you have done. I suspect that the situation is that he does know our rules, and does know he has to comply with them, and is willing to do so, but doesn't think it important enough to make a serious effort. A block might be a suitable way to prevent further violations, but if he does promise to deal with them he needs chance to do so. And, of course, we now must caefully examine the actual articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I took great pains to explain our ways back in July 2015, in great detail, and they are still on his Talk page. See the diff I provided above (here, again). I think he just has a profound disregard for WP, its mission, and its values. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate paid editing as much as the next person, especially when someone fails to disclose. However, can you tell me why you told the editor this: "And do not direct edit or directly create any more articles about your clients."? Not sure where the editor would be required to stop editing pages as long as they comply with TOU. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@ DGG & @Jytdog - As stated over at COIN, I went through them and the articles should be fine with the exception of the one I mentioned to be borderline and the CEO article which is currently tagged for speedy. Of course, if it survives speedy, I do not really see it surviving AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The COI guideline is very clear that paid editors are strongly advised not to directly edit articles. I had explained that to him earlier and he blew that off along with the disclosure requirement. I acknowledge that my statement there was too strong. Trying to get through to somebody who is not listening. My bad. And it is not a matter of "hating" anything. It is a matter of our mission and the policies and guidelines that make that mission possible. People who are WP:NOTHERE are.. not here. And to be clear, I have redacted what I wrote there. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what your issue is, but I have not been uncivil with you one bit. However, you accusation of ME being a paid editor I find quite interesting. No that you have crossed the line, I will let you know that your comment to that editor was uncivil. It is good you redacted it as Wikipedia works on consensus, not what you feel it should be. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware you had written anything here when I opened the discussion on your Talk page. They are unrelated. I look forward to continuing the discussion at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to you redacting that accusation on my page along with an apologize. Also, do not plan on discussing anything with me unless you are civil. I am an old man that don't like dealing with BS like what you just started. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry about the side show, that was wierd. 10,000 foot level Tonyeny is WP:NOTHERE and is using WP in his SEO business. He had been fully informed of our policies and guidelines back in July, at COIN and on his Talk page. Folks here can do with this, as they will. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I participated (weakly) in the original COIN thread, and my kneejerk reaction is to block or ban. However first maybe we should ask if wielding Wikidata to SEO purposes, as described in the links to the editor's business, is to the betterment of the project, or its detriment. I have just become aware of this practice and am not as sure about what I think about it, as I am about editing Wikipedia itself for profit. I don't think we have to divine his past intent (per DGG, ignorant abuse or knowing abuse of WP/WD) as much as we have to divine his future proclivity to repeat it, and its potential impact. Given that he's basically proclaiming a business model built on it, the first half, proclivity, is easily answered in the affirmative. - Brianhe (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe I hear you on that and i think a discussion of his use of Wikidata might be useful but I am not sure that is in the purview of en-wiki. But maybe at WT:COI? I'll start a discussion there in any case and we can see where that goes. In any case I would like the focus of this thread to be on his behavior in Wikipedia, which in my view violate the ToU, WP:PROMO (well accepted WP policy) and the COI guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Banninate. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The purpose of his wikidata edits is explicit: [189]. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it could be more clear that this user is here to further their own business and financial interests, not to build the encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban and delete the articles on his company's clients, which are sourced to trivial mentions, self-refs and press releases likely published by his company. Clearly editing for personal profit. Millions of volunteers didn't create this project for you to make money off it. Go away. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban Partial and/or half hearted compliance with the ToU is still failing to comply with Wikipedia's policies. The editor has been advised of our requirements and failed to comply. Beyond that using Wikipedia for SEO purposes nearly guarantees they will be editing against NPOV and skirting WP:N and or WP:WEIGHT. If the primary concern is the client rather than the encyclopedia then the editor should not be here. Nuking the contributions of ToU violating promotional editors should be the standard response. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Update Jbh^Talk 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ban per WP:NOTHERE followed by a comprehensive cleanup to revert every trace of anything he has ever done here and at Wikidata. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unregistered IPs 92.24.104.145 and 92.24.104.245; genre warring

Unregistered IP 92.24.104.145/92.24.104.245 has been genre warring as of late on the Hymns (Bloc Party album) article. They've been continuously reverting my edits where I added genres backed by a reliable source and has continuously added unsourced genres to the page, suggesting that just because the band is labeled as one genre, it means that all of their albums must be that genre. The page history is available here They're clearly unfamiliar with the Manual of Style for album articles and how sourced genres work, but even after this, they went the extra mile to leave this and this on my talk page. Aria1561 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have written FAs and this 16 year old think he can school me. Ha what a joke this place is. Genres were there indie rock and alternative dance, he came and removed them to his preferred ones. I cited them and then he removed them again including the citations because he didn't like the sources. Allmusic tags have always been used as reliable sources, doesn't have to be in the review text. Stop wasting people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.104.145 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see edit warring between the both of you on Hymns (Bloc Party album). I highly suggest that you two make no further edits until the matter is either settled here or in proper dispute resolution or discussion channels. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you've written FAs I'm sure you have an account, 92.24.104.xx. Please log in. Aria1561, please don't edit like this, see WP:POINT. I was going to protect the article to let the content dispute be addressed on talk, but in view of this and this, I have instead attempted to give the IP time off for personal attacks by blocking the range 92.24.104.128/25 for a couple of days. If there is continued edit-warring after that, the article can then be protected to encourage dispute resolution. (I'm assuming 92.24.104.xx won't edit the article with other IPs, since I've given both the IPs formal block notices on their pages; that would be block evasion.) Bishonen | talk 09:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

"being ineducable"

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

---

(Note: This section was originally misplaced by me at WP:AN. I have moved the full discussion as far as 05:59, 28 January 2016 here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

Mabelina (talk · contribs) has a turbulent history here. For quite some time, many editors have been attempting to help this individual understand Wikipedia policy and editing practice, mostly specific to WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK, but also sometimes WP:CONSENSUS. While I believe I've seen some improvements since my first interaction with the editor some time ago at Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), s/he continues to make the same grammatical mistakes, ignore consensus, and edit war, despite the aforementioned help.

Recently, there was dispute over the way Mabelina was editing the biographies of British peers. A lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Use of Rt Hon and PC for UK Privy Counsellors and Peers reached a sensible consensus. Yet, Mabelina still insists his/her way is the right way, often edit warring: [190], [191], [192]. A glance at Mabelina's talk page will show how a number of editors (including myself) are becoming very frustrated with the behaviour. Though, it also shows a stubborn and troubling refusal on Mabelina's part to accept concepts like consensus (see User talk:Mabelina#Disruptive editing from 19:59, 27 January 2016 on). Confounding matters even more, pointing out the problems to him/her is deemed by them to be undeserved, at best, threats or abuse, at worst.

Mabelina's block log is illustrative of the difficulty s/he has been having adhering to Wkikipedia rules and guidelines. One block by RHaworth (talk · contribs) was imposed due to Mabelina "being ineducable". That's a succinct way to sum up the issue with Mabelina and, unfortunately, I don't think it's improved enough.

Another block should temporarily stop Mabelina's edit warring. But, there would still remain the big question of: what's going to be an effective way to see Mabelina become a cooperative editor in the long term? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I admit that this did ping on to my radar yesterday and I quickly became overwhelmed when I tried to tease apart the various issues when reviewing Mabelina's talk page and associated edits. There is a significant gap between the involved editor's expectations (e.g. collaboration through clear discussions) and Mabelina's often over-the-top responses. I completely understand why frustrations have bubbled over but I'm not sure I have the stamina to take another crack at it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with everything User:Miesianiacal says. I too have seen some improvements by Mabelina but there is still too much POV-pushing it seems. I spent a lot of time engaging with Mabelina back in November 2015 regarding BRD and MOS specifically, but also wikipedia conduct more generally. Unfortunately, even after returning from their block of 13th Nov they still seem to have made little progress and I have spent even more time over the last few days attempting to deal with issues around their latest area of dispute, namely styles of peers. I think the whole issue can be summed up by this post Special:Diff/700431092/700639180 in which Mabelina was presented with evidence that the style they do not wish to see used has been used by RS, to which Mabelina responded "so perhaps it could be a typo". Other evidence along the same lines has been presented to Mabelina but ignored, the only response ever being along the lines of "I am right" (I paraphrase) - Special:Diff/702010181/702011565. Mabelina seems unwilling to respect a consensus when that goes against their view of how articles should be. It is getting very frustrating, and like User:Miesianiacal I am at a loss to know how to deal with this in the long term. Clearly previous blocks have dealt with the problems in the short term, and they have had some limited longer-term improvement, but I don't see that they have had the intended impact since much of the editing style that caused the blocks is still persisting. Frinton100 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits just now have been deleted - edit conflict - try again in 20 minutes. Thanks M Mabelina (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Frinton100, I should also have pointed to your own talk page for more evidence of what I said above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Another edit just deleted by virtue of edit conflict...

Look back in your talk page archive and you will find where I gave you some advice about edit conflicts. Frinton100 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have but it doesn't work on this page seemingly. Anyway, a moment svp: ineducable is to be "considered incapable of being educated, especially (formerly) as a result of mental disability". Is this really how low an opinion you have of me, or is it that you, NH-H, Afterwriting, etc just simply don't like my contributions (because of the reasons you have set down time after time)? Qv: User talk:Mabelina Mabelina (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

I've been following this from the sidelines for some time now. Would it be possible to have Mabelina pick a quiet topic, either in her user space or draft space, and improve it to DYK/GA/FA to demonstrate her competence? Apologies if she has already shown proficiency with article development and improvement. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't think that would really help as Mabelina is capable of producing good articles, and has created many articles of their own which have been perfectly reasonable pages. The issue is more about what happens when they come up against a difference of opinion with other editors, and how they go about trying to resolve this. Frinton100 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: this doesn't quite concur with your agreeing with everything Miesianiacal has to say. It is hopefully more than apparent that I dislike such public discord, but if this is now the forum to state one's case so be it (I personally do not think it worthy of ANI). Apart from disparaging me, I am not entirely sure what Miesianiacal's purpose is here? I should have thought that bringing up the article about the Order of Saint John is in no way to my detriment (apart from the arguments), which is what I think Miesianiacal is trying to make out. Close inspection of that article's edit history serves only by way of illustration to show my edits to be respected (although sadly with much intervening conflict from Miesianiacal).

The issue indeed has much more to do with what User:Frinton100 states above as "what happens when they come up against a difference of opinion with other editors, and how they go about trying to resolve this" - a perfectly reasonable general enquiry - however, not as stated relating necessarily to me. Anyway, let's suppose it were meant to refer to Mabelina, it should then be pointed out that I have set down substantive reasons as to why Wiki MOS should be clarified accordingly (with regard to Style/Titles - particularly re. Infoboxes), given that the present situation is totally unclear and far from being satisfactory. I should wish to help further with minimum hassle & so that Wiki provides concise and accurate information throughout its pages. Much obliged to hear as to how to resolve this. M Mabelina (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible how you can be unsure of why I mentioned Order of Saint John (chartered 1888); I was blatantly clear: it's where I had my first interaction with you.

But, now that you've drawn more attention to it, one can see in the edit history you were edit warring with Anglicanus (talk · contribs) back in October 2015 over the same kind of edits you've been making in the last few days. Compare this with this. Even back in October people were citing how many times you'd been told about incorrect capitalisation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And now you're doing it again at House of Lords. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Mabelina is a male in his mid-40s. I have to agree with the assessment of ineducable, and, in spite of years of WP:ROPE, unable to effectively, accurately, and collaboratively edit on Wikipedia. I believe a CIR farewell is long overdue; he's somehow managed to squeak by and disrupt things so randomly and haphazardly that he hasn't been dragged to ANI lately and given the final boot. But I think it's time, as enough time has been wasted on him. Softlavender (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Would a strongly enforced 1R restriction (maybe per 48 or 72 hours) be of any help? To at least drastically reduce his edit warring on multiple pages? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. We don't have the manpower to babysit one single editor, and frankly, Mabelina does need babysitting. That's why it's time for a CIR boot. By the way, I'm going to ping RHaworth. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I don't want to see any editor getting the boot, who hasn't vandalized articles or socked. If a 1RR hasn't been tried, then give it a go - if it's required. Also, If the editor-in-question is having competency problems? then getting him/her a qualified mentor, would be the route to take. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that shows a misunderstanding of WP:CIR. The whole point of CIR is that the person cannot be rehabilitated. People have tried for years to get through to Mabelina, to teach him, to mentor him. He appears unable to comprehend the simplest and most patient or blatant instructions. It just isn't working (he's been blocked 9 times in 8 months), and it's time to show him the door, because the community cannot waste any more time on him. Pinging Bbb23, Anglicanus. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, he does appear on pages on my watchlist fairly frequently. It also seems there's others who regularly interact with him. If a 1 or 0RR restriction were imposed (maybe with a pre-agreed, automatic block time of, say, 6 months), I, for one, could volunteer to report here any breach by Mabelina that I witness. Perhaps Frinton100, Afterwriting, N-HH, and/or Anglicanus would do the same?

Whether or not mentoring succeeds is another (doubtful) matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused now - are you, Miesianiacal, determining/considering my future on Wiki? You wanted to boot me off earlier??

I don't know what you're talking about. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well you should do since you launched this farce... M Mabelina (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not doing yourself any favours.

Given I wrote "temporarily" and "see Mabelina become a cooperative editor in the long term", it's baffling how you concluded I want to "boot you off". You should be more concerned with those who really do want to see you gone from Wikipedia forever. I don't wholly agree with them right now, but, I wouldn't invest a lot of effort in contesting the idea. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

another edit conflict - despite the learned abilities of Frinton100 - these haven't worked for me - ie. my defence has been deleted again...

& it might be worth pointing out at this juncture, that the only times I get edit conflict - YOU CAN ALWAYS DISPUTE ANYTHING I SAY - is when I try to link another editor's name before saving...

To sum up, I note that the usual players are lining up to orchestrate a vote of no confidence - is that what it has come to? M Mabelina (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabelina: You do know that when you run into an edit conflict your post is not just deleted right? The information you wrote is shown on the bottom of the page. Everything you wrote can just be highlighted, copied, and pasted back into the editing window. All you have to do is scroll down. --Majora (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Or copy your post before hitting 'Save page'. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: the term ineducable refers to mental disability. Unless you publicly disclaim this assertion with respect to me throughout Wikipedia, all rights are reserved. M Mabelina (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, Mabelina. I monitored your posts here, at your talkpage & others talkpages. Just an observation, but I think you've pinged Miesianiacal enough times, already. You don't have to ping him anymore. GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@LilaTretikov: please be advised that Wikipedia is hereby put on notice for publicly using the term "ineducable" in reference to User:Mabelina. M Mabelina (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mabelina, are you threatening legal action? Please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it sounds like a classic case of exhausting the community's patience. The time, energy and good will of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and we can't allow it to be squandered in this way. Softlavenders point about babysitting a single editor and years of WP:ROPE is well taken. (The part I don't understand is why Softlavender adduces in a carping tone that Mabelina is a male in his mid-40s — so what? Middle-aged men are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Under female names, too, no problem.) In view of what has transpired here, on user talkpages, and in the block log (=nine blocks by six different admins in less than a year), I have blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 08:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

• As a post-closing footnote here regarding @GoodDay:'s last query above: yes, they were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring with Harassment / Threat Overtones

Yesterday, I had cause to block User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres for vulgar personal attacks in an edit summary, which had come about as a result of a small edit war on the article. Looking into it a bit further, I am concerned that Eni.Sukthi.Durres has been engaged in more widespread harassment / threats with a nationalistic tendency.

User:FkpCascais posted this on Eni.Sukthi.Durres's talk page admonishing him openly for pushing a nationalist agenda, specifically here in an edit summary and here on User:Msb73505's talk page. I am concerned that there is something deeper here beyond mere incivility, certainly Msb73505 has observed to me here that Eni.Sukthi.Durres has made threats against him. The problem is that I don't speak Albanian and online translation sites don't seem to be much help. I'm aware of long running conflicts on enWiki from a wide number of users from Balkan states relating to ethnic nationalism and wanted to run it past other admins here, particularly some who might be able to speak Albanian and offer translations for what has been said in the diffs above (and perhaps identify any further instances that in my ignorance I have missed) and help me understand whether this is just a small edit war that had some uncivil overtones or something a bit more serious that needs to be nipped in the bud.

For information, although I blocked Eni.Sukthi.Durres for his edit summary and the general edit war, I only issued a warning to Msb73505, as I felt that there was provocation, harassment and disruptive editing mitigating his reverts and that the fault at his end was not trying to take the issues to the talk page for discussion.

Happy to here thoughts on this from anyone, names users above have been notified. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Fenix down (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick

When is that guys page unprotected? 82.132.233.83 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The talk page is semi-protected indefinitely due to continual harassment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Harry Fournisain has made legal threat against me. See my talk page. Bebittn (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is bizarre. A new user (created about 20 minutes ago) makes it's one and only edit to this user's page (also created about 20 minutes ago), who's only edit is to HERE. Ok, who's socks are these on the floor? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeap, this is clearly teh hoax and cockpuppetry. Archie Vandonken (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And the fun continues. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed all three per DUCK, and the first one for NLT. Not sure which drawer to file this under, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish we just had a generic, "ANI troll" sock drawer. GAB^Hello! 16:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It could be created. User:GenericTroll, perhaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably a better option than User:TypicalDouchebag. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Py0alb

Please refer to this ANI which resulted in a warning to User:Py0alb following "conduct (that) is attacking and ill-informed". The admin at the time said that "a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will be met with sanctions". A formal warning was placed on Py0alb's talk page and was promptly deleted by Py0alb.

Py0alb is a very occasional visitor to the site with just only 582 edits in five years and yet he makes bold claims about site policy as if he is an experienced and regular user. He seems to become involved in conflict every time he visits the site as a check of his talk page and contributions will reveal. For example, an argument with User:115ash led to him posting this warning which was not justified. On his own talk page, there is this complaint about his attitude. He has also been in breach of copyright.

He had not been on the site since November last year and reappeared on 18 January with this confrontational attack on the major cricket article. I considered his tone and his use of the phrase "un-encyclopaedic gibberish" to be a breach of WP:CIVIL. I therefore reverted his edit and suggested that he puts forward a constructive argument if he wants someone to respond to him. His response to that was to reinstate his original post, "warning" me that I will be banned and demanding that other people are polite and respectful to him. Admittedly annoyed by his attitude, including his apparently entrenched view that the term does not exist despite the evidence in the article, I responded by advising him to study the citations. His response to that was to again threaten me with a ban because I, and not he, am guilty of abusive behaviour. Apparently, it is abusive to suggest that he needs to read the citations to understand that the term does exist and has widespread usage.

He placed a PROD on the article, claiming that the term does not exist, despite the citation evidence. That is his prerogative and it is mine to remove the PROD as I do not agree with it, so I did so. He came back and reinstated the PROD, demanding that the article is deleted immediately. This is, of course, out of process because if a PROD is rejected by an interested party, the next step is to take the article to AfD. His second attempt at PROD was removed by another user who advised him of the correct procedure.

Today, having been inactive for two days, Py0alb blanked the entire article and placed a redirect on it. His comment was a threat that anyone reverting his change would be banned, which is bang out of order. He made reference to a previous AfD in 2011 when an earlier version of the article was deleted because it lacked citations. The current version has several citations from significant sources to comply with WP:GNG. Besides blanking the article, he went into the talk page and declared that it is "a direct contravention of Wikipedia policy" (this from someone with only 582 edits in five years) to recreate an article that was formerly deleted. Any article can be recreated if the earlier issues (in this case, no citations) can be resolved. He finishes by saying without any authority whatsoever that "The article will now be deleted for the final time".

Frankly, this person is a troublemaker. He seeks confrontation and it is evident from his attitude to this article and also to the Indoor cricket article for which he received his warning two years ago that his sole rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has obviously not learned anything from the formal warning which, remember, he immediately deleted from his talk page. I recommend an indefinite WP:BLOCK for someone whose behaviour is repeatedly hostile, abusive and unreasonable. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD on this page was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket. Consensus is to delete. Jack is ignoring this consensus and is now engaging in an edit war and engaging in a personal vendetta against me (see this completely unnecessary ANI for an example). This is not a personal matter, it is merely a matter of correctly following protocol. I understand that it can be difficult when a page you have worked on is deleted - I have experienced this in the past - but Jack needs to calm down and understand that this page is unencyclopaedic, and that his opinion alone is not sufficient to supercede a clear consensus. I do not want a war, I merely want correct protocol to be followed. The phrase is a nonsense.

Thanks, Py0alb (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong as a matter of policy. Fortunately, another editor has reverted you, or I would have done so myself. But you don't have only one choice (take it to AfD); you can also tag it per WP:CSD#G4. Frankly, I doubt an administrator would delete it on that criterion, so taking it to AfD again is the better option. From the diffs above, this isn't the first time you've made statements or acted as if you are a policy wonk when in fact your grasp of many policies is sorely lacking. No one expects editors to understand all the Wikipedia policies, but you should at least have enough insight to know when your interpretation of policy is at least close to correct. I suggest that at a minimum you step back from some of these confrontations, or you are going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. You may note that since writing the above, Py0alb has tried to canvass support from the other editor involved in the dispute. He has not, however, been successful and has again been told to follow the correct process. What he is saying about consensus is ill-informed, to say the least. The article that went to AfD in 2011 was completely different as it was no more than a stub that, crucially, lacked citations. I did not take part in that AfD but thought the decision to delete was fair enough. Since then, usage of the term has increased and I keep hearing it in discussions on the media and at cricket grounds. I decided to research it and found that it is now quite widely cited so I decided to recreate the article and capture a range of sources so that it will meet WP:GNG, not just the NCRIC SNG. I am not engaging in an edit war as I have only reverted one of his changes and that was effectively a response to vandalism because he had blanked the article without following due process, and that after the process had been explained to him by another editor. To say that I am conducting a personal vendetta is a ridiculous statement. I am not even protecting the article because I was quite happy for him to PROD it and I would be equally happy to defend it at AfD. I want only two things from this: one is that the article will be treated with respect which includes being taken to AfD in a constructive manner if someone deems it necessary; the other is that I do not have to deal with ill-informed, opinionated editors who are confrontational and rude from the outset. In view of this editor's past record of confrontation, including a formal warning that he has completely ignored, not to mention the serious doubt I have about someone who appears sporadically yet writes as if he is a continuous user, I still recommend that an indefinite WP:BLOCK, especially as he has again blanked the article since I restored it yesterday and repeated the correct process to him. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is something I am slightly confused about, in that Jack claims above "I was quite happy for him to PROD it" and yet this edit reveals something different: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_cricket&type=revision&diff=700427615&oldid=700423682

Aggressively defending articles you have a personal interest in from due process is really not the sign of a constructive member of our community.

Py0alb (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try to format your responses in the proper way. You make discussions difficult to read. There's nothing confusing about what Jack said. He said it in his opening post. You prodded the article, and he removed it. Your prodding the article was your prerogative. Reinstating it after he removed it was not. Your last sentence is more meaningless rhetoric than anything else. At the same time, some of Jack's allegations in his last post are off the mark. The reverts here by you were wrong, but I would not label them vandalism, just a repeat of your misunderstanding of policy. Also, your last revert came before my comments above, and at this point it's fairly clear that you're not going to heed good advice from Jack, but did from another editor (the same one who reverted the reinstatment of the prod). So, I don't think that last revert is anything surprising. Finally, whether you should be blocked for what you've done is unclear. If it were clear, I would have already blocked you. Regardless, jumping to an indefinite block of an editor who has a clean block log is a rather drastic sanction. I would think any sanction would depend on how you conduct yourself after this discussion. Certainly, my 3-year-old warning is not as relevant as a more recent warning, and, in any event, was limited to personal attacks. Although your style is more aggressive than collaborative, I don't believe a case has been made for personal attacks. I'm more concerned with your competence and whether your edits are a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. Looking at the history of Major cricket, I see that Py0alb added a PROD tag to the article, which was then removed by BlackJack. Py0alb then reverted the PROD tag removal, which is not proper procedure; if the PROD tag is removed, the article must be AFD'd (or CSD'd if it meets criterion - even though I agree with Bbb23 that administrators rarely delete per this criterion unless blatantly obvious; an AFD is preferred). Despite the fact that another user correctly reverted the restoration of the PROD tag (note the edit summary), he reverted the page twice (here and here) before finally nominating the article for AfD as instructed by multiple users. This is edit warring in my eyes, as multiple users have attempted to leave edit summaries describing proper process, and the changes were reverted outside consensus and despite a discussion on the article's talk page. Py0alb - You should stop making reverts such as what you did recently. I note that you have since nominated the article for AfD, and I wouldn't block you for edit warring since you seemed to have stopped (if I was an admin) - but you need to acknowledge this, listen to other editors (especially when multiple editors step in to correct your reverts and actions), and discuss disputes before reverting. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Since raising the AfD, he has written this which indicates that he is continuing to ignore advice given by other users. In the AfD itself, he has voted twice and he has made a personal attack: both entries removed. In addition, he is evidently seeking to mislead readers re the citations and persuade them to ignore non-internet sources, claiming that "'Its in a book I once read, trust me' is not a valid form of evidence". Apart from its nonsense value, this constitutes a serious breach of WP:AGF. It doesn't end there. Since raising the AfD, he has removed a link to the article from another article. Frankly, this is all completely out of order and I repeat that WP:BLOCK is necessary in this case. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that these edits may have issues, but I'm not seeing a personal attack against another editor here (addition diff). It appears to be a logical analysis to me (taking "right or wrong" out of the equation). When it comes to the issue of edit warring, he has ceased doing so. Py0alb has voted; we just need to let the community have a chance to give input and come to a consensus. If disruptive editing occurs, that's a different story. However, until this happens, I suggest that we step back (both of you) and let the AFD take its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you are of course correct, I have maintained a rational, impersonal, and professional dignity throughout this discussion. I have nothing agaisnt jack on a personal level, I simply feel that the page in question quite clearly fails WP:V and needs to be deleted from the site. A "personal attack" might constitute raising a spurious ANI and repeatedly insisting that another editor be given a block simply because you don't agree with them. If an editor acted like in such an antagonistic and uncivil manner, I think the admin might need to consider looking into their behaviour at that point Py0alb (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, that is a ludicrous accusation. I just repeated the point made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&type=revision&diff=698008924&oldid=698004810 that the term "major cricket" is one that has been invented by wikipedia editors as a convenience. There is nothing personal about this. Py0alb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am following correct procedure in restoring this discussion from the archive but I am concerned that no action has been taken against Py0alb who has continued to breach guidelines at the major cricket AfD. Please see this accusation of bad faith made by User:Hallward's Ghost, which has subsequently been proven by three editors to be completely false. Pyoalb supported the accusation, predictably I would suppose given the foregoing, and committed yet another breach of bad faith by accusing another editor of dishonesty when the true situation is quite the reverse. I would argue that the sanctions demanded by these two people should in fact be directed against them. That AfD has become a fiasco and I believe admins need to step in and take positive action against those who are trying to discredit a reputable editor who, I might add, is currently on wikbreak and so presumably unable to defend himself. Thank you. GnGn (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You've already been asked by @Harrias: (an admin) at that AFD to calm down and quit flinging around these accusations. Now you engage in blatant forum-shopping, hoping for a different result. You would do well to read WP:BOOMERANG before proceeding any further along this line. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: GnGn has now "resigned in disgust", apparently since Harrias wouldn't block me for buying one of the offline refs and doing actual research on an AFD. In my view, GnGn had to know that sanctions were likely heading his way, for his over-the-top behavior, which might well have precipitated this "resign in disgust" thing, to avoid such sanctions. Be that as it may, this thread can safely be rearchived, I think. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the "retirement" I would block GnGn, but I'm clearly now too involved to do so. Harrias ^talk 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  A cynical person might also view that as part of his "plan", or whatever. First, he tells you to sanction me, then when it becomes clear you're not going to do that, he blasts a very personal attack to your talkpage, making you an "involved" admin for purposes of actually sanctioning him for his behavior. Who really knows, though? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gnorman Gnome

As an extension of the discussion above regarding Py0alb, I would very much appreciate another administrator's view on this, particularly the conduct and personal attacks made by Gnorman Gnome at that discussion (particularly this diff), and his statements on my talk page (this diff) and his own talk page (this diff). In the interests of completeness, the conduct of myself, Hallward's Ghost and Py0alb should also be considered. Harrias ^talk 17:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the merits of this diff alone, I issued a warning to Gnorman Gnome, asking them to not make personal attacks, and emphasizing that if other editors are being incivil, calling them aresholes isn't going to fix it. If the other named editors are willing to just cool it and discuss matters in calm fashion (or, better, walk away for a while and let a consensus form), then things should resolve themselves. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing, though: I never did any of the things GnGn was accusing me of, and Harrias's only "crime" was, apparently, not blocking me when GnGn demanded he do so. It's my suspicion that GnGn has only "retired" to avoid the sting of the WP:BOOMERANG. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The AFD is on my watchlist and I commented there so am somewhat involved. Gnorman Gnomes comments are way over the top there demanding sanctions when none are needed. This has crossed any line that was left, retirement or not, and probably deserves more than a warning. AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • From a combination of the personal attacks and obviously gaming the system to get Harrias WP:INVOLVED in hopes of drawing a "bad block", I've indef'd. If they return from their retirement they can see about having the block shortened, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks

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

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

I removed the attacks three times ([193], [194], [195]), citing WP:TPO: "[Allowable is] removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." I left pertinent discussion about content: [196]. I also left a note at Travelmite's talk page, again outlining WP:TPO, as well as WP:NPA. S/he reverted the removals of the PAs from Talk:Republicanism in Australia ([197], [198], [199]) and reverted my comment at their talk page without remark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here we have a perfect example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On monarchism, of course![200] Bishonen | talk 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

JaumeR's abusive behaviour on Help talk:IPA for Spanish#New rule

Hello. Today, User:JaumeR has been abusing @Aeusoes1: and then also me, in the thread titled "New rule" on Help:IPA for Spanish. I won't provide all of the diffs (there are dozens of them (that user has a problem with writing all he wants in "one round", so to say); see [201]), but it's all there, it hasn't been deleted. That thread in and of itself may also be a violation of the WP:OWN policy (Aeusoes already warned him about that). He constantly questions our knowledge of Spanish in a rude manner, and keeps focusing on our Spanish skills ("he speaks poor Spanish, call the army!" kind of ludicrous behaviour), rather than the sources we're discussing. I feel that the least we deserve is an apology.

EDIT: Also, note that it's not the first time this guy was rude to me. Peter238 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't abused them, they bully me all the time, and ells m'infravaloren, they also are biased and i want to be neutral, i dont want to favour anybody, i just want to do a professional article about Spanish and Catalan, i am not a dictator, but i want to be the leader in this because they don't know anything about these languages — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- "They bully me all the time" - that's a lie. Prove that.

- "ells m'infravaloren" - what does that mean? Please speak English.

- *"they also are biased" - prove that. The fact that I can say that the Earth is flat doesn't make it flat. I'd need a proof for that first.

- "i am not a dictator, but i want to be the leader in this" - we've already told you that you can't be a 'leader' of any article on Wikipedia. It's against our rules.

- "they don't know anything about these languages" - and the abuse and lies continues, just as it does on Help:IPA for Spanish (that edit was made after my report). Peter238 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- You have followed my steps and reverted many of my editions to suit to your will

- I can't speak English too well, as I am a Valencian

- The neutrality tag on IPA for Spanish proves you're not neutral

- I already said I don't want to own anything as I like sharing, can you read me better in the talk page? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

C'mon Peter238, i'm from l'horta, and that's not an insult, that's saying the truth cause you're not neutral and you hardly know about Spanish, do you have a degree in Spanish studies or were you born in Spain? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm upset because they're not being serious, and that's not fair. Besides that, Aeusoes1 has reverted me many times, since I started contributing here (when I was 15 years old) and then he has copied much of the things he reverted me, I don't think that's right — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting without talking could be regarded as bullying, and trying to follow my steps (harrassment) as well... — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you also take into account (have a look) at all the discussions I started and they've ignored, like ðl (as a standard) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Infravalorar (a algú) means "underestimate (to sb)" — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

People keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Anybody can revert any edit. It's not "bullying" nor has it ever been. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here but cant we just topic ban them both from the pages involving the IPA for Spanish. Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- "You have followed my steps" - you're now ignoring the fact that I told you about the watchlist option on Wikipedia, about which you didn't know. Besides, following one's steps on Wikipedia is, in and of itself, not a violation of any policy - at least as far as I know.

- "I can't speak English too well, as I am a Valencian" - that's not an argument (my English is not that good either by the way). I'm telling you for the third time that I don't understand Catalan, or at least understand it poorly. Please stop using it when writing to me (or better - on any talk page on English Wikipedia, unless the person you're writing to is comfortable with that).

- Also, you keep writing in Catalan on Help talk:IPA for Spanish, even after being asked to stop doing that. Again, please stop. Most of our users don't understand it.

- "The neutrality tag on IPA for Spanish proves you're not neutral" - Is that a joke or what?

- "I already said I don't want to own anything as I like sharing" - You violated WP:OWN and now seem to be trying to get out of this situation by lying.

- Now let's move on to the article Valencian. About a month ago, I performed a dozen, maybe more, edits to that article. All of them were motivated by WP:BOLD, that article (at least the phonology section) also contained a massive amount of original research, which JaumeR didn't bother to source with inline citations. I was hardly rude or abusive in the edit summaries, but if you feel that I was (which I don't think), I apologize. It turned out that at least some of my edits were wrong, at least according to JaumeR. He then reverted me, telling me that "you are not Valencian so you don't know how vowel harmony works in our language" (as if being Valencian were a requirement to know anything about that language!).

About an hour earlier, he posted a personal attack on my talk page, telling me that "my edits were totally wrong" (they weren't, at least not all of them). He then told me that "I would suggest if you don't know about a/our language to not participe.", which, I think, would be fair enough - if the fact that I don't know anything about Valencian were true (it's not - I know this and that, but not very much).

A few hours later, he posted a personal attack on Talk:Spanish phonology, in which he said that:

- "Peter238 is not fully honest, and an expert should confirm some of his editions. He listed the Toscan pronunciation of /p, t, k/ as approximants while sources say they're fricatives just to list them together with Spanish.", which is a lie. It was just a mistake, and I told him that two months ago. It's also a bit hypocritical of him, given the fact that his favourite article Valencian drowns in original research (well, at least the phonology section).

- He also said that I'm "not entitled to comment on the phonology of Romance language (sic), contrary to Aeusoes1 who is a proper expert and knows who our languages work." What happened to the "proper expert" today, JaumeR?

- He deleted that personal attack 6 minutes later, stating that it wasn't needed after all. I forgave him and forgot about that.

About the rest of that message (the one that the aforementioned personal attack was a part of):

- He told me that I should "stop interfering in a bad or authoritarian way" - who is now being authoritarian (and rude) now, JaumeR?

Three weeks later, we had a nice discussion on Talk:Valencian#Phonology, and cleared things up. Everything was fine... until today, when he started abusing Aeusoes1 and then me for sticking up for him.

@Amortias: Is that a joke or what? Peter238 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peter238: No it wasn't. A week or 10 days of requiring you both to leave it alone would mean that you would both significantly reduce the interaction with each other (part of the problem)it would also mean there's less back and forthing on the talk page. I'm sure you should both be able to avoid a subject for a brief period of time and if one or both of you couldn't that would seem to point to some ownership issues. Is there anything on that page that is so vital that a brief break from it from both of you would do it any harm. If after a break the problem is still occurring then maybe something else will need carrying out but it would reduce the arguing and general unnecessary movement on the talkpage for the time being. Amortias (T)(C) 23:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You should not use the terms "both" and "both of you". Neither I nor Aeusoes1 (who you ignore) did anything wrong today, it is JaumeR who was abusing us. You really should re-examine the proofs. I do not agree on blocking me. Peter238 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at the "new rule" section and am rather taken aback by the lack of cooperation suggested by anyone saying he or she will be the leader of something around here. You put in effort, you show competence and the community will begin to trust your positions. There is no command hierarchy or rule by fiat. While the article itself, IMHO, needs improvement (I think Mexican and most New World Spanish pronunciation is not represented - see the equivalent article on Spanish WP, but no one can fix it by pushing his or her views on everyone else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont want that, but they haven't been neutral, and Peter238 has tried to revert me in other occasions, as I say on my profile I am socialist, so i don't want to own anything (I put the label before this discussion), I changed my statement about aeusoes1 because I thought he knew about us, but he doesn't, he just have a knowledge about Central Catalan and Castilian, and that's it, he also seem biased — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can revert you, just as you can revert me. The point is - specifically, which occasions are you talking about? What are the inappropriate reverts that I performed? Peter238 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I wrote in Catalan that I am sorry if anyone feels offended, but I do feel offended too by the way the been treating me, i might not be as expert as them about certain things, i might not use the right words in English, but my will and soul is decent and I don't pretend to offuscate things — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Woodseats44 and probably User talk:Cobulator and probably User:DeFacto and apparently quite a lot of others

The above editor, who appears to use a large number of sockpuppets, was unblocked in February 2015, despite a large number of infringements of Wikipedia policy. He has since recommenced his campaign to add the tag 'Previous Denomination: Roman Catholic' to the infoboxes of a large number of pre-Reformation English and Welsh churches, e.g. Church of St. Nicholas, Grosmont, Church of St Cadoc, Raglan, Monmouthshire and many others. This is exactly the action he undertook at Lincoln Cathedral for which, after lengthy debate on the Talkpage, he was originally blocked. Can I ask that his actions be reviewed. I would suggest that the assessment made in January 2015 by User:PhilKnight, "In all seriousness, I think the chances of you contributing usefully to Wikipedia are outweighed by the chances of you causing further disruption." has been amply vindicated. I have notified User talk:Woodseats44 of this post. With many thanks. KJP1

A particularly tedious POV-pusher. I would block him myself but if this is DeFacto we have history (where he was equally tedious). Guy (Help!) 23:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)