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

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then I saw the following in her edit summaries:

crap

crap

shit

unsourced bullshit, stop adding it back in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crap

crap

shit

bullshit

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term disruptive edits by dynamic ip

On the advice of User:Yaris678 I come here to have your advice about a months-lasting problem on articles dealing with 16-17th centuries Ottoman harem articles, i.e. sultans' children and concubines. These are repeatedly edited by an user using dynamic ip, who insists on the addition of unsourced content and often simply replaces sourced content with his own while keeping the source or adds a new unsourced content just before the footnote, thus making his unsourced statements appear sourced. Some pages have been protected some months ago, but the disruptive editing resumed as soon as the protection was lifted. The user doesn't answer when contacted, doesn't want or isn't able to go to talkpage. This article's history is symptomatic of the problem that goes on and on on several articles ([3], [4], [5] [6] [7] [8] etc etc) What do you suggest?--Phso2 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

EllenCT continues to disrupt Economic stagnation

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

---

EllenCT is once again performing disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. She is POV pushing by trying to insert something marginally related into a prominent position following the lede. All of this has been discussed on Talk Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular theory position in article Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation term used for recent economy "non neutrality" tag and Talk:Economic stagnation#Internationally. EllenCT never gained a consensus for her edits. She has a history of misrepresenting facts and arguing relentlessly on Talk and administrators noticeboards. She was reported here recently for edits to this article. She has a long history as a problem editor: [[9]].Phmoreno (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno is unwilling to discuss his specific objections on the article talk page, was unable to support his complaints here recently at [10] and [11], and has proven time and again that he is unwilling or unable to support his accusations with specific diffs, reliable sources, and cogent prose. I deny the allegations and repeat my request that WP:BOOMERANG again[12] be applied to restrict Phmoreno from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not believe this BS from her. This has been discussed extensively on talk and on this notice board. She makes misleading claims about sources and post marginally relevant information pushing her income inequality POV. She is unable to formulate a logical and truthful argument to justify her edits. This whole discussion took place here a couple of weeks ago but she waited until the discussion was archived. [[13]] She is the one who needs to be permanently banned from economics topics for her misrepresenting sources and POV pushing or she'll just be on this notice board again in a few weeks.Phmoreno (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Problems involving EllenCT and economics articles have been going on for, literally, as long as I have been actively editing Wikipedia. When this was discussed at AE [14] the general consensus seemed to be the situation was intractable. Possibly it is time for ArbCom although, as I noted in the linked AE request, I believe her long term disruption is ripe for a topic ban from economics, tax policy, wealth inequality etc. Jbh^Talk 19:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Volunteer Marek: why did you remove the dispute tag at [15]? Why did you revert without answering the questions at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality? You also refused to answer questions at Talk:Economic growth#Section break, Talk:Economic growth#Contemporary empirical econometric measurements, Talk:Economic growth#Long term growth versus short term growth, and Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? before reverting. Why? Why did you remove the dispute tag at [16]? EllenCT (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd also like to add that the article on Economic growth has been lucky enough to receive attention and comments from several high profile experts in the field, such as Lant Pritchett [17] (my understanding is that this is part of some effort [18] designed to get experts in particular fields to comment on (not edit) topics they do research on - which I think is a worthwhile endeavor). These researchers have made several constructive suggestions on the talk page about how the article can be improved. Unfortunately, this whole thing with EllenCT completely derails any efforts to actually implement these suggestions because it is such a time sink. In that sense EllenCT's obstructionist and obsessive behavior is quite disruptive. In fact, it's a dictionary definition of "disruptive" - her actions on that article have "disrupted" meaningful work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

My guess is the immediate issue involves some repeated removals by Volunteer Marek (3) and Phmoreno (1) [19][20][21][22]. The section at issue is:

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

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

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

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

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

Wnt, this isn't the venue to discuss content. That'd be the article talk page, where it has in fact been discussed [23] [24]. The tl;dr version is that the text EllenCT is trying to insert is not actually supported by the sources, it's off topic, and EllenCT either doesn't understand what the sources (particularly the second one) are about or is pretending not to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done [25]. Jbh^Talk 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. There is very strong consensus for topic ban right now. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus exists in this thread for a topic ban, which would be a more "economical" solution. Begoon ^talk 13:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for EllenCT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Both GoldenRing and Volunteer Marek prove here that they have not read the text at [26] which contains dozens of references to GDP. EllenCT (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

The title is a give-away:

Income inequality and health: A causal review

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Arbcom This, like the other threads will not go anywhere because the principal disputants are simply overpowering the thread. Structured evidence is needed. Jbh^Talk 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Strike. Should have done so days ago to avoid confusion, since we started to get solid discussion and consensus forming. Jbh^Talk 12:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised this has not happened already. My experience with EllenCT has been similar to those described by Phmoreno. I've been on Wikipedia for 11 years and she's the only editor that I actively avoid because she's so difficult and frustrating to work with. Soapboxing on income inequality, misrepresenting what is supported by sources, dishonesty, OR, battleground, IDHT, etc. A lot more would get done by just working with Wnt, Lawrencekhoo, et al. Morphh ^(talk) 18:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support - been there with EllenCT on more than one occasion. Here's a choice sample: [27] Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Sphilbrick, Mattnad, and Wnt: "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[28] "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[29] EllenCT (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not mind when people interpret simple graphs and summarize their own understanding of sourced content. However, if you make general conclusions that are not in the sources [30] based on your own interpretation of graphs and other primary sources, this qualify as WP:OR. If it leads to prolonged disputes and disruption, this may be a reason for the topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It does not support the statement.

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

You are claiming that an aggregate change in income per person (y-axis) across individuals organized by wealth percentile instead of countries, is not proportional to the rate of growth as experienced by the people whose income has changed or remained stagnant, as the case may be? How can income per person have increased without growing? It is common practice for economists and economics commentary to measure per-capita growth in terms of change in income per person.[31][32][33] EllenCT (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the contrary, "We analyzed the relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power parity, extreme poverty rates, the gini coefficient for personal income and three common measures of public health" is from the abstract at [34]. Putting obvious falsehoods in boldface without having read the underlying material forms as strong a basis as any of the support votes in this section. EllenCT (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not interested in delving into the economics topic, but the behavior outlined here is nothing new outside the topic either. Similar behavior was discussed in a protracted ANI in an entirely different topic ranging from content and source competency issues, aspersions to attack editors, etc. that are so closely tied to content that it's difficult for the community to sort it out.[35] If sources have also been misrepresented in this topic, it is part of ongoing trend. After not being involved with EllenCT for some time now since that ANI, it doesn't look this behavior has improved seeing Volunteer Marek's summary above. If the topic ban is imposed, EllenCT should also be reminded that a short WP:ROPE would apply in any topics outside economics as a reminder to knock this behavior off in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Based not on all the MEGO economics stuff, which I frankly cannot follow, but on EllenCT's behavior in this thread and Kingofaces43's comment just above mine. Because of this, the closer may wish to downgrade my support, but it's obvious to me now that EllenCT brings disruption with her by the very nature of her pattern of discussion. (And believe me, I have no great love or respect for some of the people on the other side of the issue, so this is not an "us vs. them" !vote.) BMK (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The misrepresented sources, IDHT, and dogged determination to bludgeon a POV are clear in this thread. I've not been involved, but I've occasionally seen it in passing, or on Jimbotalk. Having now seen it demonstrated right here, and made just a small foray into looking at the locus, I have no hesitation in supporting this as a solution. We tolerate this kind of time-sink disruption too often. Let's not. Begoon ^talk 13:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. If the above doesn't represent a consensus to impose a topic ban, I can't see what would. Can we get the attention of someone uninvolved, please? GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Someone please close this so it does not just archive off with no resolution. Jbh^Talk 10:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  A light-hearted comment but, is anybody uninvolved even left? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Not involved (not an admin either), but the admin that DOES close this is owed a beer or two. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: For those who still want ArbCom, there's nothing preventing anyone from opening an ArbCom request, even now before this is closed. It wouldn't be the first time an ArbCom case request was filed before an ANI thread was closed. Of course, if the editors who are pushing for ArbCom involvement are waiting to see whether or a topic ban will be enacted by the closer of this ANI, that's one thing. But nothing is stopping anyone from going to ArbCom, either now or after this ANI closes. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe most of the Arbcom supports are because ANI/AE had not been able to address the issues, I know that is why I supported taking it to Arbcom. This ANI thread has come up with solid support for a topic ban which will at least addresses the problem presented and discussed. Jbh^Talk 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that's exactly right. The arbcom supports were largely on the assumption that no consensus would be reached here. However, there is, imo, a strong consensus for a topic ban. Begoon ^talk 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we really going to have to post a request at WP:AN just to find someone to close this? GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, either that or come back everyday to ask why it hasn't been closed yet. Either solution works fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Scope

I hope the closing admin will clarify the scope, specifically, whether it includes Jimbo's talk page. A topic ban of "Economics, broadly construed" would include posting at his talk page. It is my impression that Jimbo would prefer to allow broad access to that talk page (he has, on occasion, disinvited specific individuals). I suggest that any topic ban should have an exception for that page, i.e., if generally topic banned, that ban should not extend to that page. This is both my personal view, as well as my understanding of what Jimbo would prefer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Topic bans do not work when there are loopholes. Also EllenCT's contributions at Jimbo's page are mainly to harangue him about his past (possibly present, no one other than Ellen really cares) economic views - probably due to Ellen's hatred of 'Randroids'. A topic ban on economics is a topic ban on economics. It would not ban her from Jimbo's page, just from talking about economics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming that if the topic ban is for "Economics, broadly construed", EllenCT could still post to Jimbo's talk page as long as it's not economics related.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to let the closing admin decide. I see decent arguments on both sides. While I expressed my preference, my main point is that the closing admin should address it, so that if it is the desire to either include or exclude that page from the ban, it is clearly stated, not assumed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban is a topic ban. Allowing a special loophole for continued soapboxing is of benifit to no one nor to Wikipedia. Jimbo's page has been a traditional haven from forum shopping, canvassing and even small leeway for community banned editors but I know of no exceptions, express or implied, for allowing topic banned editors to post on anything related to their ban other than the, rather pointless, "appeal to Jimbo" to void the ban. Jbh^Talk 15:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

- who says allowing her to post this to Jimbo's talk page would interfere with anything? I'm not sure it's a wise idea under the present circumstances but I'd leave it to her call. Besides, I thought Jimbo had broad leeway to operate with an "open door policy" even toward out and out banned editors, let alone topic-banned editors. More relevantly, I think EllenCT should have leeway to present an Arbcom case about the article and some of the editors who showed up here if she wants, especially since that vote above was in favor (myself notwithstanding). Wnt (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that filing an Arbcom case has always been viewed as a general exception to a topic ban (if not it obviously should be). I think there may have been cases of editors who abused that privilege, but that doesn't apply here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Presenting an ArbCom case is within WP:BANEX at least insomuch as it can be seen as an appeal. Nor is there any claim here that this topic ban would prevent EllenCT from posting on Jimbo's talk page about topics other than what are covered by her ban. Whatever the case, the community has settled on a topic ban and a straight up topic ban should be imposed. If EllenCT wants to argue that she can post on JimboTalk she can bring up the question at AN as a clairification allowed per BANEX. The question does not need to be resolved here (particularly since the arguement being made is one which would apply to all community imposed bans) nor is the question a reason to avoide closing and implementing the topic ban overwhelmingly supported above. Jbh^Talk 14:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no point leaving it as something for clarification and "more drama" when there's no reason to impose such a thing in the first place. Jimbo's talk page seems as much an expected exception as Arbcom, and for the same reason - they trace back to the same process, even if the former is no longer practically relevant as a route of appeal.

I think it should also be clarified, at least, that any restriction pertains only within the science of economics. As I've said, I think the other side has its own POV issues, and I don't want to see Ellen dragged here because she posted the cost of a battleship or the predicted revenue from a new tax, provided that these are simply news items or political arguments rather than scientific economic analyses, i.e. mathematically predicting broad aspects of the economy as a whole. If we're going to let people get pushy and call any reference to something that costs or makes money "economics", she might as well pack it in now. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point, "economics broadly construed" could actually get out of hand here. Perhaps "Economic sciences" or "Economic studies" would be a more appropriate title for the ban. Then again, topic-ban should clear that issue up in and of itself. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you'all really want to start up another proposal and allow this to turn into another unsolved morass? Topic bans have been handed out for years. The proposed ban was economics broadly construed we are not going to be able to modify that and implicitly change the !votes above without another proposal. That seems frankly silly considering how many times the problems have been brought up for resolution and how strong the consensus is above.

If you think JimboTalk should be an explicitly exception to topic bans then bring it up on the policy page. If you think it is a tacit exception then present that arguement if EllenCT posts about economics there and someone asks for sanction. Jbh^Talk 15:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to change anything about the proposal. Only clarifying what should be obvious, are we really going to ban somebody from editing an article and putting in a dollar sign with a value followed by it (no seriously are we)? Using the example above of placing the cost of a battleship or aircraft carrier in an article. Fine carry on with "economics broadly construed" that's fine, but keep in mind that even something as minor as putting in one missing "$" symbol could be construed as violating a topic ban for "economics broadly construed". However, you're probably right that changing economics to economics studies would veto the above proposal. The best solution may be to leave everything as is, and cross any necessary bridges when we get there, I would hope that everyone has their wits about them and does not go on a rampage over "$". If they do, then, WP:BOOMERANG. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would certianly support a boomerang against someone playing "got ya" over something like that. Economics is indeed a very broad category but it would be very hard to stretch it to $ signs etc. Our article gives a good working definition "Economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services." while the broadly construed would tack on things like policy, practitioners, schools of thought, politics surrounding and controversies relating to etc. Note I an just providing this as explanatory context, not proposing that this should be how the ban above should be written or specificly interpreted. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that my editing behavior has been superior to my detractors here because I have better upheld the reliable source criteria. I deny that I misrepresented or misconstrued sources beyond occasional minor mistakes. When legitimate flaws have been pointed out, I have improved my included text and sourcing, corrected my behavior, and apologized, in contrast to my detractors who have remained steadfast and stubborn in their false accusations in the face of clear corrections. Therefore, I repeat my request for boomerang sanctions. EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC presentation

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

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

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

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

Dylan Hughes

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

---

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

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

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

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

User:193.60.234.209

Just to draw to someone's attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if you think an anon editor is a chronic abuser who is evading a community ban what is the process? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DinoLover4321

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, reached out to DinoLover4321 here. I was sorely tempted to set a "wake-up block", and then thought about creating What nerdy kids do when they grow up as a WP:REDIRECT to Wikipedia. And thought better about both of those. Let's see what happens.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass genre changes by Martin 1887

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

• At some point, we'll have to treat genres with almost BLP-levels of scrutiny to stop this nonsense. The editor seems to have stopped. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, he's still going.[36][37][38][39][40] These are just a few, and he has even been restoring his genre changes after he has been reverted. Consensus was reached some time ago that resulted in changes to {{Infobox television}} instructions so that they would note that genres must be sourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

He's back at it today, with a string of weird edits. Someone with a mop needs to give him 24 hours on the naughty step. Nothing else is getting his attention. --Drmargi (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrative action required. [41][42][43][44] Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Not one edit summary let alone talk page post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ejpolaron's image uploads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  User:C.J. Griffin, here

  User:Feminist2016, here, here.

  User:BiblioJordan, here, here, here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BiblioJordan: This isn't about you being "new" -- it is about you obviously not being new. Why did you suddenly show up and join in an already raging edit war? Have you ever edited English Wikipedia before? If so, did you do so under a named account or under an IP? If the former, can you disclose the name of the account? If the latter, you are under no obligation todisclose your IP, but it wouldcertainlyhelp allay our suspicions. If neither, then you should explain how you randomly stumbled across an edit-war and decided to join in.

For everyone else: As my OP made clear, I did check the recent page history before posting here, and I noticed the Griffin account. I checked that account's edit history and I don't think he/she would create a sock account solely for this purpose. I do think BiblioJordan is someone (probably a long-term sockmaster or a recently indeffed user), but I don't think they are C.J. Griffin.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of who's who the second half of the edits inserting the neoliberal info into Feminism was trying to hide a criticism of a political candidate. This could and I emphasize could be seen to be trying to circumvent the American politics 2 RFAR. It was C.J. Griffin that did that[46]--Cailil ^talk 11:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me clear this up for everyone. I am not colluding with anyone to edit war or to vandalize articles. I have been a contributor to this encyclopedia for nearly ten years and have only ever used this one account. If you check my edit history, you'll see that I have been contributing materials to the Neoliberalism page for a few years now, and have contributed to myriad other articles on Wikipedia. Yes, I view the Clintons as neoliberals. Apparently so do many others. This topic has become an interest of mine recently given current events. I don't know who this BiblioJordan is, and I have never corresponded with this person or the other account mentioned above, but apparently we share some interests. I chalk it up to coincidence.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: As I said above, I am new to editing Wikipedia entries, but a longtime student of neoliberalism, feminism, and other topics. The Neoliberalism and Feminism articles are the first I've ever edited. I look forward to contributing to these and other entries in the future, provided that my aggressive ideological opponents do not prevent me from doing so. Again, I'm flattered that you are impressed by my grasp of the rules. BiblioJordan (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

continued unjustified content removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent vandalism in Bulgaria-related articles

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

And this goes on with the latest IP incarnation 2601:403:4202:5C10:6988:A31:17DC:E707 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Constantine ✍ 20:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

POV + False royal titles + Pure vandalism

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well... so I will be silenced as they want (Hebel and Cristiano) and false information (pure false dynastic advertising) will remain in Miguelist articles. False "reigns", false dukes (titles of fantasy as real titles, etc.), any neutrality, any accuracy. That's very bad to Wikipedia credibility... but ok. I don't agree with your position, but now I see how this is a campaign to promote some people here (Miguelist pretenders)... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who is what and where in Portugal. If it is arguable that multiple reliable sources state that their pet dog was given a title and it's relevant to the article, then by all means put that in. Discussions were had, you presented your side with your sources, a significant amount of dissent occurred and you failed to receive consensus this time. All you have to do is come up with a compelling policy backed argument. Once you start throwing around accusations of bias then you have to realise that the coin also has a second side, which is to say you too may have a bias. You may want to think about that. Blackmane (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BrightRoundCircle I just took a look and I agree with you, the examples given are pretty poorly sourced and shouldn't be in that article, most of them border on Synth or OR. KoshVorlon 11:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

New range block requested for LTA vandal

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

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

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

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

As the individual has resumed their disruptive editing, I have reinstated the block on 166.137.216.0/22. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reverting maintenance edits without explanation

Ever since I made a routine maintenance edit to Spats (footwear), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has been very combative and unwilling to collaborate. He reverted me twice on that article ([47], [48]), yet never provided any justification as to why his preferred way is any better. Instead, he voiced in his edit summaries how I was damaging the [his?] article. Conversely, I not only justified my reasoning in the summary of my original edit, I did so in two reverts of his reverts ([49], [50]). I further tried to explain my first revert on his talk page. Yet given another opportunity to make his case, he instead deleted my comments, reverted me that second time, and accused me of edit warring. At that point in time, I had reverted once and he twice. So if anybody was edit warring, it wasn't me.

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

I'm concerned about Beyond My Ken's disruptive editing. He is intent on blocking changes to Spats (footwear) (and likely other pages on his watchlist). On the specific issue of moving the {{Refimprove}} tag to the top of the article (to increase visibility—the article only has a single reference) for instance, it turns out that I'm not the only one whose attempt he reverted ([51], [52], [53], [54]). After making my case and attempting to get him to do the same, he has yet to even attempt to collaborate with me. He can't even be bothered to write an explanatory edit summary. Frankly, I'm stunned that such an experienced editor seems to have no interest in collaboration. The hostility also concerns me greatly. I've been around for awhile so I can tolerate a few insults, but his confrontational nature could easily scare away new editors. My talk page is awash with his attacks, and I have exhausted all avenues for a meaningful dialog. I believe intervention to be necessary and that brings me here. Thanks. – voidxor 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No comment on the substance (haven't examined it yet) but Jayron32: long-time editors get PBANned, TBANned and IBANned on ANI (not just ArbCom) all the time. When a newbie (i.e., not voidxor) asks for sanctions against a regular, the result is almost always a boomerang, but that is beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A spat about spats? C'mon, I can't be the only one who thinks that's funny.... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts...Little things make life on Wikipedia bearable. Someone added a fella named Malarkey to a notable persons list the other day so I literally reverted malarkey. Good times....John from Idegon (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Correction to OP: The first pointy edit was this where Voidxor's edit summary read "Reverted 1 edit by Beyond My Ken: Revert unhelpful edit with ownership edit summary. Please read the linked policies before reverting maintenance edits: WP:IMGSIZE, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, etc.". The issue now seems to be that a drive-by editor (Voidxor) wants to put a tag at the top of the article and have it stay there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Who said that I'm a drive-by editor? The page is on my watchlist, and I've already made several other edits to it. Even the edit where I moved the {{Refimprove}} tag had other fixes as well. With all due respect, I don't think I deserve to be written off as a drive-by editor, not that there's anything wrong with editors who bring unverified articles to the attention of other editors. – voidxor 19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  The article (Spats (footwear)) was created on 25 June 2005. The first edit to the article by Voidxor was on 21 June 2016. The last edit on the article talk page was in August 2012, and Voidxor has never edited that page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  And actually, the first pointy edit was Beyond My Ken's revert of a good-faith edit with a patronizing edit summary of "better before". That flip statement, coupled with the article's edit history, demonstrated a clear pattern of ownership—hence my edit summary. – voidxor 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Did you see the evidence that Voidxor gave, namely that BYK also reverted other people for moving the maintenance template at the top? MOS:ORDER supports having the template at top, and I don't see consensus to override the MOS. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, the template was already in the article; the location of it is the part being warred over; MOS does not support BYK's BMK's position. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BMK. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline and is subject to being overruled by local consensus (unlike policies). Likewise the RFC at the templates talk page linked to by Majora above is not actually binding on anyone's use of the template. While I think BMK is being a bit pointy with this, MOS *is* only a best practice guide. It is not how things must be done. If people at an article thinks the appearance looks better with it one way, then it can be done that way. Personally I dont particularly like the maintenence templates being plastered all over the top of articles - being the first thing people see - but I also dont care enough about it to go against the MOS. Some people obviously do. Either way, it needs to be resolved on the relevant article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the underlying issue. Deciding whether the article in question needs a template at the top regarding references is not a matter for ANI. The last edit at Talk:Spats (footwear) was in August 2012. There is no rule at Wikipedia that a guideline must be enforced (apart from BLP/legal). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but absent local consensus, a guideline should be followed; in this specific case, according to the edit history, more editors prefer the template atop (i.e. against BMK's stance). In addition, if there is WP:OWN issues, it should be addressed; absent the WP:OWN issues, this slow war of reverting the location of a maintenance template is approaching WP:LAME territory. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BMK wasn't just opposing the template move. His edits at the article reverted all of the appropriate changes that were made. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as to process. Guideline is a default that can overridden by local consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that's funny - have you ever tried to argue with the people who inhabit the MOS pages? You will do what they decide - they are the law. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Hafff you come to witnesssss judgement??? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

To the point about MOS not being set in stone, that is true. It is merely a guideline (and I understand that) meant to provide guidance. The same is true of template instructions. I don't have a problem overriding the MOS where there is justification to do so, but Beyond My Ken is the only one holding that position, and has zero interest in writing a supporting argument. In other words, while the MOS is weak, ownership alone is not a reason to disregard it. – voidxor 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. There were a couple of reverts, a couple of user talkpage templates, a flare or two of temper, and now the article is stably back to where voidxor had it. Unless there is another revert of the refimprove tag placement (in which case the proper venue would be WP:ANEW, not ANI), this ANI thread seems like a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  Maybe, but then an experienced user shouldn't require an ANI thread to do the right things. That puts an undue burden on their opposition, giving the opposition two choices: (1) spend several stressful hours of their lives putting together the ANI case and then defending it, only to have the offender cease offending before any action is taken, which they should have done in the first place, or (2) surrender. If there's a pattern, it needs to be addressed rather than repeatedly closing the complaint because yet another disruption has passed. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  I can reiterate that I feel that there is a pattern here. My own experience, when I got into a dispute with Beyond My Ken here, was that they reverted one of my edits, accused me of bad faith for making it, and then refused to discuss it any further. While in retrospect I don't think the quote is such a big problem, their behavior there (to immediately accuse me of bad faith, bluntly refuse any attempts at further discussion, and demand that I reach consensus for my edit while refusing to discuss it with me) was suboptimal, to say the least. The D in WP:BRD is important; when you revert someone, you're supposed to at least attempt to engage them. --Aquillion (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There may be a pattern here, but the initial problem was resolved before this ANI was opened. If someone wants to open a noticeboard thread or ArbCom case request about BMK's putative repeated accusations of bad faith and/or refusal to discuss, that would be one thing. But the OP's problem was resolved long before this thread was opened, no matter how he was treated in the process. Moreover, the OP should not have gone to BMK's talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage), and definitely should not have then replaced that ill-considered user-talk post which BMK had removed. So we're pretty much at a place where the wrongheadedness is pretty much even, if not more on the OP's side. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I went to his talk page to advise him on how his edit summaries (or lack thereof) when reverting give the appearance of ownership. That behavior spans multiple articles, so the correct place to discuss it would indeed be the user's talk page. I did not go there to discuss the article specifically. Under discussion was his resistance to changes to that and other articles, not the MOS stuff itself (as I explained that in my original edit summaries). After citing Help:Reverting and Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary, I restored my original edit to the article on the pretense that Beyond My Ken had not explained the reason he reverted me.

Also, I'm surprised that you think I'm more at fault here. I've been the one explaining my reasoning and trying to get Beyond My Ken to do the same. I am not the one labeling good-faith edits as making an article worse. And I am not accusing others of failing to discuss when I myself am failing to discuss. I restored my comment on his talk page to disprove his accusation. I planned to link to it from my reply on my talk page. Perhaps I should have linked to the diff instead, but to compare my faux pas on his talk page with his bullying is just apples and oranges. – voidxor 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"the OP should not have gone to (a user's) talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage)" - Is this a policy? Can you point me to where it explicitly states you should not discuss something on the user's talkpage? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not. It is general practice however - content is discussed on article talk pages, user edits/behaviour is discussed on user talk pages. Talk page guidelines is most relevant "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." In this case largely irrelevant as the OP saw this as a user-issue rather than a content issue, so raised it at the userpage rather than the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's a thing, it's very frequently violated (for lack of a better word) - so frequently that the OP could reasonably be completely forgiven for doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this was a civil and neutral way to resolve the issue, then I disagree, especially after indulging in this non-neutral edit summary. I think BMK was right to remove that condescending and accusatory post on his talk page, and voidxor was very much in the wrong to restore it. BMK instructed him about BRD and asked him to discuss on article talk, but voidxor gave him a run-around [55]. This could have all been avoided but the OP seemed to want to prolong the fight and then took it here to ANI even though the problem was solved. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is where I bow out - where the defendant's behavior is excused because the plaintiff's behavior had issues too. Thereby giving me license to misbehave with any editor who is also misbehaving. Just more Wikinsanity. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Speaking of giving the run-around, I ask you again - "the OP should not have gone to (a user's) talkpage to discuss the edit (the place for that is always the article's talkpage)" - Is this a policy? Can you point me to where it explicitly states you should not discuss something on the user's talkpage? I'm referring this in all cases, not just this incident. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "something" but if you mean general discussions about an article content then WP:TPG more or less says that. "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." and "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." It's sometimes useful to use an editors talk page when your discussion is primarily content related, particularly with new editors, but as with all things on wikipedia it should be done with care.

Notably, if do it and an editor tells you to take it to the talk page or to stop posting on their talk page, you should just take it to a talk page and not get in to a huff about it. Notably as with most things on wikipedia, insisting on seeing the precise written policy isn't generally helpful if someone tells you to keep it on the article talk page. It's also worth remembering there are good reasons why the article talk page is a better bet. It (generally) increases the chance interested editors will see it, and in particular makes them feel welcome to participate. It adds to the chance that decisions made will have consensus.

On that point, if you hold a discussion on an editors talk page, don't be surprised if even an editor who is aware of that discussion either does not or stops participating but still legitimately feels like any decisions you made there are irrelevant to them and not justification for changes to the article. Likewise, plenty of people including me take it as bad sign when there is no comment on the article talk page and someone comes here or AN to complain about an editor refusing to discuss some content dispute no matter what was done on an editors talk page. (When it isn't a behavioural issue or something else where discussion should be held on the editor's talk page, I intentionally don't look at editors talk page except to check for notification. I only check the article talk page and rarely consider the case has any merit if the complaining editor hasn't said anything either no matter who did what first.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The problem wasn't solved. My talk page was being plastered with hate, I was being made to fear making any further changes to the article (fully expecting that he'd revert me again at any minute), and bullies (in my experience) do not start acting more respectfully on their own. If by "the problem" you mean the spat over my first edit to the article, then in hindsight, you can see that it died down when I started typing my report here. But that's not the problem; it's Beyond My Ken's global behavior. That's what brings me here—seeking help. If reporting an incident makes one guilty of prolonging the fight, then what's the purpose of ANI in the first place? – voidxor 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it "died down" when you made your third second revert without going to the talk page, and then made two super-pedantic hardline-MOS edits, and I decided there was really no point in further engaging with you, so I took the article off of my watchlist, and went about my business of improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I only reverted twice—same as you. Secondly, I replied on my talk page, which is where you had brought the discussion. Even after providing you with numerous occasions to explain your reasoning, you clearly weren't interested in doing so, so I went about editing. "Super pedantic" editors like myself help keep this encyclopedia consistent, accessible, and verifiable. Just because you don't see the value in that doesn't mean there isn't any. Lastly, I'm sorry to hear that you can't stand to have others edit pages on your watchlist. – voidxor 00:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Voidxor: you have a point here. WP:IMGSIZE is actually pretty clear not to mess with the size of an image using a "px" value without a good reason. I don't see any good reason to do so here. Then there are these other details like the talk "ban" and ping "ban" and especially the templating that I dislike. (though actually I dislike templating non-regular users much more than regular users, because that does more damage; I've actually suggested deleting these templates altogether before and probably should again) And there's this slow motion edit war over where to put the tag. But someone would have to look much deeper into his editing history on other articles to see what the trend is before anyone is going to move for a sanction, I think. Nor are you totally in the right - you really should have gone straight to the article talk page, not BMK's talk page. I hate it when there's an edit war going on on an article and you don't even see talk about what it's about. Edit summaries aren't really a good place for trading those kinds of arguments; they better used for pointing people to the talk page and mentioning a MAIN point about the article (i.e. IMGSIZE), and really it's not right, however tempting, to use them to make behavioral complaints about editors like "ownership" there. It would also have been more productive to look for references than to bicker over where to put a tag ... I do rather hate it when editors put a lot of effort into keeping a tag on an article without directing some of that energy toward fixing the problem! (But, that goes for him too) Wnt (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick block needed

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

---

User:JETT RUZ FAMMARTINO. Please block and delete userpages. Definitely not here. Must be a special on tin hats at Walmart. John from Idegon (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Widr (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Saturday Night Sport Time Live - hoax?

I AFDed the article just now, but the article creator is a sock of a persistent hoaxer. It's an unsourced article that was DEPRODed, and I'm not sure whether somebody missed it, or what. My view of CSDable material tends to be broader than what actually gets CSDed, and while my nom convinces me, I don't feel that I can 100% exhaust every avenue on this to definitively state that it is a hoax, mainly because I'm not in Australia. I'm dumping it here because if somebody can make that call and kill the AfD, that would be better than letting it run and wasting people's time. MSJapan (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

POV-pusher with CIR issues refusing to listen

I opened an ANI thread about Pldx1 (talk · contribs) following me around, making nonsense talk page arguments, and making a mess of the article space about a month ago, but it got archived without result. He/she has since continued to claim that everyone agrees with him despite almost everyone disagreeing with him, most recently here. This user constantly cites the essay WP:SNOW despite apparently not having read it, and every time I try to interact with them they post "replies" to me that indicate that they either have not read or have not understood what I wrote. They are no longer the only user disagreeing with me on the fine points of my MOS:KOREA proposal (which are not relevant here), but while the others (some of whom have actually made sensible arguments) have all proven capable of collegial and congenial discourse, Pldx1 has ... not.

Users who live in their own little world where consensus doesn't count don't really have a place on Wikipedia, especially when they seem incapable of comprehending that consensus is not on their side.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about the pertinence of stepping back from using the RR romanization of Korean for determining the title of articles about Korea (except from those related to North Korea). Reasons for that have been given (by various contributors, in various places). This a fact. Moreover, User:Hijiri88 should explain, in good flat English, what is the meaning of his sentence "following me around" ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

1. You saw that I edited the page List of rulers of Ife and decided to attack said edit. You admitted here that you were motivated to do so by your dispute with me over MOS:KOREA. This is what I meant by "following me around" (which isn't a "sentence").
2. Your assessment of the discussion on WT:MOSKOREA and Talk:Baekje (not "various places"; only two) is laughably wrong, as any of the other participants will attest (pinging User:SMcCandlish or User:AjaxSmack). For just one example, the discussion is not about "determining the title of articles about Korea".
3. Every single edit you make is near-inscrutable -- you should not tell others they need to write "in good flat English".
4. This is not another forum for you to express your opinion about Korean romanization. ANI is for discussion of user conduct. I feel your conduct warrants a block.
5. "I disagree about the pertinence of stepping back from using the [Revised] romanization" is an incredibly overwritten sentence. Most of what you have written on the MOS talk page is similarly ungrammatical, and sometimes it is impossible to tell what you are trying to say.
6. I have asked you several times to stop pinging me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Haven't been following this dispute in any detail. I concur that the WT:MOSKOREA and Talk:Baekje discussion (essentially the same conversation in two places) is not really about determining the title[s] of articles about Korea, but about consistency in approach to Korean transliteration (and how much consistency is desirable or practical, and in what direction(s) to standardize, on what basis or bases). But as this would directly affect the titles of some of those articles, I would WP:AGF on that count. While WP:COMPETENCE is expected, we also try pretty hard to work with people for whom English is a second[+] language. I get the sense the CIR problem is thought to be deeper than that. Diffs might help establish such a case, especially the anti-consensus stance-taking, which sounds like a WP:1AM / WP:STONEWALL / WP:NOTGETTINGIT concern. It's clear Hijiri88 is incensed, but there's not much to go on here. The diff provided in the first paragraph indicates a failure to read consensus correctly (I have been involved in that discussion, as an essentially neutral party urging an analytical approach instead of an emotive one); but it's followed by potentially valid comments about one of the romanization systems, so it doesn't seem completely pointless. In short, we need to see evidence of an identifiable pattern of disruptive editing for there to be something to act on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I linked to the previous ANI thread because I gave all the evidence that was available at the time there. I figured the only further diff necessary was the most recent one that directly instigated this thread, but here are a couple more from the intervening weeks: Here he called an automatic comment generated by a bot ("Removing expired RFC template") a close result, here he called the removal of the expired RFC template a "snow closing" in his favour, when he was the only one who opposed the proposal, and called my implementation of the RFC proposal "unilateral", here he counted "two" (rather than the correct five) users opposing him on the RFC and called his opinion a "snow" result, and here he claimed I was putting words in his mouth by pointing out that all of his comments in the RFC were to insinuate that I was pushing some North Korean agenda. Note that he again brought up North Korea, completely out of the blue, in his comment in this thread. He also brought up "snow" on the previous ANI thread -- and I had absolutely no idea what on earth he was talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Also worth pointing out is the utter inscrutability of his first several comments in the RFC, and their even more ridiculous edit summaries. Someone really needs to talk to this guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I find them "scrutable" enough; the grammar is just a bit rough. His position is is that there are only two possible reliable sources for transliteration/romanization of the Korean language, the two collective bodies of "officialdom" in South and North Korea, respectively. This is not an impossible-to-follow argument, it's simply wrong. It's a prescriptive grammarian position that what is "right" or "correct" about a language and how we treat it is handed to us by authority figures who deem themselves experts or rule-makers. This view was popular in the English-speaking world in the Victorian era, and remains popular in France (which has the Académie française issuing official standards. But it's a linguistically silly position. When it comes to transliteration and romanization matters, it really doesn't matter. For WP purposes, the reliable sources are books, journals, and other publications, not organizations that declare themselves magically "official". It's already been observed in that discussion that there is in fact a third system, preferred in some linguistic journals. So, so much for that argument. However, having made an argument that can't be sustained, and not doing so in perfect English, isn't really an ANI disciplinary matter.

If we're back here again in 6 months and Pldx1 is still depending on argument to authority and insisting that WP "must" follow the governmental preferences of SK and NK and cannot come to its own WP:CONSENSUS about how best to represent Korean names to our readers (and in what contexts – we seem to have at least three, as general classes: SK, NK, and historical Korea, before the split), then we might be dealing with a WP:ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS style-campaigning problem. But the third of that series of diffs indicates that Pldx1 is presently just advocating that we use only the SK standard for SK, the NK standard for NK, and apply this to historical topics based on where they are centered, on the basis that historical topics are covered by modern sources, so we should not use obsolete systems for historical topics, and ties his preferences to (in the fourth message) also to ease of entry on regular keyboards. These aren't unreasonable arguments to advance, and are ones we're familiar with in regard to Chinese and Japanese, etc., too. Then again, in his fourth post he suggests that his preferences are being rejected "because some old-minded people dislike the Korean regulations" which is a little WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. Overall, I say close this ANI with no action, let it ride, and see if the situation improves. One person thumping rulebooks that are not authoritative on Wikipedia is unlikely to have much effect on the overall discussion, and he doesn't seem to presently be disrupting it, just recycling the same argument a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Meh. You may be completely right, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what he wrote, as that (i.e., the concept that language is handed down from authorities) still would not make any sense as an argument against my proposal, even for someone who believes it. I think he was either deliberately trolling or believed we were trying to push some sort of North Korean agenda, and I think that if we got a Korean speaker to accurately translate what you just wrote and send it to him, he would probably agree with me that that is not what he meant.

But this is already TLDR. Maybe another archived thread ANI thread where he was being threatened with a block will be enough to keep him quiet from now one. Or maybe it will just embolden him to say that this is just another "snow" close in his favour.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Abusive language and threats

in Greek or greeklish, used in edit summaries and user talk pages during the last couple of days via ip 77.49.42.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1, 2, 3) and 77.49.71.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (4, 5, 6). Despite receiving a stern warning by User:Sro23, disruptive conduct was continued for editing the same articles and the latter's talk page via ip 77.49.23.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (7, 8, 9, 10). Please note that the behaviour described, follows reversion of edits with no citation made by these ip. As seen in the articles' revision history (a b, c), a number of different users –apart from Sro23– have proceeded to the reversions.

In parallel with a second warning already been given, I think that all 8 edit summaries (in bold) should be removed, as well as the two personal attacks (3 and 10). Thank you in advance for your interest.

PS judging from the articles that the anon is generally interested in (a, b, c, d) and especially from this diff of June 18th (in comparison with the rev. history of article d), he may well be Vrahomarinaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using ip to "express himself" in inappropriate ways without his account being blocked. Vrahomarinaner (contributions in Greek WP: here) is currently on a monthly ban in gr:WP for edit warring, 3RR, abuse of own talk page while being blocked from editing, sock-puppetry and multiple breaches of bans via several ip. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Google translate does a good job of translating his insults, he starts off by calling a reverter a wanker ( "malakes" means "wanker"), he evolves to call people assholes in Greek as well.

Yeah, I'd say he needs a block. KoshVorlon 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for making you –and anybody else– to translate and read "material" of this kind. Not sorry that the job Google translate does, is not that good actually (the a...s word was used in a far more abusive way). Although Vrahomarinaner both has admitted already he is the anon user (calling me a snitcher in Greek) and has well been into breaking 3RR (6 reverts starting with this diff), the removal of the aforementioned 10 edit summaries and comments is far more important in my opinion. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Vrahomarinaner blocked 3 days with a clear warning that continuing the same behavior will result in much longer blocks. If IPs show up they will likely have to be blocked individually as blocking the /17 range may cause collateral damage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Abusive IP

Could an admin please rev del this edit and consider blocking the IP. It is probably a sock of 808alles looking at the edit history . This edit is clearly designed to discourage editors from maintaining this article - a common tactic of direct action activists.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have rev deled the edit summary. I haven't blocked the IP but if another admin thinks it's necessary then please do. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hspa.22 (Addition of unsourced material and WP:INCIVILITY)

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

---

No idea If he requires more advice or a block!

• Diffs:

[56][57][58][59]

• Incivility can be seen on their contribution. INVISIBLE^knock! 10:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered filing a WP:SPI case? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Against whom, Malcolmxl5? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure where you're replying? I don't know if he's a sockpuppet or not, you can help though! INVISIBLE^knock! 10:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Yes, he is a sock of User:Saatvik.Jacob Material Scientist, who was blocked indef yesterday by Bbb23. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I'm leaving for now Electricity cutoff, low battery on mobile and blue screen of death (plus sleepy too) @muffled would you please take it to WP:SPI? for me? INVISIBLE^knock! 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You got it :) sleep well! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

82.219.6.*

Multiple subproxies of IP vandalizing IT risk. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So do you suggest semi-protection and / or a rangeblock? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi'd for three days. If someone can substitute an appropriate rangeblock, feel free to unprotect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock as one of the proxies (**.**.*.130) has started vandalizing on Fast food. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

82.219.6.128/25 blocked 3 days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass cat blanking

• HowAboutNo91 (talk · contribs)

Blanking of 'American politicians convicted of crimes' from multiple articles, without explanation. As well, blanking of several requests for explanation from his/her talk page. Perhaps there's a constructive rationale for the edits, but given the mass deletions and lack of response or explanation, I'm wondering what it is. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed an unnecessary category from a few articles, as the politicians in question already had a category on their page which said Category:(State) politicians convicted of crimes. HowAboutNo91 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide some help:diffs to back up your statement, or be more specific on which articles exactly are being affected. Also noting the above, are portions of articles being removed or are categories being removed?

It occurs to me that contributions can be checked, will provide a couple diffs in a second. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of diffs, 1. Edit summary of wrong state, if it's the wrong state then move it to the right one don't just unilaterally delete it. Given the source comes from Pittsburgh this might not even be the wrong state. [60] 2. Provides no context for removing the content.[61] and 3. Is however actually properly done as the people involved were not elected politicians [62] This person appears to be working in good faith but with imperfect judgement. That is all I can say. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly tags talk pages with a WikiProject when they are not participating in the Wikiproject

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

---

See User talk:Ricky81682#Please stop tagging for WikiProjects you are not affiliated with. There's no reason for an editor, let alone an admin, to put up fake notices on talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.69 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I still don't get your point, my bad! INVISIBLE^{-Talk with me!} 16:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What kind of a complaint is this, that one has to "be affiliated with a project" to add the relevant WikiProject tags to the talkpage? If I write a biography of a female Turkish boxer, I'll add {{WikiProject Turkey}}, {{WikiProject Women's sport}} and {{WikiProject Boxing}} tags, regardless of whether I'm "affiliated" with any of those projects—this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Noting also that you've, no doubt unintentionally, forgotten to post the required notification, which I've done for you. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whaat a "fake notice" is but there is no requirement that an editor "has" to be a member of a Wikiproject to place its banner on an articles talk page. IMO this thread should be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that wikiprojects are groups of affliated editors working together on a common interest. They decide the scope of the articles they are interested in. A wikiproject is not the same as a category. If someone who has no intention of taking part in a wikiproject starts tagging articles with that WP, it causes bloat to a WP's scope. The correct method if you want to get a wikiproject involved in an article is to go to the Wikiproject and leave a note/link for them. I have changed the title to indicate the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? So if I write a biography of a Scottish person I'm acting improperly by placing a biography or Scotland wikiproject template on the talkpage because I'm not a formal member? Nonsense. Wikiprojects aren't (or shouldn't be) walled gardens. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Generally it isnt a problem. Until someone objects. Then it becomes one. Usually Wikiprojects tag articles because they are actively part of their editing plan. Not just because they happen to be related. There is unlikely to be any problem with your scottish biography one (I seriously doubt anyone involved in the relevant project would object). But ultimately wikiprojects *are* self-selecting with regards to what their scope is. If someone who is not participating in that projects starts interfering with it, it is disruptive editing. The 'walled garden' rears its head when wikiprojects start creating their own notability guidelines, inclusion criteria for articles and so on. But the basic 'What this wikiproject covers' is not part of that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Then the appropriate action would be a polite inquiry, not accusations of "fake notices." I'm not pleased with the perception that non-participants are not welcome, or are interfering with good-faith tagging. This is an open project. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally most people notify the project or join the project. Actively tagging articles for a project you have no intention of working with however verges from harmless to really irritating depending on the scope of the project. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I sort of understand the complaint. WikiProjects have their own outline of what articles they consider to be part of their project. By tagging articles with project banners of projects you have no interest in participating in you add to their project workload without consulting them. I also understand the counterargument of, for example, tagging a military history article with WikiProject MilitaryHistory because it would presumably fall under their "jurisdiction" logically. There can be two problems with this however, 1. The project is inactive and has been for some time, the problem ought to be obvious, no workers means no work and 2. The project may not necessarily be interested in all articles that could potentially fall under their jurisdiction, for (a currently accurate) example the historical state of Prussia may be of interest to WikiProject Silesia but not WikiProject Poland (despite the fact that Silesia is in Poland). The point being that automatically targeting an article as being of interest to a particular group could be false. However, I can only this being a problem in egregious circumstances, e.g. tagging all articles on politics as being of interest to WikiProject Chocolate or some such. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This likely does not need admin intervention. The issue is being discussed on Ricky81682's talk page and the IP doesn't appear to be involved outside of starting ANI drama. clpo13_(talk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not WP:OWN articles. Whenever I find an article that has not been added to a wikiproject I take the time to try and find at least one to add it to. WikiP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that includes adding project banners to article talk pages. MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not a question of ownership. If a wikiproject says an article is not within its scope then its not within its scope. If you think it *should* be within its scope, you either contact the project, or join it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If the WikiProject does not own the article, why are you forcing it upon them? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A "wikiproject says an article is not within its scope then its not within its scope" is classic WP:OWN. Please provide a link to the policy or guideline that states that an editor "must" be a member of a project to add its banner to a talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Add away. Add all the things. But if a wikiproject sees the new article added to their list, and decides after discussion (or a review of their rules, etc) that nope, that article shouldn't be tagged, and they remove it – that's fine too. Tagging the article as part of a project is only disruptive when it's being edit warred over. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, it's only a problem when it's being edit-warred over. I've removed inappropriate tagging (without asking for permission) and I've added where I felt in good faith that it would be appropriate, for example where a project may not be aware of a potentially relevant article's existence. What they do from then on is their business. If it's not appropriate, a polite note is all that's needed. Wikiprojects don't own article talkpages any more than they own articles. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But they do own their banner, and if they say "I don't want my banner on this page" then remove it. You are right though, a polite note is how this should be approached, not going straight to AN/I. However, somebody has mentioned that a random IP has taken this to AN/I instead of the original poster SmokeyJoe, I only just noticed myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when does WP:OWN apply to WikiProject scope? a wikiproject is not an article. By your logic I should be allowed to send you notices to improve whatever article I like. If so then please start with Chicken, and when it reaches FA, go on to Cow. Thanks I expect a response soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about chickens, but User:Sainsf has recently been successful in taking several other cloven-hoofed ruminant mammals to FA, so would perhaps be the ideal person to help improve the Cow article if they have time and inclination. MPS1992 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words MPS1992. I am sorry, I will be very busy for the next few months and will not be able to work on articles here, let alone an article as tough as Cow. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to see some of us still have their sense of humor here at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually one more thing "A "wikiproject says an article is not within its scope then its not within its scope" is classic WP:OWN" would actually be classic WP:DISOWN <- not really a policy. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC)MarnetteD you do not appear to know what Ownership is. When you own an article you are attempting to control editing access to it. When a wikiproject decides what articles are within (or excluded) from its scope, it is deciding what is relevant to the wikiproject. It is *not* declaring that it and it only can edit that article (if 'within scope'). If a wikiproject decides an article is outside its scope, then it is explicitly not 'owning' it as it is excluding it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So SmokeyJoe get to decide what all those WikiProject decide is relevant? It's not like these notices were added there before and we're edit warring about them. No one from the actual project (unless you believe that SmokeyJoe can speak on behalf of these eleven projects) has removed the pages. Wouldn't a better response be to keep it there for now and wait and see that an actual project has objected to the draft outline? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• <facepalm > --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what WP:OWN is. BTW you still have not provided any links to policies or guidelines that state that an editor "must" be a member of a project to add its banner to a talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For one – this seems to be clearly allowed, as below. For two – I'm unclear on what administrative action is requested – or required here. As Iridescent points out below – the place to discuss this is is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. SQL^{Query me!} 17:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What our policy actually says

Given the number of people in this discussion who seem to be making up policies on the fly, it's perhaps worth pointing out what Wikipedia's policy on the matter actually is.

Many editors place banners on behalf of WikiProjects in which they are not participants. This practice is normally welcomed by WikiProjects as it brings to their attention new and interesting articles.

Please be judicious in making such placements by minimizing the number of outside banners that you place on an article and by carefully reviewing the scope of the project. Information about the project's scope is often available on the WikiProject's main page, and sometimes also on documentation associated with the template. If you are uncertain that the placement will be welcomed, then leave a note on the project's talk page instead of placing the banner yourself.

If you place a banner for a WikiProject in which you do not participate, and one of its regular participants removes it, do not re-add the banner. A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Technically this is "just a guideline", but it's been in place and unchallenged since 2008. If you want it changed to "only project members can add project tags"—which would be a fairly major cultural change, given that WikiProject tags are generally so uncontroversial they're bulk-added by bot—an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council is the way to go. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted, is SmokeyJoe a "regular participant" in these eleven projects? If so, then fine, untag them all. It seems mighty strange that none of the projects related to the actual Ancient history article should be involved in a proposed Outline of Ancient history page. I suspect if it's in mainspace, SmokeyJoe would not be edit warring to remove all those projects from it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let's summarize this issue.

1. There's a number of old draft outlines found within Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts.
2. I was moving those pages to draftspace, leaving a redirect to that project and tagging the Outlines with the relevant projects for that topic.
3. @SmokeyJoe: expressed voracious opposition to this so I stopped and listed the remainder at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history for discussion. The opposition seems to largely be that the project should still own these drafts as opposed to draftspace.
4. Like with Draft:Outline of London, I have been adding the relevant projects and informing the projects of proposed outlines.
5. It's pretty straightforward. For Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history, I went to Talk:Ancient history, and added those same projects plus the Outlines one.
6. This was reverted with the edit summary "those wikiprojects are not interested in this pages. are you intentionally making mischief?" This is not being done by members of a project but by one user who has determine that only members of the Outlines project should be working on Outlines.
7. I have no idea how we are supposed to determine that these project aren't interested in these pages if we don't tag the projects with the pages and keep them hidden away in a subpage of the Outlines project. Nevertheless, I have never seen a dispute that requires edit warring to remove projects from a page under the guise that the other editor knows that those projects are not interested in said draft.
8. I have done the same move request with the Swami Vivekananda project which seems dead and with the Dacia project.
9. I've been doing these for months. I created and built up Category:Draft-Class EastEnders articles, a project where I've had zero involvement, and in response, people noticed the duplication, coordinated and merged drafts and then moved them together to mainspace.

If these moves are opposed (and they seem to be), fine, keep these pages hidden away in the various projects and I'll probably just take them as old stale drafts to MFD. I'm trying to get more eyes on them in case someone else is interested but if people think the projects should own drafts on their own. If that's offensive, so be it, please explain why. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I intend to continue adding project banners on articles I create or improve, whether or not I am "affiliated" with those projects. While I understand the complaint, I think it is the most nonsensical one I have seen in over 10 years on the project. --John (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If you tagged an article with X project, then someone removes it because you're "not affiliated with it", you'll be re-adding the tag back if another editor gets it up to a Featured Article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Dharmendra

@Senthoora poove continues to engage in edit warring and vandalism regarding the Dharmendra article, removing long established and referenced text (see [63], [64], [65]). Quis separabit? 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Dharmendra : Dharmendra is not a Muslim. @Quis Separabit References are full of wrong information.Senthoora poove (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why an editor with two series of edits on that article is being reported here. Use the talk page, WP:DRR, or WP:ANEW if things get out of hand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations and bogus OTRS tickets

I spend most of my time on Wiki gnoming with photos and images, either taking my own photos, copying others to Commons, or verifying licenses and/or getting rid of cruft.

For background, see the following:

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 March 1#Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 March 1 (includes links to prior related problems)
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/OTRS ticket 1011940 - Animal Liberation Front
• Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#File:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg (permalink)

Over the years, I have repeatedly run into copyright issues with files uploaded by Slimvirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It just happened again when I was working alphabetically through Category:Copyright holder released public domain files and came across File:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg.

What I would like to request is that the community require Slimvirgin to help clean up this mess. She's not an OTRS member, yet has repeatedly added OTRS tags to files that later turned out to be copyright violations. She should be forbidden from doing this in the future. Also, as an admin, she should self-delete any images she's uploaded without chrytal-clear permission. And if the photos have been copied to Commons by people who mistakenly trusted her (such as myself) she should nominate those images for deletion.

There are still images floating around the project using these bogus OTRS tickets (see, for instance, here on the latest PETA ticket discussed at WP:OTRS/N). Many of these violations have been around for almost a decade and may have been used in good faith by content re-users without knowing they're violating copyrights. Slimvirgin should be required to help stop the bleeding. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope only to have to comment here once. Kelly has done this to me several times over the years, and has been told the same thing each time. I asked him to stop uploading images to Commons that I had uploaded to Wikipedia, but he continued regardless.

All I know about PETA images is this: there were several releases of PETA images via several editors years ago. The emails said they released everything for which they owned the copyright. Another editor sent one of those releases to OTRS, and we were told to add that ticket number to images that clearly belonged to PETA. It was years ago and should be confirmed with someone from PETA who is authorized to make the releases. It's a perennial problem that people replying to emails on behalf of organizations believe they have the authority to make releases, but perhaps don't.

All I know about ALF images is this: the ALF is a collection of anonymous individuals, and when individuals call themselves "ALF" and add those images to an ALF website for the purpose of having the images publicized, the images are regarded as having been released into the public domain, for obvious reasons. That is, the copyright is passed to the ALF. Several of the images in question were taken after the photographers had entered facilities where animals were kept; I recall one was of someone wearing a balaclava removing a chicken in the middle of the night, not the kind of thing a named individual would attach themselves to. There was an OTRS ticket to that effect from an ALF press officer and (as I recall) a similar statement on their website. The images have been deleted, though some or all should not have been, but it's not something I have an interest in pursuing.

I would appreciate it if my name could be removed from the heading, and the heading changed. It associates my name with copyright violations and the word bogus, which implies that something untoward has been done on purpose. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Without defending the language used or way this was handled or commenting on whether this was okay historically, can you link to some sort of confirmation that these images are in the public domain in terms of copyright? Also there seems to be a contradiction. Images can't both be in the public domain and have the copyright passed to the ALF. Unless you mean the copyright was passed to the ALF who then released it into the public domain. (Copyright laws do vary and as our article mentions it's unclear or even unlikely images can be released into the public domain in all places. So it's possible the images may be in the public domain in some places and copyrighted by the ALF I guess with all rights released, ala CC0 in others.)

What we really need is a statement on the website where these are uploaded confirming this is the case, sufficiently prominent that people are likely to see it. Alternative evidence that the ALF asked the right questions for every image they received. (Note if the statement is added now, it will only apply to images from now on.) And can you also link to some evidence ALF makes an effort to ensure only copyright holders upload the images, or someone who has gotten the permission of the copyright holder to upload the image under the public domain? (Note there's a key distinction here. Giving permission to upload to the ALF website is insufficient unless the person properly understands what this means. Similar to what happens here on wikipedia of course.)

The comments of a press officer are largely irrelevant except for images they own the copyright of. Otherwise I could make a website, get people to upload content and then claim that they released it in to the public domain or some other licence or even transferred the copyright to me, despite there being no reason for these people to think so when they were uploading the content. General understandings are insufficient since there's no guarantee everyone involved has this general understanding.

Furthermore, from my experience most people don't really think about copyright in these sort of things (in the general case not with ALF in particular). They want ALF or whoever it is to publicise it, sure. Maybe they're even happy with ALF making money from it. They're probably fine with others with similar goals doing the same (publicising and maybe even making money).

They may be less happy with people with different goals etc using the images particularly commercially. For example, will contributors of these images be okay with them being used in sites, books etc catering to those who enjoy seeing animals being tortured? (Remembering laws vary, in some places such sites or books may not be illicit without copyright concerns.) Will they be okay with them being used by critics of ALF or the animal rights movement. And remember this includes any and all derivatives.

To be fair I think a lot of people don't think about these sort of things even when they do release the copyright or licence the images under a free licence. However there's a difference when people have been told they are releasing the copyright of licencing the images in a certain way, compared to where there's just a general understanding the images are going to be publicised. BTW, we often deal with similar issues in cases like photos released to the media by families of missing people. The people obviously want the images to be widely publicised, but for a certain purpose. So it's generally unclear whether they're actually releasing the copyright. And they may not even have sufficient permission to do so. E.g. the image may be professional taken or it's a selfie.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Kelly, you may remember that we spoke 8 years ago about what I perceived to be your unwillingness to let go of grudges and move on, citing SarahSV in particular - User talk:WJBscribe/Archive_20#Ugh. You assured me that I was mistaken and that you pride yourself on your ability to work with people you disagree with.
I am saddened to see - all this time later - that you haven't let the issue of SarahSV's image uploads from ALF/PETA go. There is no user conduct issue here - just our evolving standards about ensuring that copyright releases are given by the right person in suitable terms. I don't see anything that evidences deliberate wrongdoing. In the circumstances, the use of language such as "bogus OTRS tickets" and "stop the bleeding" is an unnecessarily tendentious way of presenting the situation. WJBscribe (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to http://fadedpage.com

• fadedpage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User:Humbug26 has lately been adding external links to a Canadian website, fadedpage.com, which features full texts of literary works, to many articles concerning authors. Although these works may be out of copyright in Canada, most of them are still copyrighted in their countries of origin (mainly Britain and the U.S.). I've previously queried Moonriddengirl about such situations here, and her opinion seems to have been that we shouldn't be linking to copies of such works when they're still under copyright in their countries of origin. I'm not advocating any sanctions against Humbug26 for what seems to be good-faith edits in an unclear situation, but if anyone agrees with me that these edits are unacceptable, could someone do a mass revert of the links to fadedpage.com? I'm too ignorant to do such a mass revert myself. Deor (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I support reversion of this mass vandalism of insertion of links to an unedited blog. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

• I don't have the mass rollback script installed or I'd do it myself. If nothing else, it's spamming, and I suspect this is an employee or owner of that site. Katie^talk 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• IS there a faster way to get rid of these links other than an editor rolling back each individual edit? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There are various scripts for doing mass rollbacks. I reverted 79 top revisions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And yes, there are plenty of mass-rollback scripts out there. I have one installed, just in case such a need ever arises. Omni Flames (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First, let me acknowledge and accept the decision of those who have issues with my latest edits. It was never my intent to destroy the integrity of this site. Second, let me clarify that Faded Page is not a blog. This is an archival site created to collect the efforts of the volunteers at Distributed Proofreaders Canada. I looked at this being similar to Distributed Proofreaders in the United States with their relationship to Project Gutenberg. Accordingly I proceeded on that assumption, incorrectly as it now seems. Distributed Proofreaders Canada and Faded Page are mentioned as legitimate sites in the article for Distributed Proofreaders. Third, thank you for not putting any sanctions against me for my actions. The copyright restrictions applied to edits at this site, based in the United States, does cause confusion for anyone not cognizant with all the nuances in your treatment of copyrights. Lastly, I will alert the community at Distributed Proofreaders Canada (I am registered there) through their forum that any linking to Faded Page at Wikipedia is not allowed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Humbug26 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Banner

Unfortunately, The Banner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has in the past, and also recently, been casting aspersions in the form of unsupported claims of misconduct against me in various areas of Wikipedia, stating that I have a COI, that I add improper sources, etc., which is not the case. This has been an ongoing pattern from the user. The user also performs actions against consensuses that are determined at deletion discussions they initiated, by afterward unilaterally redirecting articles that were closed with a merge result at AfD, without performing any merge of content whatsoever. This comes across as a means to realize their desired result of content removal when articles they nominate are not deleted. The user sometimes continues to do so repeatedly, regardless of consensuses that were determined. The user also has a poor habit of making repeated ad hominen statements that are uncivil and harassing in their overall nature.

I've also noticed a long-term ongoing pattern of sometimes reckless editing by this user in various pageant-related and other articles. The user routinely strips large swaths of content from articles, but this sometimes creates problems. For the record, I'm not against all of their content removal edits, some of which are useful and appropriate, but I often get the impression that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sometimes it comes across that the user is simply here to remove as much pageant-related content as possible, but this is often performed per their own subjective opinions, rather than based upon guidelines and policies.

Requesting community input regarding these matters. I'm particularly concerned about the casting of aspersions, dishonesty and lying, uncivil and harassing behaviors, and actions the user performs that go against the consensuses of deletion discussions.

1. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
2. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
3. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
4. Casting aspersions of COI and blatant lying and dishonesty at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2015

   The Banner: "I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva." (diff)

   "My response: "There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing." (diff, and some minor copy edits after this diff)

5. Casting aspersions: diff . The user's wording here falsely suggests that I restored content with "dodgy sources", but the content actually had no sources at all to begin with. I added several reliable sources later.
6. Casting aspersions and false statements: here ("Yes, I know by now that you prefer related sources instead of independent sources or none at all."). My actions in editing the article afterward clearly indicate that this is simply not the truth: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
7. Casting aspersions and false statements: diff ("you often add related sources to prove something ...""). Notice that my actual source additions to the article afterward are entirely contrary to this false statement of adding "related sources" (e.g primary sources), particularly the "often" part): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Of course, the user left their impugning statement on the talk page after all of my edits that utilized reliable sources.
8. Uncivil behavior: A discussion on my talk page, that is now archived here. The user orders me to perform edits or "shut up", makes false, harassing statemets about my editing, and states that a supposed "halfway mess and confusion" was created. No mess or confusion of any sort was created whatsoever. It comes across that the user posts these types of statements in efforts to contiuously mar my reputation, done through the presence of the content regardless of the actual non-validity of it.
9. Performing unilateral actions against consensus at their AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spain 2004: States that a merge was performed ("merge completed"), but one was never performed (diff), unilaterally redirects again against consensus (diff), and yet again unilaterally redirects against consensus (diff, see this diff following the user's edit for more information). In the first two diffs, the user comes across as attempting to circumvent the consensus at the discussion to get their way, after their desired result of deletion was not realized.
10. Performing unilateral actions against the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists: twice redirects without performing any merge (diff, diff), against the consensus and editorial decisions of other users at the AfD discussion. The user again appears to try to get their way when the AfD they created was closed against their desired result of deletion.
11. Reversions that introduced factual errors: blanket reverts swaths of content, creating factual errors, twice in a row: diff, diff. I had to correct this twice: diff, diff. It comes across that the user does not bother reading edit summaries left by other users, and simply comes along and presses the undo button, regardless of consequence. This type of behavior is damaging to the encyclopedia.
12. Blanket removal of properly verified content I added to an article per their subjective opinion of "irrelevant fancruft": diff. Wikipedia content is based upon what reliable sources report, which has more weight compared to subjective opinion. This blanket removal had a poor side effect of removing a reliable source I added to the article that had to be rescued by AnomieBOT (diff). I then restored the content (diff). These types of actions make it difficult to improve articles, because after improvements are performed in accordance with guidelines (e.g. using reliable sources and citations), the user just comes along and presses the undo button, basing the removal upon personal opinion rather than guidelines and policies.
13. Blanket removal of reliable sources in the references section of this article: diff. The edit summary left used a generic copy/paste rationale that did not address this aspect of the content removal. This created unnecessary work in having to restore the valid sources I added to the article, which again, were removed for no logical reason.
14. Removal of sourced content using a generic copy paste rationale that stated in part "WP:OR": diff. The content was all verified with inline citations to a reliable source; as such it's not original research.
15. Casting aspersions and false accusations of my sincere efforts to improve an article being "close to vandalism" and adding "related sources" and "not reliable sources": User talk:The Banner/Archives/2016/January § Miss Earth 2015 I responded with a summary of the wholly reliable sources I added, but the user then continued along the same line, stating, "...you add or defend related sources". I did not add any related sources, nor did I "defend" them. Notice in the article's Revision history circa this time period that I actually removed many unreliable sources from the article after adding reliable ones. It comes across that the user very likely didn't even bother to actually view the sources added to the article, nor noticed my removal of unreliable sources I performed, instead simply sticking to their pattern of making baseless ad hominem false claims. This also comes across as intentional obfuscation, rather than a discussion of facts.
16. Uncivil tone toward another user: diff

More examples of these types of behavior exist, but hopefully this provides an adequate summary of the ongoing pattern of problematic editing and behaviors performed by this user. I have consistently remained calm and civil with this user despite all of this, stating my case in various discussions in a collegial manner, but the user does not tend to act in kind. It would be nice if the user would stop casting aspersions, stop being dishonest, tone-down their rhetoric and abrasive statements and behaviors, and instead try to work in in a collegial manner with others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(Addendum) – Additional evidence of these types of ongoing behavior patterns by the user is located at the following past ANI discussions listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner
2. Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

Mr. North America is very enthusiastic in adding irrelevant info to articles about pageants. He does that so often, that he gives me the idea that he has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. Most recent on Miss World where he ignored the lack of relevant info in the to-be-merged-articles to add a massive load of stuff to the articles. Part of that is "sourced" with photo-sites or galleries, not exactly sources conform WP:RS. Mr. North America has a clear lack of distinction between notable and not-notable, claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website. By and large, this is a good section about his opinions, strengthening my believes: Talk:Miss_World#Merger complete. The Banner talk 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ - I have nothing against The Banner but personally it seems like they want to get rid of every pagent article on the project, I admit about a year or 2 ago I would !vote Delete on every pagent AFD on the basis of this place didn't need them however I begun to realize this was extremely disruptive and goes against what the project is ... which is why I no longer !vote on them, TB however seems to nominate them on a daily basis and without searching for sources (and when sources are provided they refute every single one), and then we have fact they redirect articles even without consensus, Personally I believe TB should be topic-banned from pagents altogether but that's just my honest opinion, –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)