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

Disruptive behavior from user:Slrubenstein

User:Slrubenstein has been involved in the race and intelligence article for quite a while, and was pretty civil in his behavior there before the past week, but has rather suddenly began making personal attacks against other users. I attempted to warn him about this behavior here; however he’s ignored my warning and continued to engage in the same behavior. The majority of his personal attacks have been directed at user:Mikemikev, but he’s made several against me also.

[1] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Scientists disagree all the time - it is the whole point of science. But they can do so while respecting one another's contributions to science. That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”

[2] (Directed at Mikemikev) “This is utter and total @#!*% that simply demonstrates Mikemikev's attempt - conscious or reckless - to destroy this article […] All mikemikev is doing is pushing his own POV even if it makes us the laughing stock of the literate world.”

[3] (Directed at Mikemikev) “The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.”

[4] (Directed at both me and Mikemikev) “Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, @#!*% that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is.”

[5] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.”

[6] (Directed at me) “You know little about science, yet come to this article just to push your racist point of view. Fortunately, there are many other editors who will put science above your racist ideology.”

[7] (Directed at me) “Captain Occam's standard seems to be: any view that does not agree with mine is bad. Well, so what else is new?”

I’m reluctant to recommend a block for Slrubenstein, because he has contributed to this article in a positive way over the past several months, but recently there has been a major change in his behavior. As I’ve reported here, his main activity there lately has been edit warring (also after being warned about this); it ultimately resulted in page protection rather than a block because a few other users were edit warring there also.

As far as how this should be dealt with is concerned, I think Slrubenstein’s most important comment is the fourth one that I quoted (with regard to me and Mikemikev): “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article”. I’m not making personal attacks against anyone there, and I’ve only reverted the article once during the past two days, so in this case I don’t think Slrubenstein’s inability to interact with me and Mikemikev in a constructive way is my own fault. If by his own admission he is unable to do this, and he is the one who’s edit warring and making personal attacks as a result, I think something needs to be done about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that temperatures have tended to run high in this article. Some of this is diffused in the very long talk page, which has saved the article from many reverts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about temperatures running high, but I think most of us who are debating about this article have managed to avoid making personal attacks against other users involved in it. I also don’t think there’s any evidence of Slrubenstein’s behavior having calmed down; his most recent personal attack that I quoted is his most recent contribution. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is an admin and has been a user in good standing since 2001, there are very few active users on Wikipedia who have a longer or more respected history. You've been here for under two years, much of it intermittent, and the race and intelligence article has been a focus of yours almost from the outset. I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein. I suggest you find a way of working productively with him before you get blocked yet again for edit warring on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t a discussion about general level of contributions to Wikipedia or my own past conflicts with users unrelated to this report, it’s a discussion about the specific user conduct within the past week that I’ve brought up here. A user’s history of contributions does not excuse them from having to follow rules such as WP:NPA. In accordance with the rules of this noticeboard, can this discussion please remain focused on its actual topic, instead of straying to unrelated accusations and side-discussions within the discussion? Thanks.

Incidentally, if there is somewhere other than AN/I where I should be posting in order to report disruptive behavior from an administrator, I would appreciate knowing what it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be better to base your position on an examination of the circumstances of the event, Guy, rather than on the reputations of the users involved. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:24, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)

One of these two has a history of crying foul over the article which has been an obsessive focus of his for some time, the other does not. See how that informs my judgement of the merits of each successive complaint? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

*Wow. I have respect for Slrubenstein. But Guy/JzG, I think your comment is way off-base, though you may well have given voice to a misapprehension that plagues other sysops as well. The mop does not by any means entitle Slrubenstein to better treatment than Occam is entitled to. Frankly -- it is precisely the opposite. The admin rules, and the bases upon which actions can be taken against admins, makes it quite clear that sysops have greater, not lesser, obligations than do non-sysop editors. Furthermore, as the oft-quoted "don't bite the newbies" guideline suggests, it is the newer editors -- not the more experienced ones -- whom we should take extra care with. Your "Slrubenstein is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement [sic] of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein" sends a terrible message. I'm hoping that was accidental, and will be redacted. It's IMHO contrary to some very important wiki guidelines, and is precisely what non-sysops say on a regular basis when they see sysops covering each others' backs in questionable circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Guy's rationale is not productive or appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) While I can see tempers becoming elevated, I don't see anything which would qualify as a personal attack. I think some of the comments are coming close to being incivil, however. Perhaps everyone involved needs to take a day off and cool down before coming back to the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In context, the very minimal testiness is actually a sign of great restraint on the part of Slrubenstein whose judgement I trust quite substantially. The article topic is of immense interest, which means it is of immense possibility for head-butting. Nothing to act upon, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus here is that these quotes from Slrubenstein aren't incivil enough to warrant action, I'll accept that. However, I would still like it if someone could do something about Mathsci's attempt below to hijack this thread into a complaint about me, and in the process evade the requirement of notifying me on my userpage the way he would have to do if he were posting a thread about this issue normally. As I pointed out in my comment there, this is the third time he's done this in an AN/I thread in the past month. If you look at the two prior threads where this happened, you'll see that his conduct in both of them was fairly disruptive, particularly in terms of his series of personal attacks against Ludwigs2. But nothing's ever been done to prevent him from continuing to repeat this same behavior in multiple AN/I threads. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's wikiquette in that usertalk could use improvement, but an ANI thread with allusions to a block proposal is a bit much. Captain Occam seems a little too eager to provoke drama by bringing it here. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of a warning from another admin that if he feels he’s unable to work collaboratively with other users on this article, it would be better for him to leave the article alone for a little while until he feels differently about this. I’m well aware that over the past several months, Slrubenstein’s contributions to this article have been more positive than negative, so I think I agree that a block would be excessive. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal of "a warning from another admin" implicitly implies you want a threat of sanctions. If you just want someone to suggest Slrubenstein try to dial it back and/or take a break, anyone can do that, not just admins. I thought of leaving Slrubenstein a note but decided that it's enough if he looks over this thread and takes in the issue. The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves. Given Mathsci's report, without knowing more, I'd say that presumption is not necessarily a done deal. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

“The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves.”

My saying that was intended only as a paraphrase of Slrubenstein’s own comment about me and Mikemikev: “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article.” To me, his saying that sounds like an expression of unwillingness to work collaboratively, but perhaps I should have been clearer what I was referring to. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• A quick note on the actual issue. Of the above diffs, much of the language was not IMHO inappropriately uncivil. The only language that gave me pause was: a) "or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”; and b) "They are charlatans". And even those two, in the broad scheme of things, and under the circumstances, might not trouble me. Without delving deeply, I'm unsure. At the same time, sysops especially are supposed to model good behavior for everyone else. If Slrubenstein were to make an appearance here, and say he apologizes if his colleague was offended, and didn't intend to offend him, I would be happy to consider this case closed -- and I hope that Captain would agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say calling someone's actions "trolling", unless it is demonstrable, a personal attack. Doing so out of disagreements with another's viewpoint would certainly cross the line of exemplary behaviour expected of an Admin. I'm sorry, but I agree that JzG's back-scratching is pretty lamentable too. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd say that Slrubenstein was getting pretty frustrated with some perceived non-consensus edits and the flow of some of the talk page discussion, but don't agree with him that this causes permanent damage to the encyclopaedia or that there is some sort of crisis brewing which requires such strong and emotive personalised language. Wikipedia editors are often not experts on all (or even any) areas of the subjects they are editing, and this is particularly true when subtleties of statistics and nebulous concepts like race and intelligence are involved. With time and patience, all these issues can be explained and ironed out in the article. He's fully aware of his own frustration, but I don't believe he has misused his admin authority here. If Slrubenstein could lower his expectation of the knowledge of his protagonists, but increase his willingness to communicate his knowledge uncritically, we could take a slower but surer path to resolution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Captain Occam, I don't know the background to this and it's a lot to read, but in general if Slrubenstein is getting frustrated in this way there's a reason for it, because he's a good editor. That's not to give him a free pass, so please don't anyone else misunderstand that. It's simply that he does tend to know what he's talking about. Captain, I don't know whether you yourself have an academic background in this area, but it's the kind of subject that's difficult to write about without knowledge of the scholarly sources. That could be the source of Slrubenstein's frustration. Sticking closely to the very best sources is often enough to resolve these things. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting up to now because I am concerned about turning this page into an extension of a conflict on another page. This is my perception of events: I have long believed that racist editors (often SPAs or "very few purpose" accounts) have sought to hijack certain WP articles in order to push their views, often under the cover of fringe science. Race and Intelligence is one such article. Now, we had a lengthy (four months?) mediation in which I thought I was consistently civil, and under the mediator's guidance sought compromise with all participants of the mediation regardless of my prior experiences with them. The mdiation ended with David Kane revising the R&I article based on points of consensus. Within a day, Mikemikev2 and Occams Razor started changing it.

The specific issue had to do with regression towards the mean. This is a statistical phenomena one inds any time there is a bivariate distribution (i.e. most scores are close the thg average, but some are above it and some are below it). Mike and Captain kept adding material stating that this is caused by genetics, so when it occurs with IQ scores it is proof that the reason blacks have lower average IQ than whites is, they are, as a group, naturally less intelligent than whites. Racism aside, this misrepresents the science, and the way they wrote it violated NPOV and NOR.

The mediation is over. I participated in the mediation in good faith, and thought we had achieved a workable consensus accommodating multiple perspectives. But as soon as the mediation ended, Mikemikev and Captain Occam referted to their SPA POV-pushing. I reverted to David Kane's original mediation consensus version.

Over time other editors have noted flaws in the aticle and I have made changes to the passage reflecting other people's comments - I just want to keep SYNTH and POV violations out.

I actually am aware of my own anger about edits that violate a mediation consensus, and are made in a way that show an utter disregared for collaborative editing - Mikemikev and Captain Occam have never modified their edits to respond to concerns I have voiced on the talk page. I actually went to the mediator to express my concerns, not only over their edits but over my behavior.[8] Please note that Captain Occam provides this edit-dif above, but misrepresents it. He states, aboe that this comment was "Directed at both me and Mikemikev." Not true, it was directed at Ludwigs2 the mediator, an in the comment I explicitly said that I was considering dialing back my involvement in the Race and Intelligence article because of how angry I was, watching Captain Occam and Mikemikev push back into the article things that we agred to take out in mediation.

Many of you might think that, if there is solid science saying Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, well, we need to say that in articles. Let me remind you of NPOV: we have to present this as a view, not as the "truth." Moreover, there are many scientists who tak issue with this claim, this is by no means a consensus among scientists. Yesterday, I began to involve myself in a new argument on the talk page, about whether or not to include the views of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a Harvard biologist and one of the leading experts on evolutionary theory, and published a book examining claims that certain races are intellectually inferior to others has a biological basis. Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring. And yes, when we are talking about whether blacks are inherently inferior to whites, I think the stakes are high and we better get the science right and be fanatic about complying with NPOV. When a group of editors disregard these concerns, it does make me angry, and I am glad I went to Ludwigs2 to have an honest discussion with him about it, and I am trying to restrain myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi SL. It is, of course, where one or more editors view the stakes as being high that emotions tend to run the highest, and civility finds itself most at risk. I don't think the issue on this page is "who is right". But rather, whether the involved editors can comport themselves in a civil fashion, within the wiki civility requirements. Some of the editors on this page feel that some of your language (though not all of that cited) may have approached or passed the border of acceptable communication, and been somewhat short of what is expected of an admin. Would it be possible for you to apologize if your colleagues were offended? If that were the case, I for one would be happy to consider this case closed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, two points:

1: Let’s keep the discussion here to user conduct, rather than rehashing content disputes here. There’s already a lengthy debate on the article talk page about Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity (which is what this issue is about), and whether what Arthur Jensen and Richard Nisbett have written about it as it pertains to IQ scores should go in the article. Since the discussion of Galton’s Law as it pertains to IQ is in the source material from both sides of the debate about this topic, it’s questionable whether we should be second-guessing the validity of the source material like this, but either way that’s not what we should be discussing here.

2: If you look at the discussion during which we were first coming up with the article outline, you’ll see that consensus actually supported the inclusion of this line of data, although we didn’t add it to the outline itself because we weren’t sure which section of the article it belonged in. When Muntuwandi proposed his own version of the outline, not everyone agreed that this point should go in his own version of it, since his outline wasn’t data-centric. But for the outline that we ended up using, the data-centric one proposed by Varoon Arya, multiple users agreed that it should cover Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity and how this applies to IQ scores, and nobody raised a problem with this until we tried to actually add it to the article.

However, even if you were right both that Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity had nothing to do with genetics and that there was never a consensus to cover this topic in the article, that still wouldn’t justify your personal attacks against me and Mikemikev. It’s easy to point out that you disagree with a piece of content without attacking the user who added it.

“Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring.”

I should point out that before the article was protected I had reverted it only once during the previous two days, while you had reverted it four times within the past 24 hours. For me to be disputing on the talk page whether Gould’s views on IQ are notable enough to belong in the article, without editing the article itself, does not fit Wikipedia’s definition of edit warring. That’s just a normal content dispute, and the only problematic thing about the way I was expressing my viewpoint about this topic was the fact that I disagreed with you.

I think you need to recognize the fact that there’s a legitimate scientific debate as to what’s causing the difference in average IQ scores between races. Not everyone who thinks that genetics are contributing to it is necessarily a racist; they may just interpret the data differently from you. One of the things we reached consensus on in the mediation also is that this viewpoint does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a “fringe theory”, so I don’t think you should be implying that it does.

Epeefleche: If Slrubenstein apologizes to me and mikemikev for being uncivil towards us, and agrees to make an effort to avoid this problem in the future, I would be happy for this thread to be closed. In fact, because of Mathsci’s effort to convert this thread into a complaint about my conduct in a separate article, I would prefer that this thread be closed before it drifts any further off-topic. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would go a long way to resolving this issue, perhaps long enough for the content disputes to be resolved amicably. I would also suggest that, as a further gesture of goodwill, you commit to take more account of comments from Slrubenstein. You have seen here he is generally respected as an editor. I have noticed that on technical issues, his understanding is often similar to mine, and these have included some matters of mathematical fact rather than opinion. And the list of participants Slrubenstien mentioned above includes someone who seemed to reject my reasoned argument with little attempt to understand it, and when Slrubenstein supported me, you opposed him seemingly on an unrelated point to my original point. Focussing on points of agreement first is often a good way forward - the differences may become less relevant later on, saving much energy which would otherwise wasted on irrelevant battles. My general preference is not to ban anyone, but for everyone just to step up their level of awareness by a level or two. Ironically, there is an editor who seems much more disruptive working on the article at the moment who hasn't been mentioned once, and other editors working quietly away without incident, which suggests there is a lack of trust and respect between the participants is the root of this issue. I would like the participants to resolve this underlying issue, because having editors coming from different sides is important, particularly for articles like this. I might also point out that several people feel that they are the aggrieved party here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I would like to express some opinions. I am currently involved with him at Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence, where we are discussing the validity of the article. In the past I would check up on articles like race and intelligence and such, and he is of course a regular contributor to those kinds of articles, so he has a level of expertise on the subject. I respect his opinions and viewpoints on various subjects relating to this, although I don't know what his biases are, and as everyone is human, humans have biases. From what I've seen of his interactions with various users over the long course of me checking those articles, he is sometimes combative with some users, and "bites the newbies" which is unfortunate. Personally I don't agree with Guy's opinion that SLrubenstein needs to be "backed" simply because he has been here longer, and then throwing a warning at Occam. That seems more like favoritism than anything else. ScienceApe (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request of community topic ban for Captain Occam

• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy

My editing history is in mainstream articles in the arts and science. In order to restore some order to Race and intelligence, I wrote History of the race and intelligence controversy based on impeccable secondary sources in the history of psychology. I used all mainstream historical accounts available and looked carefully for these. The article is neutral and accurately represents the sources, academic experts on the history of psychology.

There are a number of POV-pushers active on Race and intelligence. The most extreme of these is Captain Occam, a WP:SPA who seems determined that wikipedia should unduly represent a minoritarian point of view. I don't have any particular point of view myself and tried to write the history from history books that gave lengthy historical accounts of research into race and intelligence. There are a fair number of other supporters of the minoritatian point of view active on the R&I page. When I wrote my neutral history, as best I could, simply summarising and shortening the sources, I was not selective - no cherry-picking, etc. Just what the sources said, no extra commentary by me.

However now Captain Occam has decided that he doesn't like the article and has posted messages on the user talk pages of some of these other editors as well as Ludwigs2. These editors have appeared at the talk page of the article and some at the entry I wrote on the NPOV noticeboard. They have not said anything cogent so far. They want to rewrite the history using primary sources and have even suggested bizarre conspiracy theories concerning Marxist historians, environmental historians, but all just their own peculiar point of view. They seem to be suggesting that a large number historians of psychology, in particular all those that have written on the topic, are biased and misrepresenting events. They write this as a simple matter of fact without the slightest attempt to justify themselves. No book reviews confirm this eccentric point of view, so this kind of argument seems just to have made in order to be disruptive and waste time.

Captain Occam has orchestrated an onslaught onto a neutral and well-written article. He has been WP:TAG TEAMing, leaving messages for multiple like-minded editors to message-bomb the talk page. They have not produced any cogent arguments, just vague trolling comments, quite unlike any criticism I have seen of any other article I've written - and I have written a wide range of mainstream articles. Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have even discussed tiring me out. That is of course one of the main objectives of civil POV-pushing.

The disruption is apparent on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy where I've supplied diffs of Occam's messages to other users requsting support on the article talk page. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to bully/tire out/confuse a normal experienced editor. Captain Occam seems to be doing something similar above to another user. I therefore suggest that Captain Occam be given an indefinite community ban on all wikipedia articles and their talk pages related to race. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Seems to be", as expressed twice in the last paragraph, is not good enough. Suggest a RFC/U, if you feel it appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some of the diffs. [9],[10], [11], [12], [13] As I say, I have a lot of experience editing and creating articles on wikipedia and the laws of probability do not suggest that I would at any stage create a non-neutral, improperly sourced article in the light of all my other contributions. Most of the history section of Europe for example was comprehensively rejigged by User:Hemlock Martinis and me a while back using multiple sources. Captain Occam - as Guy says above - is a dedicated POV-pusher and single purpose account who seems intent on spreading disruption. These diffs seem like an attempt to sabotage a quite normal article; I'm not quite sure what his precise objection is except WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in his edits. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for context, my impression is that there is a group of editors on WP determined to give undue weight to research conducted by a small number of hereditarian researchers. As explained by academics from UCLA and Yale University in this source, there are only a few researchers in this particular area, which would neutrally be called "group differences in intelligence". What is clear from the history - at least all the sources I've seen - is that the hereditarian side periodically proposes a new version of their theory which is then commented upon, often in popular science books and academic book reviews, by eminent academics in related fields. Historians of psychology have chronicled how in the late sixties and early seventies political unrest amongst students spilled over into some rather ugly events involving physical violence or threats against academics. In the history article I don't give a point of view but just summarise what historians have written about contemporary reaction. I was slightly surprised that I could find good sources covering the whole period. My neutrality extended to omitting any specific mention of the well documented racist aspects of the Pioneer Fund, which supports much of the heriditarian research. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Mathsci, this is the third time in the past month that you've evaded the second requirement for posting here by ignoring the first requirement, and piggybacking one of your complaints about a user on top of an unrelated thread here. The previous two times are here and here. Could an admin please do something to keep this thread on-topic? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it is fundamental to Wikipedia dispute resolution that people who initiate DR actions (like you did here at ANI) automatically make their own conduct part of the subject, which means they can end up on the receiving end of sanctions. And yes, the header you quote advises people to work grievances out in userspace before bringing them to ANI. However, since you've already brought the matter here, centralization to this thread is appropriate per WP:DRAMA#Responding to drama, so Mathsci's weighing in on it here is fine.

Wehwalt: Mathsci does present some diffs (that at least establish canvassing) at the talkpage he cited, but if he is serious about a ban discussion, it would help if he incorporated the diffs directly into his report. I can't bring myself to pay attention to the R&I battle even though some very good editors are involved, so I don't have any particular views about past editor conduct in it. In general, though, it's better to dispose of clear-cut problems at ANI, and reserve more tedious processes like RFCU for cases complex enough to need it. So if Mathsci is claiming this case is clear-cut, it could help if he presents some more documentation here in the hope of getting the problem resolved more efficiently. (Captain Occam is of course entitled to do the same, although it looks to me like he's already given his best shot). Given how long the conflict has been active, though, it's probably headed towards RFCU and/or arbitration. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with what Mathsci is doing here is that my report had nothing to do with him, or with the article in which he’s complaining about my conduct. (He’s complaining about my conduct in history of the race and intelligence controversy, while my report was about Slrubenstein’s conduct in race and intelligence.) If you look at either of the two linked AN/I threads that Mathsci turned into complaints about Ludwigs2, in those cases Mathsci’s complaints had even less relevance to the original topics of the thread. In one of these two cases, the user Hans Alder closed the thread with a comment explaining the problem with what Mathsci was doing: “This page has a notice above that says: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The present thread has been hijacked by a user who is ignoring the first sentence, and by piggybacking on an almost completely unrelated thread is also circumventing the second sentence.” As can be seen in this edit, Mathsci responded by reverting Hans Alder’s closure of the thread.

As far as WP:CANVASS is concerned, I left comments on the userpages of three users, which I think falls within the limits of what’s considered a “friendly notice”. My comment for Varoon Arya did not mention either Mathsci or the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, but was only to let him know that mediation for Race and intelligence was now over and that he might want to pay attention to how things have changed in that article. My comment for DJ referred specifically to the history article, but was neutrally worded. In both his case and VA’s, my criterion for contacting them was that they hadn’t been very active lately, and I wanted to make sure they were aware of the recent developments that had occurred with these articles. The only one of my comments that I could see Mathsci reasonably taking issue with is my one directed at Ludwigs2, but I think it’s important to bear in mind that Ludwig was our mediator for the race and intelligence article for several months, so all of us often come to him for advice about user conduct. Several other users have come to him with other complaints similar to this, Slrubenstein included.

There’s a lot more I could be bringing up about Mathsci’s conduct that I consider problematic, particularly involving his behavior towards Ludwig in the two linked threads, but I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place for it. Is that something we should be discussing here? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're having a centralized discussion of this bunch of related issues, then yes, put everything here for now. (That is consistent with what Mathsci did). If it gets too messy, it may have to move to an RFC per Wehwalt's suggestion. I also understand that Medcom can refer failed mediations directly to arbitration, though I have no idea whether that's appropriate here. Whatever venue is used, the idea is to keep all the drama in one place at any given time. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All right. I suspect that Ludwig will have more to add about this, but for now I’ll start with an explanation of the history of this issue.

When the race and intelligence article entered mediation last November, Mathsci was one of the users involved in the mediation case, but he dropped out of the mediation case early on. (This was before Ludwigs2 took on the role of mediator.) And so the mediation case proceeded without him, although there were still several other users involved in the mediation case who shared Mathsci’s opinion about this topic, such as Aprock, Muntuwandi, and Slrubenstein. Around four months into the mediation, in an unrelated thread at AN/I (from Muntuwandi complaining about incivility from TechnoFaye), Mathsci showed up and began a sub-discussion claiming that Ludwig wasn’t handling the mediation case properly. That in itself wouldn’t have been a problem, except that every time Ludwig invited Mathsci to participate in the mediation and offer his suggestions about how it could be improved, Mathsci repeatedly refused and just kept trying to shut down the mediation case via AN/I, or get Ludwig blocked for mishandling it. The discussion about this can be seen in the linked thread.

From there, Mathsci’s complaints devolved into a series of personal attacks against Ludwig, most of which involved bringing up of irrelevant past conflicts and which continued into the second AN/I thread. Here are some of Mathsci’s comments from the first thread that have been directed at Ludwig: [14] [15] [16] Remember, these comments were in a thread about incivility from TechnoFaye; what Mathsci was bringing up was completely off-topic there. Later on in the same thread, when a new editor (Cryptofish) showed up to express their opinion, Mathsci started a new discussion in the same thread about his suspicion that this user was a sockpuppet. And as I mentioned before, when Hans Alder closed this thread based on the off-topic nature of Mathsci’s complaints, Mathsi reverted the closure.

Mathsci’s hostility to Ludwig has been near-constant since this point, although I’d prefer to wait for him to explain this himself, since I’m sure he’s been paying closer to attention to it than I have. The most recent problems I’ve had with Mathsci are on this article and its talk page, where he’s engaging in WP:OWNership. Several users (me, Mikemikev, David.Kane, Varoon Arya and DJ) have raised NPOV concerns about this article, but Mathsci has reverted most of our efforts to improve this article without any effort to justify it on the discussion page. After the NPOV complaints about it on the talk page were already well-established, Mathsi removed NPOV the tag without providing any justification of doing so on the article talk page. When I added it back, he then removed it a second time, again without any discussion, this time with an edit summary that threatened all of the users who were raising these NPOV complaints with being blocked. After he reverted my adding of the tag a third time, while also reverting an edit from David.Kane, he self-reverted when I warned him on his userpage that he was edit warring.

Along with WP:OWNership, the primary problem with Mathsci in this article is that even though there are five users who disagree with him about it, he does not feel that he needs to justify his edits to any of us. He’s said this himself, when I complained to him about his unwillingness to discuss our NPOV concerns with any of us: “I am completely unwilling to waste my time on any discussions beyond the material on specific pages in the sources I have used or other secondary sources for the history which satisfy WP:RS.” As a result, when other users have brought up their justifications for wanting to edit the article or at least add back the NPOV tag, Mathsci has either ignored us or brushed us off, as in this comment to Varoon Arya: “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.”

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with Mathsi feeling this way about another user’s comment, or even (possibly) with mentioning it. But if this sort of comment from him is the only type of response he’s willing to give to editors’ raising NPOV concerns about the article, then he shouldn’t be reverting other users’ edits when they try to improve the article, or keep removing the NPOV tag when other users add it. Part of WP:BRD is that when a user is reverting an article, they’ll be willing to discuss it with the users making the edit and work towards a compromise; if Mathsi isn’t willing to do this then he shouldn’t be reverting.

While I was not intending to suggest in my initial post here that I supported a block for Slrubenstein (I think a warning about civility would be enough), I would support a topical ban for Mathsci on race-related articles. His personal attacks against other users, bringing up of off-topic accusations in AN/I threads, and WP:OWNership of the R & I history article have all been disruptive. During the time since he became re-involved in these articles around a month ago, I have seen very few constructive edits on them from him. Searching through the archives of this noticeboard, I can also see that the past month isn't the first time Mathsci has engaged in this sort of behavior on these articles.

Ludwig, I would appreciate you filling in some more of the details about how Mathsci has behaved towards you; I’m leaving out a lot of that because I know you can describe it better than I could. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Ludwig isn’t interested in providing more examples of the behavior I’m describing from Mathsci, so I’ll find the rest of them as best I can on my own. Here’s one, in which Mathsci was refusing to accept Ludwigs2’s right to refactor his comments on the mediation talk page for race and intelligence, although Ludwig’s right to do this was something we all agreed to as part of the mediation. Even though Mathsci had agreed to this also when he signed into mediaiton, he threatened Ludwig with being blocked if Ludwig did this in his own case, and then brought it up at AN/I. (By hijacking an unrelated thread; this was the second AN/I thread that I linked to.)

There’s also this personal attack against David.Kane. “David Kane's editing is a disappointment. He seem to be POV-pushing and does not appear to be respecting any editing WP editing rules. […] He seems to be wasting everbody's time by suppressing and inventing facts to suit his purposes/ I have never seen worse editing in my experience on wikipedia.” After this comment from him, I warned him on his userpage about not making personal attacks like this, although it obviously didn’t have much of an effect.

I probably haven’t been paying as close attention to this as Ludwig has, so I may mention additional instances of this sort of behavior as I find them. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban I was going to propose this myself when I first saw this thread a few hours ago, but wanted time to catch up on a debate I have been less than half following. Edit warring, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, POV-pushing, disruptive single purpose account &c. - I would not have chosen tag teaming as the main issue this editor has with Wikipedia norms, but I concur that it is about time we tried something new. I would like to try a ban just from Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy but not their talkpages or the mediation, but I could be convinced of the necessity of a broader action. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Needs more evidence and discussion - I am highly concerned about the article right now, from having taken a quick look, but we need more uninvolved admins / editors to review and analyze in more depth. I believe that going for a topic ban at this point, without sufficient evidence presented, is premature. I am afraid that the comments by Mathsci may be correct, but it's a complicated situation, and we should not prematurely intervene. I agree with others above that Slrubenstein may not have been entirely polite at all points; it doesn't seem actionable, beyond at most a reminder. In light of the possible issues with the article it deserves handling with care. I don't think Guy's comment helped; AGF and Defend Each Other are important, but all experienced admins eventually do something wrong, and we don't get passes on it when we do. We don't hit each other with mallets, either, but we have to be willing to entertain the possibility that we or our compatriots have erred. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what to say about this silliness, except that I'm a bit disgusted by the fact that Mathsci believes he can solve all of his content disputes by running to ANI and screaming at the top of his lungs to have his opponent banned. How many ban requests has he made in the last year? anyone know? at least three or four from my own observation...

Just a couple of days ago, an admin (in a different context) mentioned that administrators weren't babysitters. I'd like to think that's true, but if you keep coddling Mathsci's tantrums like this, you might as well hit up the foundation for $5 an hour and fridge rights, because this is a long, looong, loooooooong way from adult behavior. --Ludwigs2 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Ludwigs2 came here as a result of this exchange with Captain Occam[17]. He is sympathetic to Occam's POV-pushing and seems to be spending time enabling it. His comments above are inflammatory - "opponent", "screaming at the top of his lungs", tantrums" - I suggest that he redacts those words, as they read to me like personal attacks. I should also point out that, despite his eagerness to comment on how articles should be edited and giving the appearance of some expertise[18] when requested, this unsourced stub is the only article he has created so far on wikipedia. In those circumstances, I've no idea why he thinks his opinions are of any value. The two of them are still planning my downfall. [19] Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Mathsci, I am not sympathetic to Occam's position. I simply find your behavior reprehensibly childish, and since your behavior is a matter of observable evidence, I see no need to retract it. but keep talking, it only proves my point. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Topic ban premature but warrants more admin eyes, per Georgewilliamherbert above. --John (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Folks, look at Captain Occam's edit history. His mainspace edits are to Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Heritability of IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Snyderman and Rothman (study) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Between-group differences in IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... virtually every edit he has made to main space has been in this one narrow subject area, all advancing the same POV. He's been blocked three times for edit warring on race and intelligence, and [20] shows numerous incidents of crying foul when people push back against his POV. We have here a single purpose advocacy account on a contentious topic and I am pretty confident that this one editor is a major part of the stalemate in respect of the race and intelligence article. A topic ban is more than warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have I been violating any rules or policies here during the time since I was suspended for edit warring in January? I’m quite confident that I haven’t. Guy, your comment makes it sound as though editing an narrow range of articles and having an opinion about how NPOV applies to them are in of themselves reasons for a block, but neither of these things violate either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia policy. In fact, the WP:SPA article makes it clear that being an SPA is not a policy violation.

I’ve attempted to justify all of my changes to articles via policy, and edited collaboratively with other users to the extent that it’s been possible. In this respect, my behavior over the past two months has not been any different from that of anyone else who has an opinion about how NPOV should be applied to controversial articles; and my conduct may actually be above average for users involved in this article because I haven’t been making personal attacks. If you need someone else to verify this who’s been involved in the same articles that I have, I’m confident that any of the following five users would agree with what I’ve said here: Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Mikemikev, David.Kane, or Bpesta22. (Unless none of their opinions are worth anything, because they’re all SPAs that deserve to be banned also?)

Your comment seems to be more an attack on my motives for editing here than anything related to my conduct. I can get into my motives for editing here if that’s really necessary, but aren’t discussions on this noticeboard supposed to be about user conduct rather than motives? --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find Slrubenstein's contributions useful, as he is clearly knowledgeable, and his arguments recently seem to revolve around accurate inclusion of mathematical facts. His explanations to Captain Occam have informed other editors too. But Captain Occam is not unreasonable to object to his treatment, which was not ideal, and getting second opinions on talk pages is better than coming here first. MathSci has shown little interest in engaging with me on the talk pages, and all I have noticed so far is his general dissatisfaction with the process set up by Ludwig2 - to the exclusion of any actual article points. I have only been looking into a handful of article details, and it hasn'tbeen apparent from the periphery whether there are two opposing camps or a more anarchic set of disparate views which trigger local disagreement. The controversial areas don't seem to be that related. I prefer the way User:Maunus is conducting himself (for example: [21]), and the work User:David.Kane is putting in. The editors in dispute might enjoy WIkipedia more if they could adopt some more of these cooperative techniques. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a hard article to work on but I have done my best. My feelings on the current dispute is that all three of MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have done good work on this article and have useful points to make. I wish that they would all play more nicely, both with each other and with other editors. Is there some magic button I could press to cause that? Alas, no. In any event, I think that having more admin eyes on this article serves a useful purpose. I don't think anyone should be banned. David.Kane (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from article space of Race and intelligence and related articles. I note 3 blocks in the past for edit warring and one 0RR restriction, with 4 separate Administrators involved. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A few of the people involved in this discussion have suggested that this thread should be about Mathsci’s conduct in addition to mine. Thus far, several users have commented on my own conduct, but none except Ludwigs2 and Stephen B Streater have commented on Mathsci’s conduct or the explanation I posted above of what I find problematic about it. Since the intention was for this discussion to be about both his conduct and mine, isn’t anyone here going to comment on Mathsci’s conduct also? If our past histories of conduct matter here (which they apparently do, since a few users have brought up that I was edit warring on the race and intelligence article several months ago), I think this is pertinent also. Mathsci was not blocked for this even though it involved WP:OUTING, and the reason for that is mainly because he essentially chased the user whom he was harassing (user:A.K.Nole) off of Wikipedia with this behavior, so A.K.Nole could not stick around for long enough to continue pursuing his complaint against Mathsci about this. Another discussion about Mathsci’s behavior towards this user can be found here. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Captain Occam is factually wrong here. In fact two users have been wikihounding me, One, Rhomb (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked with several sockpuppets. Another, a now disclosed alternative account of A.K.Nole, has agreed to stop following my edts. This agreement was arranged off-wiki by Shell Kinney, who confirmed that wikihounding had taken place. In these circumstances it's a non-starter for Captain Occam to attempt to misrepresent events so grossly. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I could figure at the time, A. K. Nole was a troll and probably a sockpuppet, with some kind of axe to grind against Mathsci. A bunch of related socks were blocked during the Abd-WMC arbitration if I remember correctly. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appear to be the two most relevant issues here, and both refer to you. I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours. At one point you were being reverted by ten other users! You've been blocked and sanctioned several times and yet, according to you, the problem is always all those other people. This is one of the most clear-cut examples of m:MPOV in my recent experience. I repeat my previous support for a topic ban, but let's be completely fair and extend it to include all single-purpose accounts on this topic. A complete list of such accounts appears at the moment to be you and nobody else, but I will be happy to have any others identified here (though not by you, I've had enough of your finger-pointing). Guy (Help!) 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Guy - I know you're a buddy of Mathsci's (which isn't a bad thing; it's good to have friends), and I am more than happy to admit that Mathsci is a good editor when actually gets around to editing, but even you can't perpetually overlook Mathsci's over-bearing behavior. He lies, he insults people, he's arrogant and supercilious, he reverts edits out of sheer petulance when he doesn't get his way, he runs to mommy/ANI to scream about all the bad boys who torment him. He's a bright guy with (on wikipedia, at least) the emotional continence of an irritable 11 year old. Now I kind of get that idea that - back in the bad old days of the Pseudoscience Wars - this kind of behavior was deemed acceptable in order to chase off Evil Editors from the Fringe Realm, so maybe it's just old wartime habits that he's having a hard time shaking off. But he needs to shake them off - it's an uncivil nuisance. Whatever Occam has done, here, Mathsci has done twice over; Mathsci may merit a degree of slack due to long service, but even so let's keep things in perspective. --Ludwigs2 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a buddy of Mathsci's as far as I am aware, I do not know his real world identity so can't say for sure. I am, however, very firmly not a buddy of the agenda account Captain Occam, having read through some of the past and present complaints by and against him. As I say, his reaction to criticism seems to be "look what billy did". Guy (Help!) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Groan Captain Occam is the only editor to have had their content edits reverted by me on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Nice try, Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• @ Guy: sorry, I just assumed from the way you stick up for Mathsci's irrationalities that you to had a relationship of some sort. I apologize if that's an incorrect assessment.
• @ Mathsci: Groan all you like - I can dig up dozens of incidents where you did the same thing on other pages, and worse, so let's not engage in selection bias. I've got nothing against you, Mathsci, except for your problematic pattern of behavior. If you'd play nice, I'd consider you one of the better editors on wikipedia, but your own actions subvert your effectiveness. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of incidents? Diffs? The tone of these remarks constrasts with your cosy relationship with a POV-pushing WP:SPA. Your unorthodox/experimental approach probably explains why (a) editing on Race and intelligence has become so unstable (the article is at present locked), being primarlily based now on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, a gift-horse for POV-pushers and (b) why the article has become so unreadable, at least for me. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want me to dig up diffs? I don't particularly want to hijack this thread into full-out critique of your behavior; I really just want you to recognize your own weaknesses and reign yourself in. But if you think that would be helpful, I will. just say the word.

That being said, I'll point out that - again - you've based the entire argument in your last post (above) on childish name-calling. These so-called (by you) "POV-pushing SPAs" are in fact other editors who have a right to edit the article, so long as they abide by wikipedia policy. Your constant, tireless efforts to win your arguments through vilification is about as un-wikipedian as it gets, and is one of the major factors that has inflamed tempers in the article. You don't get to decide who is good editor and who isn't, and your insistence that only you can be correct is a major obstacle to effective editing. Since you have become active on the page, the vast majority of your time and effort has been spent trying to get people banned, accusing them of being a broad assortment of unpleasant things, complaining because they aren't deferring to you as an experienced editor, and otherwise moaning and groaning that you don't get your way in every little thing you want. Frankly, you lost the right to complain about the state of the page with your first move, when you decided that it would be better to run to ANI and demand to have me banned than to settle down and work cooperatively with other editors. It took all of my skills as a mediator just to get you off of ANI and into productive discussion on the mediation page, and even that was only partly successful, since less than a week after mediation is over you're back here at ANI with the same old intransigent, supercilious muckraking.

Damn it, you're making me use big words.

Let's put it this way; I would dearly love to see you have conversations where you:

1. don't call other editors names, or try to label them POV-pushers, SPAs or whatever other 'villain-of-the-moment' you might dredge up.
2. don't threaten anyone with being blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned.
3. don't insist that other editors need to listen to you because you're a better editor.
4. don't react with hostility and contempt when someone suggests your preferred version might not be perfect.
5. and finally, do actually listen to and work with people, even if you don't like or respect them or what they are trying to do. Almost everyone can be worked with, if you apply yourself to the task.

I know you can do it, because I've seen you do it on rare occasions. I would just prefer that to be the norm for you, rather than the exception. Do you think you can do that? --Ludwigs2 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, thanks for all this feedback, duly noted. Please could you now comment on the presence of POV-pushing SPAs currently editing Race and intelligence using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, would you please stop engaging in childish name-calling. As far as I'm concerned there are no POV-pushing SPAs - there's only a number of aggressively tendentious editors, and on a scale of 1 (reasonable) to 10 (tendentious) you and Occam both come in at about a 6. That isn't the worst on the article, mind you, but still... I think your black-and-white, us-and-them worldview is offensive and inappropriate to the project, and I reject it utterly. so drop it. --Ludwigs2 15:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If that has been your point of view so far, then I think you probably are in line for an indefinite ban or block. Incidentally I have hardly edited the article and my few edits there have had consensus, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think any administrator or member of ArbCom would accept your claims that my editing is in any way similar to that of single purpose accounts like Captain Occam. Mathsci (talkof ) 22:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, now you've progressed - no longer satisfied with mere childish name-calling, you've added threats of dire punishment and supercilious commentary on how sure you are admins and Arbcom would agree with you. that covers points 1, 2 and 3 I mentioned above, I think. When I fail to respond to this in the way you expect, are you going to erupt (once more) with hostility and resentment? maybe start a new thread about banning me? You are incredibly predictable, Mathsci: That would be normally be OK, except I think you've swallowed your own line of self-serving patter whole hog. Your earnestness spoils what might otherwise be tolerable.

Understand why I am calling you out on all this. It would be nice if you saw the problem in your own behavior and took steps to amend it, but all things considered I think that is unlikely. With that in mind, I want to make it very clear to everyone reading this thread the narrow-minded, grossly political nature of your perennial strategy. You try to settle content disputes by stereotyping and marginalizing your opponents, and then by abusing and trying to corrupting policy and administrative practices to get your opponents in trouble (or at least frighten them into submission). As you yourself admit, you have hardly touched the article at all, yet you are still here on ANI trying to slander your way to a content victory. In truth, I'm no longer sure if you have any other tools in your editing toolshed, aside from slander, insults, and strident pleas to admins that they strike down your foes (yeah, I recognize the implicit, almost religious appeal to authority that runs through all your arguments, even if you don't - I have no doubt you'd sacrifice a ram to Jimbo Wales if you thought it would get Occam blocked). It's unconscionable, and I want everyone to see it for what it is. Are we on the same page now? --Ludwigs2 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not try to improve this [22] instead of writing rants? Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to personal comments (point 1) - well, at least you're mixing up the order. Thanks, but my user contributions are just fine; this isn't a competition. And frankly, I'd get a lot more productive work done if I didn't have to deal with editors (such as yourself) who throw hysterical tantrums whenever I make an edit to a controversial article. That's happened to me at least four times in the last few months, though you've only figured prominently in the R&I thing.

I like editing off-beat articles, Mathsci. I understand the scientific perspective - there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them - and I have a good grasp of the fringe side as well. That puts me in a position where I can flesh out nice, neutral articles on crazy ideas. or at least I could, except for people like you who raise holy terror whenever I try. Why should I have to fight off endless personal attacks, mindless reverts, and vacuous ANI proceedings just to make a couple of edits to a fringe page? and yet, that is consistently what happens. I swear, if I could get a short list of people (including yourself) topic-banned from fringe articles for 6 months, I could vastly improve a whole ream of articles quickly and efficiently, without any of this stupid drama. Since that's unlikely to happen, I'll take the other route: I am simply going to continue shoving your nose in your own bad behavior until you can't stand the stench of it anymore. The only question in my mind is how long it will be before you learn. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve admitted before that I used to have a problem with edit warring, not just for race and intelligence but at Wikipedia in general, because I was relatively new to it and didn’t yet have a good understanding of what sort of behavior was acceptable under what circumstances. If the example during which I was reverted by ten other users is the same one I’m thinking of, it was around a year ago when I’d only been consistently active here for a few months. During the time since I’ve begun participating actively, I think this problem of mine has incrementally improved, so that the more recent examples such as the one in January haven’t been as clear-cut as this. And I think that even since January I’ve gotten better at knowing how to avoid this problem. It’s now been around three months since I’ve violated any rules here, either against edit warring or anything else.

“I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours.”

What are you talking about? You’re just making this up. Before the current thread, there have been five recent threads at AN/I about this article, and the only one that focused on me was the one in January about me edit warring. The other four— this, this, this and this—either started out as conflicts between you, Ludwig and Mathsci or were hijacked by Mathsci in order to turn into that. I got involved in some of them, either by commenting or because other users brought up the fact that I’d edit warred on this article in the past, but there’s no standard by which I’ve been the subject of more recent conflict over this article here than Ludwig and Mathsci have.

This isn’t reasonable. You’ve said in your first comment here that you’re a priori decided against me in this thread, based not on anything to do with the conduct in question but just based on my reputation. And now, you’re pushing for me to be blocked based on this attitude, and misstating the recent history of this article here in support of that. Could this issue please have the attention of someone who will judge it based on the particulars of the conduct in question, and the evidence that’s being linked to, rather than the reputations of the users involved? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for an AN/I complaint with those diffs, I dislike diffs personally as they tend to obscure what has gone one before. Looking at the preceeding edits I very much get the impression that they're intemperate comments forthcoming after a lot of provocation. Certainly not grounds for action against that user. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to offer my support of Occam. In my opinion he's a neutral and talented editor. I'm amazed that this witchhunt is going on for no apparent policy breach on his part. The thread was originally about the incivility of Slrubenstein, which I can confirm. Mathsci appears to derail these valid ANI threads with impunity. I am disturbed and curious. mikemikev (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Support proposal that further investigation and possible topic bans are required. From my reading of that talk page there does appear to be a tendency to bully/tire out editors leading to intemperate comments that are then used to call for sanctions against them. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I oppose witch hunts on Wikipedia, but I think all those criticised should take advantage of this opportunity to ponder the criticism given to them. It is not given out of spite, and as people can't see their own faults, this is a rare chance to see themselves as others see them, caricatured by the filter of their Wikipedia edits. Take active steps to change your behaviour even more than you already have. I'd like to see all the criticised people make one commitment to move forward to make things work better in future. And those who feel the temptation to WP:OWN this article should consider even more keenly the idea of enjoying new pastures for a couple of weeks. You may lose the battle, but you'll win the war - hopefully, being older and wiser, all on the same side by then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Stephen - you forgot the link to the dramatic, uplifting music... --Ludwigs2 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL - luckily I don't need links to hear music :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this suggestion. Given the comments here thus far, I doubt there will be a consensus for any action to be taken against me, Slrubenstein or Mathsci. I still hope that some good will come of this thread, though, in that having the problems with our behavior pointed out by users who are uninvolved in the debates over these articles might make us more aware of what we should change about it.

In my own case, the two main criticisms that were raised are my past history of edit warring and the fact that I participate in such a narrow range of articles. In the first case, I’m well aware that I used to have this problem, and I’ve already been making an effort to remedy it. As for being an SPA, I never intended for race-related articles to be the only ones that I edit, but the debates over these articles have been so involved and time-consuming that they’ve tended to suck up just about 100% of the time and energy that I’m willing to devote to Wikipedia. I’m not sure what can be done to remedy this part of the problem, but once the race and intelligence article has been stabilized I definitely intend to make an effort to edit articles about a wider range of topics.

I think it would be beneficial if the other users being criticized here could also mention whether they’ve learned anything from this thread about their own behavior, and what they think it might be appropriate to change about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I joined this article relatively recently, but I wouldn't say that you in any way stood out as a particular problem editor, so your improvements must be working! Another advantage of editing additional non-contentious articles is it give you an opportunity to unwind, make new friends and learn interesting things about stuff you never knew you were interested in. (Of course, this applies to all editors.) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I mostly sympathize with the ban supporters at this point. It's clear looking at Captain Occam's user page and his off-wiki site that it links to, and his participation on-wiki (such as here), that he has far too much appetite for advocacy and debate than is really desirable for our style of neutral editing, and that he engages in a lot of gaming and wikilawyering. The goal here is to write exposition, not to debate (see also: Writing for the opponent). Intervention (such as topic bans) in situations like this is often necessary, to prevent the debaters from burning out the expositors. The essay Civil POV pushing also describes the problem. I'm not exactly buddies with Mathsci but I'm an admirer of his mathematical writing and I consider him to be one of the better expositors on Wikipedia, so I don't want him to burn out. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A very nice, helpful Editor left me a comment, not too long ago. It seems fitting here:

Tea is good. Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Captain Occam is over-invested in issues of race, intelligence and crime with one particular point of view. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Some time away from his preferred stomping grounds would be a good indication of why this editor is here, and might also be helpful in providing some experience in editing in a non-contentious situation. Is he here to help build an encyclopedia or is he here to push a point of view? It rather looks like the latter, but a topic ban would provide more evidence one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure if this is relevant, but a topic ban under these circumstances would probably make me frustrated enough with Wikipedia in general that I doubt I’d want to keep participating here. This has nothing to do with what articles I do and don’t care about; all it has to do with is the fact that I’m not violating any policies here, and haven’t for the past three months. The argument for what’s problematic about my participation here seems entirely based on the fact that I edit a narrow range of articles, and have an unpopular opinion.

Of course I have an opinion—so does everybody. But what should matter in cases like this is that my actual goal here is to improve articles here in a neutral fashion, rather than to just introduce my bias into them, and I think my participation has been consistent with that goal. RegentsPark mentioned race and crime in the United States as one article here I’ve been involved in, and it’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Before I became involved in this article, it didn’t exist at all, but instead redirected to anthropological criminology. But as a result of my and Varoon Arya’s involvement in it, it’s now a stable, well-sourced, and (as far as we can tell) neutral explanation of this topic that’s covered by courses taught in several universities.

If this sort of participation is not only considered POV-pushing, but is actually considered sufficient to warrant a topical ban, all I can say is that this site has problems that run far deeper than poor writing in any particular article or articles. I have serious doubts about whether I’d be able to remain motivated to continue contributing to an encyclopedia where these sorts of good-faith efforts to improve a narrow range of articles are considered worthy of a ban. If the rest of you end up interpreting my giving for up this reason as meaning the only thing I ever cared about is introducing my bias into these articles, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that—you’d be wrong, but it would only be another example of my reason for feeling like the situation is hopeless. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

SO what you're saying is that either you're allowed to keep pressing for your POV in the single subject area that has been pretty much your sole focus since arrival, or you leave? Do you see how that looks? Guy (Help!) 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is long. I'm an outsider with no interest in joining the wiki community (though so far I am impressed by all the time you guys put into it, and the good work that results). I was asked to give perspective to this topic as I have a few publications on IQ and one specifically on race and IQ.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more sensitive topic than this. Just mentioning the issue usually creates considerable tension. Trying to team-write an article on this, I figured, would be impossible.

I have though been quite impressed with the progress this article has made since I started (I guess late Feb?). I have not seen any site anywhere (in about 20 years of internet debate-- off and on-- on this topic) where a more balanced presentation of the issues are offered. That's a nice compliment.

I would like to express my support for Captain Occam. He's obviously interested in the topic, but I haven't seen anything-- even the above comments-- that suggest he should be banned from contributing here. As just one example, I thought the early history section was much much more neutral than the one mathsci produced. That's just my opinion.

I don't know how you police yourself, but banning any regular contributor to this topic -- now -- seems very extreme. May I propose that the rules of civility be underscored here and there again, and that further breaches would be punished. That levels the playing field for all, and lets all sides no that any further bickering will be punished. That might also save you from a long he-said/she-said thread of allegations from both sides.

So, my suggestion is to underscore the rules and then enforce them for all contributors there from here on.

Thoughts? -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, this is one SPA supporting another SPA? Bpesta22's edits are all connected to "Race and intelligence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to the SPA, new users often start editing on Wikipedia in a topic they are familiar with. It's not until they reach a forum such as this that wider editing norms are pointed out, and a month is not an unreasonable time to come across something like this given that they are a SPA and so, by definition, will have limited experience of the wiki as a whole. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed your comments on the talk page show expert knowledge. It would be nice if you could hang around there a bit longer. You could also check WP:COI if you haven't already. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How hard is it to change oneself? Pretty hard, in fact. But now consider how hard is it to change someone else, particularly when you have only wiki text to communicate. Much harder! So I suggest that to improve interaction here, editors should be looking for changes in the way they themselves work here. If people can't change themselves out of a conflict situation, some sort of arbitrary ban is inevitable, if only to fix the time-wasting symptoms of the conflict. So as we all agree with User:Beyond My Ken that the objective here is to make an encyclopaedia (actually the best one ever), and to build it eventually - everyone might like to consider any action they can take to ensure the quality and longevity of the edits to the articles. I also think editors and administrators have a responsibility to work for the enjoyment of other volunteers. They may be imperfect, but they're all we've got! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban This is absurd. No diffs have been presented. You can't be banned for editing a small range of articles. End of story. Bring the evidence before the discussion starts. I will note that I looked through diffs presented by Mathsci, and they all look like this - Occam asking Ludwigs for help. That's it. Otherwise it's all rhetoric, which is really hot air. I will note that I am slightly involved in race and intelligence, but I've only added a ref to a study which found black IQs higher than whites [23]. II | (t - c) 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment These were requests by Captain Occam suggesting that link-minded editors become active a new article I had created: that's why there were included. Although several uninvolved administrators have already commented, it could be that it's worth examining his editing of race related articles in greater detail. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was under the impression that witch hunting season was over with. Guess not. This thread is nothing more than a complete waste of space. Caden ^cool 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• Just trying to clarify people's positions here based on their comments, seeing it's been over 24 hours since the discussion began.
  • Wehwalt, GWH, John, StephenSB, Justin, mikemikev, ImperfectlyInformed appear to think a topic ban is a premature response and have given other feedback.
  • 2/0, Dougweller, JzG, RegentsPark, Beyond My Ken appear to think a topic ban is warranted/needed.
• I'm not convinced that there is anything remotely resembling a consensus to restrict due to an insufficient amount of evidence for the various claims that have been tossed around, be it regarding the subject, Mathsci, Ludwig2, or anyone else. This is what usually happens when you make proposals without It's also hard to supply the necessary evidence if you're both a party to an article (i.e. directly involved in the content conflict) while trying to establish order as a third party at the same time.
• Personally, I'd be all up for imposing measures on tendentious editing, but I cannot ignore the fact that it is not clear whether the problems being alleged are actually occurring. I too would suggest that the parties use RfC - an article RfC might be all that's needed to get some fresh perspective from users who aren't in any way involved with the topic or users involved. If all else fails, I'd suggest RfC/U, though I don't think it'd be necessary to go to that point in order to clearly establish the source of the problems for the benefit of the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, your summary is helpful. I notice that some of those who haven't called for a topic ban have still indicated that there are enough apparent conduct issues to warrant further investigation. Also, I think Guy's proposal was to ban all SPA's from the topic along the lines of the SPA remedy from the Scientology arbitration.[24][25]. That remedy calls for a lower standard of evidence (judgement of an uninvolved admin that the SPA was promoting an agenda) than would be needed against a non-SPA editor in good standing, so additional diffs wouldn't be needed under that approach. I don't think an article RFC is likely to help at this point, given the article's voluminous talk archive, the many previous mediations and ANI threads, etc. If this thread doesn't reach some kind of consensus and the parties want to proceed to a more formal stage, RFCU is probably the next stop, where evidence would be presented more carefully, and this thread would serve as a prior attempt at DR before proceeding to it. Those processes are a huge hassle so it's preferable to reach a conclusion earlier when possible.

Issues related to Captain Occam (per several uninvolved editors) and those related to Mathsci (mostly per Ludwig) are basically separate, and one possible conclusion might be that both should edit other subjects for a while. I do find Mathsci's approach to DR to be weird sometimes, and I could never understand why he'd get involved in a rathole like R&I. On the other hand, Captain Occam indicated a desire to switch to other topics and stop being an SPA sometime in the future. The obvious question is, why wait? The best approach to wiki conflict is often to walk away. One plea to Captain Occam: if you do this, it's best to choose a new subject that's not a perennial battleground. Anything having to do with religion or human evolution (subjects mentioned on your user page) probably would be poor choices. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, I have almost 7,500 content edits on wikipedia - 71 are to Race and intelligence. But, yes I actually agree with you (whoever you are), I have consciously stayed away from fringe articles except for commenting on sources. After this experiment - drafting a neutral lede and a new history section from scratch using mainstream sources - I have no intention of editing the main article again. From my background as an academic, I find it very hard to make any sense of either the current article as an encyclopedia article or of the bizarre way it's being edited. History of the race and intelligence controversy was a spin-off article based on material prepared on the mediation pages and created on the suggestion of another academic editor Slrubenstein, It was written in the standard way I write wikipedia articles (find good sources, write summary). As far as I'm aware, I am not a single purpose account nor have I attempted to push any point of view. Any initiative concerning me should come from uninvolved editors and administrators, not users like Ludwigs2 and Captain Occam with vested interests. Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification--I did not remotely mean to imply that Mathsci is an SPA. Mathsci is a very good contributor to multiple subjects that are generally much more reputable than the one currently under dispute. I merely expressed puzzlement at why a good editor like Mathsci chose to get involved in a crappy subject like R&I. But that's his prerogative.

I'm not in a position to assess the conflict between Mathsci and Ludwig, or whether Ludwig has a vested interest. I don't think it's very relevant to this ANI anyway. It may have to be examined in more advanced DR if that occurs. I do think Ludwig's complaints have a shade of legitimacy even if they're basically overblown, so Mathsci should take them under advisement. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If it matters, David.Kane, Ludwigs2 and Bpesta22 have all expressed opposition to a topic ban also. (For me at least, although it’s possible that Ludwigs2 supports one for Mathsci.)

With your regard to your question about why I’m currently just focusing on race and intelligence, I think I answered that earlier. Even though I’d like to be editing a wider range of articles, I also still care about race and intelligence and similar articles being improved, and the way it’s been for most of the past year is that keeping pace with the various disputes over these articles has required pretty much the maximum of what I’m capable of. I have a lot of respect for editors such as Varoon Arya (whom I wish would comment in this thread) who are able to keep up with these disputes while simultaneously making useful contributions to unrelated articles, but I just don’t think I have that kind of energy. Everyone has different limitations. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to point fingers at any particular user, it seems to me as an outside observer that the articles are being held hostage by a group of editors with a particular POV in common. They are either consciously or subconsciously rejecting alternative POV they disagree with and that is disruptive and contrary to our policies. This is an example of a form of disruptive editing that wikipedia finds hard to deal with and also respected wikipedians who find the experienve tremendously frustrating in trying to keep our policies of WP:NPOV to the fore front. I believe that was the cause of the intemperate remarks alluded to above; although borderline most don't violate WP:CIVIL. If I may suggest that the editors involved cannot resolve their differences, then they should voluntarily recuse themselves for a period, disengage and allow fresh editors to work on the articles unencumbered by the baggage that surrounds it. All appear to have wider interests and focusing energies elsewhere could well be more productive use of their time. If they can't agree to do that, then perhaps the community should be considering an imposed topic ban. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Justin's analogy of the article being held hostage. I will make no comments on the proposed topic ban, but I have raised concerns about the article on the mediation page here [26]. In summary, the interest or even obsession that some editors have with this subject has become unproductive. After 6 months of mediation, countless talk page threads, over 74 archives, edit warring is still ongoing. Little is being gained and time and effort is being wasted. I would definitely recommend some action that will force editors to take a break from editing the article. Unless a paradigm shifting scientific breakthrough occurs, there is nothing that urgently needs to be edited into the article. Maybe a longer term protection or article probation would help stabilize the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s possible for someone who isn’t closely familiar with this article or its subject matter to accurately judge whether the majority of the users involved in it are “holding it hostage”, or whether most of us are complying with NPOV policy and it’s users such as Mathsci and Wapondaponda who are pushing their POV there. The reason I say this is because race and intelligence is a topic that is portrayed very differently among academics in peer-reviewed journals from how it is in the popular press. (And there have been studies that specifically documented this fact, such as the Snyderman and Rothman Study.) The only other topic I can think of where this is true to a similar degree is Intelligent Design, which has a lot of popular support but is rejected by at least 95% of scientists who publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. In the case of the relationship between race and intelligence, it’s the opposite of this: the popular press almost universally rejects such a connection, but anyone who reads peer-reviewed psychology journals such as Intelligence or Personality and Individual Differences will see not only that the existence of a difference in average IQ between races accepted by the majority of experts in this field, but also that there’s also an active debate about what’s causing it.

For this reason, anyone who reads only the popular literature about this topic and none of the academic literature is unlikely to have an accurate idea of what is and isn’t NPOV for this article. One thing that I consider a good indicator of it, though, is the fact that a few of the users that Mathsci has been accusing of POV-pushing (such as Ludwigs2) have made it clear that they actually hold the same opinions about this topic that Mathsci does, and oppose his edits only out of concern for NPOV policy. If it’s the majority of editors involved in this article who are the POV-pushers, rather than the minority of editors such as Mathsci and Wapondaponda, some of us would have to be pushing a POV that’s the opposite of what we actually believe. That doesn’t happen very often, does it? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you're an expert and everybody else should therefore defer to you. You are this: wrong. Wikipedia does not work that way. The best way to deal with endless disputes is, historically, to topic ban those who are unable to accept anybody else's POV; such people quite often do consider themselves to be experts and sometimes they even are, but that does not mean they necessarily have a neutral view of the topic. The involvement of obsessive single purpose accounts almost always means either constant problems or (if they succeed in their usual aim of driving off everyone who disagrees) a gross failure of policy. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what he was saying at all. Are you an admin? mikemikev (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes, so I won't argue about which side is right or wrong. My specific concern is that current obsessive interest in the article is now unproductive. A lot of effort is going in, including 6 months of mediation (even during part of the festive season) , but we are not getting the equivalent in output. Currently the article is protected due to edit warring. Wouldn't our efforts be better placed contributing to other subjects or articles.

I do feel that the article is being held hostage. Captain Occam frequently makes controversial edits while claiming that there is a consensus for these edits, but he never consults editors who he knows fully well will disagree with his edits. In short, Captain Occam appears to sometimes feign consensus or exaggerates that amount of support for his proposals. I have specifically informed Captain Occam that such tactics are problematic, see this thread for one such discussion. Captain Occam has a very aggressive editing style and will exploit any technicality or opportunity to include his preferred material. Take a break from Wikipedia for a day or two, and you'll find that there was a "consensus" in your absence. Overall, I would say Captain Occam has contributed to an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety over the controversy and the whole experience has been quite stressful. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, tough one. Anyone round here know if I'm an admin? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you? mikemikev (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is. –Turian (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One technique I find useful if things risk getting heated is to restrict my edits to the talk page. People would usually rather explain themselves rather than risk a revert war if they have a valid reason, particularly if you haven't annoyed them first by reverting their edit. And if you are right, people will back you. Here's an example:[27]. So if Captain Occam is editing with consensus on the Talk pages, then leaving other editors to actually make the edits will give equivalent results. If Captain Occam really believes this, he can make everyone happy by a voluntary cessation or slow down in article edits, and we can all go home. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, I do what you’re suggesting quite often. If you look at the revision history for the race and intelligence article, you’ll see that very few of the recent edits there are from me, and most of them that are from me are fairly minor. Leaving it up to other editors to make significant changes apparently isn’t enough to stop certain people from accusing me of POV-pushing, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have clearly moved a long way. But that doesn't mean there isn't further to go. Unfortunately you now appear to be in a catastrophe theory situation: some people have flipped out of WP:AGF with you, and you have to go much further to change your reputation with them than if you had never gained it. It's not fair, it's human nature. And as you know, it's easier to change yourself than the others here, so it's down to you! (That applies to everyone, but as no one else is going to change enough, it's still down to you!) Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s likely that I’d be able to do anything to get Mathsci to assume good faith about me. The reason I say that is because I’ve seen how he interacts with other users who disagree with him, and all it really takes to get him to start threatening anyone with bans / blocks—or get him to make complaints about the person here at AN/I—is for them to interfere with him getting his way about one of these articles. It doesn’t have to involve actually editing the articles; it didn’t in Ludwigs2’s case. I think Ludwig can confirm that what I’m saying is right, if you need someone else to verify it, since he’s had to deal with a lot more of this than I have. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

Mediation has gone past the self-imposed deadline imposed by the mediator, and long past the point at which several present and former participants wrote it off. The dispute shows no signs of dying down, the next step should probably be arbitration. I don't think we can fix this any other way (unless we start banning people, which does not appear to have consensus). Guy (Help!) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for this article closed around a week ago because we’d resolved everything that we needed to resolve in it. At least 80% of the twelve users who’ve lately been involved in the article now agree that the direction it’s taking is consistent with NPOV policy. (I can list who they are, if that matters; not all of them have been posting in this thread.) A few of them initially weren’t able to agree with the rest of us about this, but as a result of the mediation we’ve been able to reach a compromise.

I completely oppose arbitration for this article. We’ve successfully used another dispute resolution process—mediation—to resolve the disagreements between everyone involved in this article except for a couple of users who are making a lot of noise. (Mainly Mathsci, although Wapondaponda is guilty of this a little also.) Arbitration would only be a waste of even more time than has already been wasted by these users’ forum shopping in an effort to change what consensus has already decided. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment To be blunt, I don't see either Mathsci or Wapondaponda as the issue here, the issue is one of WP:CPUSH, where certain editors are pushing a POV but their conduct whilst disruptive isn't violating policies such as WP:CIVIL. It is also giving undue prominence to fringe or peripheral issues. If users aren't prepared to recuse themselves voluntarily then arbitration or an imposed topic ban is indeed the next stage. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin, are you going to address what I said above? I don’t think users such as you and Guy, who aren’t familiar with the academic literature about this topic, are in a position to judge whether or not this issue is WP:FRINGE. (The consensus we reached in mediation, among people who follow this topic regardless of their position about it, is that it isn’t.)

What you’re raising here are primarily content concerns about the article, since they obviously wouldn’t be an issue if the consensus among users involved in the article were correct. But rather than raising these concerns on the article talk page, where we could discuss whether or not your interpretation of NPOV policy for this article is right and the consensus is wrong, you’re framing your problem as a user conduct complaint and complaining about it at AN/I. And your user conduct complaint is based on the a priori assumption that the consensus is wrong, even though you aren’t willing to discuss on the article talk page whether it is or not, and as a result probably don’t have enough familiarity with the debate over this topic to be able to accurately judge this. Do you see the problem here?

And if you don’t, does anyone else? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Raises hand. Yes, and it would be a very good idea for Captain Occam to (a) branch out to editing a wider range of topics, plus (b) try thethree week rule. This type of stalemate has occurred many times at Wikipedia over the years (different topics, different editors, same dynamic). Successful dispute resolution and successful editor development have a lot to do with stepping back, changing gears, and accepting feedback. Durova⁴¹² 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "if you were an expert like me you'd see I'm not the problem". This is Wikipedia, people don't have to be experts, you are the problem. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think RFCU would allow for more formal evidence presentation than has occurred in this ANI. That might be enough to reach more decisive conclusions than the ANI has been able to. A number of the ANI participants have correctly observed that substantial factual issues are still in doubt. That can only be resolved by a lot of tedious diff-gathering that ANI isn't such a good venue for. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A look at the warring in the various R&I articles leads to despair: from phrenology in the past to attempts in recent decades to use IQ tests to show "facts" they cannot, there have always been plenty of people wanting to conclude that blacks are dumber than whites (I believe that is the core of the current dispute). I doubt very much if arbcom will get involved because this is a content dispute concerning alleged POV and my sources trump your sources issues. I have no idea how Wikipedia can handle this, but due to its enormous volume, it is not feasible for an outsider to look at the edit histories and discussions and get any real idea of what is going on because each side makes some good edits (and plenty of edits that an outsider would find very hard to judge), and both sides are experienced and know not to breach WP:CIVIL. Would experienced Wikipedians please suggest some way to proceed (each side make an evidence subpage showing why their POV should prevail? each side make a draft of each article as they would like to see it, with an explanation from the other side why it not suitable? then an RFC?). Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam's exaggeration of consensus continues. If there is a consensus as Occam suggests why has edit warring persisted after the mediation. The article was protected until yesterday (17th June 2010). But within less than 24 hours, edit warring has continued, and Captain Occam is involved. Considering what has been discussed in this thread, it seems that Captain Occam has not taken the comments from these threads seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

“If there is a consensus as Occam suggests why has edit warring persisted after the mediation. The article was protected until yesterday (17th June 2010). But within less than 24 hours, edit warring has continued, and Captain Occam is involved.”

If you’ve been reading the talk page for the article, especially this section of it, it shouldn’t be so difficult for you to figure out what’s going on here. Mustihussain added some detailed criticisms of Richard Lynn to the “test scores” section, which until now that had been just discussing the general IQ test score results, without getting into details about specific researchers. (That part comes much later in the article.) Since I disagreed with these edits, I explained in the linked section of the talk page why I thought they were a bad idea, and nobody tried to argue with me about this. Two other users have also agreed there that these edits don’t belong in the article, and nobody has attempted to argue with any of us about it. Since nobody is attempting to justify these edits, even when we’re explaining on the talk page why we disapprove of them and are making a specific effort to discuss them, it shouldn’t be a problem for us to revert them, right? You’d think so, except that the users who approve of these edits (Mustihussain and Mathsci) are continuing to just reinstate the edits whenever they’re reverted, while refusing to cooperate with our efforts to discuss them.

At least 75% of the edit warring that happens to this article is in situations that are virtually identical to this. One group of people is carefully explaining why they disagree with an edit or edits, and another one or two users is refusing to participate in the discussion about their edits, and is just continuing to reinstate them regardless of what anyone has to say about them. If you look at the revision history of either race and intelligence or history of the race and intelligence controversy, you’ll notice that I’ve always been in the former group (as I am in this case), and Mathsci has nearly always been one of the users who’s continuing to revert the article while refusing to cooperate with other users’ efforts to discuss his edits with him. This is one of Mathsci’s signature patterns of behavior for both articles; I can provide diffs of earlier examples of this if anyone needs them.

It’s a maddeningly effective tactic, which must be why Mathsci uses it so consistently. Since it completely contravenes the idea of seeking consensus or compromise, it means that neither Wikipedia policy nor community consensus can make any difference in whether he gets his way with an article. For people in my situation, who are trying to discuss his edits with him and getting ignored, there are only two options: we can either let him make whatever edits he wants without ever discussing them, or we can revert his edits once we’ve made an effort to discuss them and he’s made it’s clear that he has no interest in participating in such a discussion, which results in us being accused of edit warring like you’re doing in this case.

Really, if you have any suggestion about how to better handle this situation, I would appreciate it. This applies both to you, Muntuwandi, and to everyone else who’s reading this thread. Allowing him to always make whatever edits he wants without any discussion, regardless of consensus or Wikipedia policy, obviously shouldn’t be an option here. Reverting his edits and risking an edit war is only marginally better, but are there any other options? This is the administrators’ noticeboard, so it’s probably as good a place to ask about this as any. I discussed this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior with Ludwig a few weeks ago, and he suggested that I should bring it up here if it continues, so here we are: and advice or help would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's just Mathsci you're having trouble with, how would you feel about both of you taking a voluntary break from the topic? 66.127.54.238 (talk) (new address, was 66.127.52.47) 08:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has been causing more of the problem I described than all other users combined, but it’s probably inaccurate to say that he’s the only user I’m having this problem with. As I mentioned in my last post, Mustihussain is currently doing it a little also, and there are also other users who have done it in the past but aren’t currently involved in the article.

Even if Mathsci really were the only one, though, there’s another reason I’m reluctant to take a break from this topic right now. During the mediation case, we reached consensus about a certain number of changes that were going to be made to the article, and at this point only around three-quarters of them have been implemented. David.Kane is currently working on implementing another of them, and in doing so is relying a lot on input from other users, myself included. When he’s finished with this, I imagine that we’ll be doing likewise for the rest of the changes that we decided on during mediation. There aren’t all that many people currently involved in the article who were also there during the entire mediation case, so I think it’s important for those of us that were to stick around and help keep the article on track during this process. Once this is finished, and all we’re dealing with are these sorts of haphazard additions like what Mathsci and Mustihussain are trying to put into the article, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with taking a break from it if Mathsci agrees to also. But we’re not at that point quite yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, you seem to always believe that there is a consensus when you and a few editors in your "camp" come to an agreement. In such a dispute, a consensus will exists when editors who have previously disagreed have reached a compromise. So do not exclude editors who disagree with you from your consensus. You seem to think that Mathsci or Mustihussain should be brushed aside. This is precisely why Justin argued that a few editors are holding the article hostage.

I have a suggestion, which I have mentioned before. Identify a stable pre-mediation version, protect it for six months and we can all have a much needed break. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. This has nothing to do with what the consensus is, and nobody’s being “brushed aside”. (Except possibly the people who want to discuss revisions being made to the article.) All this has to do with is following WP:BRD, which states that one person reverts another’s edit, both parties should discuss it and seek an agreement. What we have here is one user (Mathsci) who is reverting, but refusing to participate in the “discuss” portion of bold-revert-discuss, no matter how much other users try to get him to do so. Is that problem difficult to understand?

Reverting to the pre-mediation version is not going to solve this, and when you’ve suggested this on the talk page before now, almost everyone disagreed with you about it. Despite the disputes that are going on over minor aspects of the article, at this point around 90% of it is not under dispute, except possibly by you and Mathsci. In order to find a version of the article from before mediation that’s more stable than this, we’d have to look back at least three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If the only stuff under dispute right now is "minor aspects" as you say, that sounds like it's time to call it an article. Proposal: Protect article for 6 months on the version current as of this timestamp: 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (roll back any subsequent edits). I haven't looked at the article in months so I have no idea whose disputed edits are in the current version, so that's as random a place as any to freeze it. All disputing parties should switch to unrelated topics, not other articles in the same topic. Captain Occam cautioned against tendentious and battleground editing, Mathsci possibly the same. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a chronic problem. Because the subject is highly controversial, there is no permanent solution. Chronic problems cannot be "cured" but they can be managed. Many of the editors who have been sucked into this dispute are not WP:SPAs, but they are now devoting a significant amount of time and effort to this controversy. Protecting the article for a period of time will simply give editors the time to refocus their energies elsewhere and actually participate in improving the overall quality of this encyclopedia, rather than focusing on just one article. My preference would be a stable pre-mediation version because this was before the current flare-up. But I would leave that up to uninvolved administrators. At this point the most important thing is that many editors need to take break. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, Captain Occam has said this current version (let's say that means the one current as of my timestamp above, more precisely 2010-04-18T10:05:03Z) is the most stable. Does that work for you? It sounds like you're ok with it too. Mathsci has said "I have no intention of editing the main article again."[28]. Unless someone else says there are major problems, let's freeze it. I haven't heard anyone saying earlier in the thread that the article is getting worse, so using the current version sounds plausible to me. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have a preference against it being locked. Even though I do think the current version of the article is more stable than any version that’s existed since 2007, we’re also still in the process of implementing some of the changes to it that we agreed on during mediation. In other words, it’s in the process of becoming even more stable than it is currently, although rather slowly.

I think it would be unfortunate if we were unable to complete this process for another several months. By that point, most of the users who were involved in the mediation may have abandoned the article, in which case implementing the rest of these improvements might not be possible at all. However, if there’s a strong consensus for locking the article, I guess I’ll accept the majority decision about this.

Isn’t there any better way than this to solve the problem of a couple of users who keep reverting the article while refusing to discuss their edits? Locking the entire article for several months because of something like this really seems like overkill. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As four uninvolved administrators have already mentioned, topic banning editors who have been blocked several times for edit warring on the article might help. [29] Editors who continue to invite like-minded editors to assist them in POV-pushing [30][31] should probably also have their editing privileges restricted for continued disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What POV is everyone except you pushing Mathsci? It's a pretty extra-ordinary claim. Isn't it more likely that you are pushing a Marxist POV, and everyone else is neutral? mikemikev (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Multi-day section-editing only

I am too involved with this debate to be objective and too inexperienced an editor to be knowledgeable, but MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have all, once or twice, said something nice about me, so maybe this gives me credibility. ;-) I hate to see anyone banned and, although this article is a war-zone, it has been a productive war zone over the last 6 months. I think most everyone agrees that the article we have now is better than the one that we had in November. (Whether the amount of time/energy invested is worth that progress is debatable.)

Anyway, it seems clear that the worst editing/edit-warring occurs when editors just add a sentence or two (however well-sourced and WP:NPOV) and then other editors delete that sentence with not unreasonable complaints about WP:UNDUE or other issues. Then the fight begins. The best editing occurs when someone takes an entire section, redrafts it from start to finish, solicits comments from all concerned, incorporates those comments and then iterates. MathSci did a wonderful job of this in fixing (dramatically) the History section and I am doing the same in redoing the Assumptions section. So, dramatic progress on the article is possible. Suggestion: Instead of protecting the entire page (which prevents improvement) why not enforce this procedure on the entire article? We may not edit the article directly. We must take an entire section, redo it (including seeking new/better sources), solicit comments on the talk page, incorporate those comments, and, only then, place the new section in the article. Highlights:

• This allows good progress to be made, as MathSci did with history, while preventing the vast majority of pointless edit warring.
• This would be easy to enforce. Just place the policy at the top of the talk page. If anyone edited the article without going through this process, one of the editors involved would simply revert it. (And, believe me, there are a lot of editors on this article who are good a reverting!)
• This would discourage drive-by editors who just want to add their two cents without taking the time and effort to seek consensus.
• This would encourage good editors, like MathSci, who honestly want to see the article get better and who are willingly to put in a lot of time and energy to do so.

Again, I am involved in this dispute and inexperienced (a dangerous combination!), so feel free to ignore. But, at the same time, I have dived into the topic and recently purchased several books precisely so I could provide better sourcing. Give the committed editors --- meaning those willing to fix entire sections and seriously incorporate comments --- a chance and let us show you what we can do. David.Kane (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These seem like very good ideas from David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem one could combine this idea with the notion of protection. Lock the article, agree the entire content of a section on the talkpage, then one of the admins (doesn't have to be uninvolved, provided there's good faith on all sides) can unblock to load up the new text.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais

User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [32] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU after another bout of incivility during which he and an IP sock of a banned user "brainstormed" on how to get me blocked from editing enWiki. The user at that time characterized me as a "propagandist" and my behavior as "abnormal" further insulting my mental health by calling me a "very ill and frustrated person". [33]

This trend continued. He was soon back in full form and, regardless of the warning, continued to insult others as well as myself:

• he stated that I "shit out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [34] (This was due to my sincere attempt to point out aspects of WP:V to the fellow, while he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal".)
• he continued to insinuate that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" on several occasions [35][36]
• he insulted my origins by calling me an "imbecile" and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [37]

He was blocked for a week after this by Black Kite, apologizing in his attempt to get unblocked, and claiming this is the last we've seen of this behavior.

• pretty soon I was being called "simple" [38] and unfit to edit articles due to my Croatian ethnicity ("Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history"). Further insinuating that I supporting Nazism in the article by "nazifying" people. [39] User:FkpCascais had voiced prejudice against Croats on previous occasions as well, demanding, among others things, that all publications by a Standford U professor be disregarded as the author might be of Croatian ancestry. [40]
• User:AlasdairGreen27 and I were called "terrorists" [41] as part of a tirade during which he insulted and ridiculed both users.
• In accordance with his previously stated intent ("The most important is to gather all the problems he already had and present it to some admin") [42], he filed two reports against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself, attempting to get us both blocked and out of the way with obviously falsified and distorted claims (virtually no diffs, just cleverly written emotional text). [43]
• Finally, the user has just recently insulted my intelligence yet again by insinuating that my "IQ is minor" and that I "simply don't understand when something is repeated many times to you". [44]

This, I must stress, is the brief account. To be frank, I am honestly sickened by this constant abuse being leveled at others and me during the course of ordinary discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just a response to a ANI report that I have made related to this same discussion. [45] just earlier.

@direktor: You can´t have me blocked for something I have said to you in quite some time now, and for what I have already been blocked. You can´t repeat reports!. Regarding your Croat ethnicity, I am just saying that you (an assumed Titoist and a Croatian) may not be the most NPOV person to find yourself owner of the trouth regarding a monarchic Serbian movement (quite logic, since they fought both, Tito and Croatia, and your repeated accusations towards me that I am a "Serbian nationalist" are much more offensive, since I am only partially Serbian, and much less can I be considered "Serbian nationalist"). I have Croatian wikipedians that in case of need may confirm my excellent relationship and total abscence of any nationalistic feelings not only against Croatia, but any nationality. I am quite a "non-national" or "world" person. Hey, I have Croatian friends, an ex-girlfriend and a house in Croatia (well not me, the house is of my family, we all use it, on the Adriatic coast).

I didn´t called no one terrorist. You insulted me on that ocasion insinuating that I am "paranoid" and that I have "the powers against me", to what I have said to you something like, well, it looks more like some minor annoying terrorist organisation that has been bothering me." If you insultuously troll editors on some serious discussion, this sort of unswer is the least that you can expect.

I have been lately very patient and polite with you.

You haven´t been with me: As clearly even possible to be seen here on ANI [46] but anyone can also go to the discussion talk page and see what is really going on (who is trolling, and who is being serious).

Resumingly, you are being "sickened" that I had insisted over 2 months, against all your obstructing behaviour, and get you to sign today a mediation request, so this dispute can finally be analised by someone neutral. I am really happy to get this going forward so we can reach an end to this. I had already asked you never to comment on my talk page any more, and I also really expect not to have any more contact with you after this gets over.

Ah! And just to demonstrate the kind of manipulation I have been taking from you: You claim I had insulted your IQ, well this is what I have said: [47] so by that, everybody can see that I just said exactly the oposite: "I can´t beleve that your IQ is minor and you simply don´t understand when something is repeated many times to you." saying that I find you intelligent, and that was impossible, and bad faith, that you intentionally missunderstand something whan repeated to you over and over again. I also don´t beleve that you didn´t understood this (I even explained it to you), so again, your manipulation, and much, much bad faith. I really wished I had your ability to distorce the ANI reports as you do, and do it with impunity. (you even just called my ridiculously inexperinced and badly written on hurry report on you, an "cleverly written emotional text", I feel flatered!)

Btw, many of your diffs have nothing to do with what you are saying...

Oh, and about "simple", I just now understood what is about... It was when I´ve said to User:BoDu to "be kind with you because it seems that you don´t have too many kilobites to spend." But, how can you feel offended by this? when it was just after you had insulted the other editor that, because he disagreed with you, had you saying to him:"[48] that you want be responding to him any more because it was a "waste of type and kilobites". It is really you that should have been reported here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:I apologise for my enormous comment, but some things just had to be clarified. FkpCascais (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a new thread about this every day? Couldn't this just have been added to the other one which is still on this page? Anyway, mediation will have to resolve whatever content dispute you are in. However, it's quite clear FkpCascais can be quite insulting in his comments, as shown by those diffs. It seems FkpCascais acknowledges this, but finds this sort of communication justified in dealing with opposition, or doesn't understand how he is being insulting. In fact, he happily continues calling DIREKTOR a troll in his response here, again without any diffs to back up this serious allegation. I asked for diffs in the previous thread, a question which FkpCascais qualifies as borderline vandalism. I feel that if FkpCascais continues to sour discussions with his continued insults and assumptions of bad faith, he should just be taken out of the equation. Saves the mediators a headache as well, so we all win (except maybe Tylenol).--Atlan (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment You forgot one big lost. Article itself. I think that that is the most important part in your equation. I hope that this massive content dispute will be fixed in the mediation. --Tadija^speaks 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I will kindly ask you to remove your comment Atlan. We don´t know eachother from nowhere, you are not an Admin, I have never been incorect with you (yes, your assumption on your comment was close to vandalism). You are being highly provocative towards me, and your comments are all but not fair. All this without any reason. FkpCascais (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One comment: User:FkpCascais' preemptive "counter-reports", which obviously do not carry weight, should not be a reason for this serious report to be ignored. It is an old and generally known tactic: User:FkpCascais called us "terrorists" so I sternly warned him that he may get reported for this kind of behavior if it continues. As a response, he tried to get both User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself blocked with two very offensive (and annoying) false reports.

Posting massive replies and "counter-reports" are two basic methods for avoiding sanctions when reported on WP:ANI. I'm hoping they will not work here. My post is completely supported by diffs, its a simple account of offenses - please do not ignore. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija, I mentioned I have no comment on the content dispute, as that is all way over my head. If you feel articles will suffer with the loss of FkpCascais, then I'll just have to take your word for it. However, and that was my main point, if all your one's comments are accompanied by assumptions of bad faith and plain insults, you one shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism here on ANI and even a block. I'm aware tempers might flare and discussions can get heated, especially in this contentious area, but that's no excuse to call other editors terrorists and implying their IQ is low, among other things. Futhermore, FkpCascais still fails to supply any diffs proving his allegations of lies and trolling and instead goes on counter striking any opposition he meets. I can't be particularly bothered by calling my comments vandalism when they clearly are not, but it does illustrate the problem with the way FkpCascais deals with other editors.--Atlan (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Atlan, are you sure what are you doing here? You have just told User:Tadija that he "might be on criticism here, or even a block"... because he said that he hopes the dispute gets solved??? I am sorry to tell you this, but from what I see, you are only making things worste for people you suposedly defend... I think direktor has been able to handle himself quite well in this conflictous situation. I even respect him a lot and I could easily call him a "specialist", or an "expert" on this kind of disputes, so I really beleve that is kind of offensive from your part towards him to beleve that he couldn´t survive this reports without your precious help. Anyway, you really should spare yourself from further embaracement and remove the unfortunate comments that you have made. I don´t see even one correct neither objective sentence in them. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And also Atlan, regarding the IQ issue, what I said is the oposite, something like,"I don´t beleve that you are a low IQ that doesn´t understand when something is being repeated over and over again". I am already repeating this... FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, all I told Tadija is that I'll take their word for it if they say you are a valuable content contributor. The rest of my comment was about you, as is rather obvious because it's your edits under scrutiny here. I've altered my post to make that more clear.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the IQ remark: That one's equally bad. You basically say: "I don't think you have a low IQ, but it appears you have one anyway." Maybe not as clear an insult as "you are stupid", but an insult nonetheless, even if you didn't mean it that way. What it basically comes down to, is that you should be more careful in what you say to others.--Atlan (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, what I really mean could be resumed to something like, "I know you are smart, and this missunderstanding has another reason behind, that clearly is not your lack of capability in understanding it." I do recognise that I can be arrogant, but I didn´t insulted nobody, obviously because I have been very carefull, and measured all the words I have said. You must have in account that the majority of the diffs direktor provided are previous to a block that I already and rightfully had because of it. I can´t be punished twice for the same crime... The only ones that direktor has in this report that could be analised are the ones he calls: "simple", "terrorist" and this "IQ missunderstanding". (you can check and see that in all of the cases direktor made quite a missinterpretation and exageration in order to make it look like something that really isn´t). I could only be acused perhaps on arrogance here, but if you rally want to see, you should check the reasons why I have said it, so you could really confirm that they were really soft responces to much worste expressions that were directed towards me. Anyway, I do acknolledge that a really cleaver person would avoid answering to such provocations, but you must understand that after 2 months of this constant game, it is really hard for me not to come from time to time with some of this answers. I am guilty of arrogance, but you can also see that I am not pretentious, and that I fully acknolledge that on that subject, I am miles behind direktor, and he could really teach me about it. Anyway (I don´t have to, but I´ll do it anyway), I do recognise some reason on your critics about my attitude, and I promise you that I am going to be way less arrogant in future and even more carefull. I sincerely thank you for you having started to have consideration my arguments as well, and the explications I adressed to you, and I send you regards. FkpCascais (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the "Nazification" crack. How many insults of yours do you think I need to list before an admin should block you? If not 4, maybe 6? 7? 10? You were warned, disregarded that warning and got blocked, and then once again continued the exact same behavior. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, 1 should be enough, but it has to be a real one... Since the block you got me, I did continued with exact same behaviour, I have been extremely patieny with you. Regarding "nazification", thank you for reminding me, I really think that you should treat this issues much more carefully. You have been giving yourself too much freedom on your description of certain historically sensitive issues. I have already told you that you shouldn´t behave so pretentiously about freely making characterizations without any support, just based on your assumptions. You continuously act as you know more than all the experts on the subject. Unfortunatelly, WP is an encyclopedia where some assumptions can´t be described as so because some anonim person calling himself DIREKTOR say so. I will really have to advise you for your own good to lower your level of pretention and open yourself for receving further knolledge. Each day is a new lesson, and fortunatelly for the ones that want, life is good! Cheer up, and if I were you, I would start preparing myself for the mediation, because I am sure the mediators want be so patient with your unpresicions and weird argumentations as I have been. Good luck. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, only one more important thing. It has been very painfull to see the way you treat other users that disagree with you. WWII is over for a long time now, you know... FkpCascais (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Amir.Hossein.7055

Resolved

 – Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 1 year. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be evading his Commons indef. block for uploading images without permission here on Wikipedia. Can someone look into this? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please notify them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 year for uploading copyright violations. Any admin is free to unblock without consultation if they feel it would be appropriate to do so. NW (Talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your notification of this user for their 1 year block has been altered by User:Helloworldhelloiran to read that Helloworldhelloiran has blocked AH for 1 day. Weakopedia (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution histories it may be that AH has taken the new username Helloworldhelloiran and continued to edit around their block. Weakopedia (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Wiki talkpage policy I have undone the changes to the block notice. Weakopedia (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Helloworldhelloiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption and apparent forgery attempts. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio images

Can I have some more eyes on the image uploads of Sisiluncai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I spotted they had uploaded some logos as {{PD-self}}, but a review of earlier uploads brings up each and every image on Google Images, all on sites with copyright notices, all older than the WP copy, many higher in resolution.

I've only scratched the surface: I started listing them on WP:PUI, but there's 50 or so and it'd take for ever for me to check, tag and list each one myself. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 09:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly tag all the logos for speedy as copyvios - I can't see any way they are not. If they are important to an article, someone can reupload them with a proper license and FUR --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted some of the more obvious recent images but I suspect that everything they uploaded as own work is unreliable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like WP:CCI might work. It's precisely for this kind of situation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the user be asked to stop uploading while this is looked at? I see there is some conversation on his talkpage but he seems to carrying on regardless.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked them to stop uploading pending investigations, and deleted their most recent logo upload. I've also filed this at WP:CCI - sorry, Moonriddengirl, I managed to completely forget about CCI (there's a big hole in my memory marked "things you rarely use" and I put almost everything into it). ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems with me. Gives me a chance to remind people in general. :D (Not that we need more, but you know....) I have populated the text at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Sisiluncai and have asked User:MER-C for the image list. I'm not sure how he gets them. I imagine it'll be up and ready to go soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

<-I'm failing dismally to get Sisiluncai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to understand the problem. So far, almost all the articles they created are copyvios. Many of their edits are copyvios. Almost all their image uploads are copyvios. It's going to take a few more days of work at WP:CCI to untangle all this.

I asked Sisiluncai not to upload any more images, but they continued. I engaged them on their talk page and explained what was wrong with copy-and-paste into Wikipedia. They flatly deny doing so, saying that the word-for-word copies are entirely co-incidental. I've tried three times to get some evidence that they know they shouldn't do this again... but since they never did it in the first place, they won't say they won't do it in future.

I am, therefore, inclined at this point to push for a block. I'm now involved, if only in cleaning up and explaining, so I'd like someone else to make the decision and to press the button. I believe they're not going to stop the copyvios until we do. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 12:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Can't see you doing more than you already have, I would support a block until they realise why their actions are incorrect. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely - user apparently has no interest in stopping at this point. Any admin can feel free to unblock upon consensus. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. I intend to presumptively remove this user's major contributions soon per WP:COPYVIO (even the ones marked OK) due to the presence of translation copyvios, of which I found two today. MER-C 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. You have gone more than out of your way to explain things to this user. Either he honestly doesn't get it and needs to be blocked as a next step in the education process; or he's long crossed the line into bad faith. Support an unblock if he can demonstrate he's willing to contribute in accordance with copyright and plagiarism policies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Everything I looked at was a copyvio, except the ones where I couldn't find an English source and MER-C turned up translation copyvios. Same for images - the only one that wasn't a copyvio was by accident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User Tbhotch and Lil-unique1

Please report Lil-unique1 and Tbhotch, as they are threatening me on the site. Tbhotch refers to Lady Gaga articles via her real name, when it should be via her stage name for reliability and accurate purposes. And user Lil-unique1 has threated to contact an administrator to report me. Please can you place some sort of block on the? Thanks. CharlieJS13 ^(talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, CharlieJS13, but your recent edits here and here are disruptive and completely inappropriate. You should not remove a third person's comments from someone else's talk page, and you certainly may not edit war over it. Please stop immediately. — Satori Son 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "report me because I called Lady Gaga, Stefani Germanotta" its ridiculous. I asked If you wanna do that changes, you should discuss it first on the talkpages, after this you started blanking my user page and my talkpage. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13, I see you've already been blocked for your edits here and here. My suggestion is for you to please take a deep breath and for everyone to try and discuss this content dispute calmly on the appropriate article talk pages. Good luck. — Satori Son 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this content dispute involves numerous articles, I have asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga#Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion there. — Satori Son 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13 has been reported at WP:AN3 as well: [49].—Kww(talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrew the AN3 report, as CharlieJS13 has begun to communicate.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He may have begun to communicate, but he refuses to be reasonable at all, and insists that he is correct in the face of contrary evidence. In my opinion, his contributions in this regard should be reverted and the traditional convention followed until a cogent argument to the contrary can be formulated. Tan | 39 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that his version of "communicate" seems to involve selective hearing, selective reading, and a lot of assertions. I've reverted the articles to the sourced, BMI-aligned versions, and hopefully they will stay their unless there really is a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga#Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name to change from the normal format.—Kww(talk) 22:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• According to WP:NAMES, celebrities should be referenced by proper name first, then by stage name/alias (space/format permitting). That and reminding everyone to read WP:Edit warring is all I'd like to add at this time. - Vianello (Talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Aipom610 seems involved in this as well (at least by behavior, can't tell if there's socking or whatever). I'm not involved (and don't want to be!) in the content/editorial dispute about how to word her articles, but WP:BLP attacks on the performer herself are clearly out-of-bounds. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

I have a complaint about Wikipedia.

Extended content

Over the past few years, I have been coming on here to edit. I admit, I have had many accounts on here, but they were not intended for harm. The reason I would have many accounts is when I would get harassed on one and the person that was harassing me wouldn’t stop and administrators wouldn’t do anything after I reported it, I felt, in order to get away from the harasser, I would have to make a new account. Recently, I have had many in a short period of time because of one particular user that harasses me. I am not giving out names in order to protect MYSELF, because I know already that the administration/users on here will take that user’s side, as they have in the past. I have been accused of sock puppetry on here because of the many accounts I created, but, if any administrator would realize, especially after I pointed it out, that when I make a new account I “get rid of” the old account, since I don’t make any new edits from the previous account. I was not aware until recently about putting the “Retired” sign on any account you get rid of, and I did that, yet I was blocked. My edits are not vandalism and I don’t harass other users, yet I get blocked and a full blown sock puppet investigation is done on ME, however, when a user in the past made a side account to harass me, I reported it, however, no sock puppet investigation was done on the basis that the user was making “good” edits from their main account. I made good edits and haven’t vandalized articles from the accounts I have had. Also, this user I am mentioning that had a side account to harass me, accused me of harassing him just because I edited a FEW articles that he edited. We know each other in real life and used to be friends and had common interests, and from what I am aware, as I quote directly from Wikipedia “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT.” From my experiences, this seems to be a lie, since any time I make an edit, I am blocked for it. I admit, if I knew you could only have one account and if you get issues with it then that’s it you can’t have any more I wouldn’t have made any more accounts once an issue arised that seemed to have nothing done about it even though I report it and give evidence, and the user that is causing the issue won’t stop, even after I try to talk to them. It seems that the user that I am not mentioning their username that harasses me is in favor of the administrators, since HE was told to make another account because “I was harassing him.” Funny. When I made a new account in order to GET AWAY from him, he found out about it and mentioned it to another editor in a discussion. I never even edited any of “his” articles, yet I was blocked. (I also understood that nobody “owns” an article, anyone can edit an article, which also seems to be a lie from my experiences. For example, I edited an article recently and got rude messages from another editor saying how I was “messing” up the article for other users just because I fixed some spacing and wording. I never went and put every word together without spaces or put in huge spaces, and I never screwed up words as to screw up grammar, spelling, or anything. All I did was remove personal opinions- according to Wikipedia, the articles are supposed to have a NEUTRAL point of view- and personal opinions I mean such as “It Is unclear where the house is, some may guess it is in the woods.”) Now I have been taught in the past that a sentence like that is a personal opinion. If the rules changed, I wasn’t told. Either the rules changed or I’m just not welcome, and I believe the second, that I’m not welcome, from the experiences I have had on here. Even after I put the “retired” sign on my accounts, I was blocked. Anyway, you don’t have to worry about me coming back on here to edit, I QUIT, I don’t care if they go to articles I edited in the past and say that the sky is made of cheese, IF I go on Wikipedia some day and look up the article and see that something like that is there, I won’t be fixing it, since I’ll I probably be blocked again. Thank you for showing how much of a lie you are Wikipedia, you say how anyone can edit Wikipedia, yet if that’s true, then why am I being blocked even though my edits aren’t “bad”?I explain things to the best of my ability when I am accused of sock puppetry, yet I’m blocked. When Wikipedia users decide a user is not welcome, they make sure that person knows it. Wikipedia is pretty biased and racist in my opinion, and that is thanks to the experiences I have had on here.

Thank you Wikipedia, for showing me that you are nothing but a useless, racist, biased piece of shit, and that is thanks to the users on here that have made my experiences on there HELL. 142.177.43.94 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of usability of the board, I've collapsed your note, which is still readable to anybody who would like to peruse it. If you feel you were unfairly blocked under your first account, you should go back and appeal that block. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Once you have no taint of block evasion, then you can consider a clean start if you like. Meanwhile, it's pretty difficult to assess the legitimacy of your complaints without details. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If your experiences here are hellish, why keep coming back? Masochist? Anywho, we need to know details if you want some sort of investigation. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware "sock-puppeteer" was a racial/ethnic group. - Vianello (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Rainbow socks... Nice! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see where accusing us (Wikipedia) of "racism" really fits (or works out in his benefit). RaaGgio (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, anyone shouting racism is most likely a troll and should be treated as one. The likelihood of someone knowing your ethnicity on the Internet is lower than the likelihood of seeing a live ivory-billed woodpecker. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with an editor making attacks and allegations against other Wikipedia users, other organisations and other individuals

Hi. I am getting in touch with you concerning the editing behaviour of Nobs. The reason I am getting in touch with you in particular is because Nobs has spent what appears to me to be an inordinate amount of time attacking other editors. The crux of the matter is that Nobs has spent the month or so engaged in repeatedly attacking or accusing others, both Wikipedians and not, of having engaged in acts of harassment, intimidation, bullying, trolling, insertion of anti-semitic content, criminal activity or lying. I will like to add at this point that Nobs has not levelled an attack against me by name, but I am deeply concerned by his behaviour. I'll do my best to list these incidences in as concise a manner as possible:

Extended content

[50] Here Nobs accuses, by name, an individual of engaging in and facilitating vandalism of a site. [51] When we expand the entire section we see the same pattern of behaviour by Nobs01, where he makes allegation after allegation about named individuals, unnamed individuals and an organisation. He specifically accuses one named individual of smearing Conservapedia, but when the evidence is examined [52] we see one man's personal opinion about Conservapedia and one that, whilst not flattering to Conservapedia, doesn't seem to meet the criteria to be considered a smear. [53] Here Nobs makes the accusation that editors of Rationalwiki have taken over the WP:Conservapedia page, and then accuses those editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism. [54] Here we see Nobs making the accusation that "much of this criticism of CP over the past year was was inserted by RationaloWiki parodists in both the "Hit List" and "Lenski" incidence." [55] Here we see Nobs make the sensationalist claim that "A handful of Conservapedia Sysops (few than a dozen) have blocked and deleted over 10,000 sockpuppet accounts from roughly two dozen Rationalwiki editors over the past three years. That averages out to 50-100 sockpuppets daily." [56] Here Nobs accuses another editor of "trolling behaviour". [57] Here Nobs accuses other editors of "bullying and intimidation". [58] Here, after an editor makes a single posting to Nobs Talk Page, Nobs accuses him of harassment. [59] Here Nobs accuses Rationalwiki editors of interfering with his Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests. [60] Again we see Nobs accusing other editor(s?) of bullying. [61] Here Nobs accuses the organisation, Rationalwiki, of self-promotion, and again makes the accusation that Wikipedia is controlled by Rationalwiki founders. [62] Here Nobs once again makes the claim that Conservapedia is under attack. [63] Here Nobs makes accusations of interference and personal attacks. [64] Here Nobs makes the accusation that he was "shouted down by RationalWiki editors and impugned with all sorts of trash" and also makes the accusation that he has been intimidated and "viscously attacked". [65] Here Nobs accuses a specific Wikipedian user of "encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website". Yet the template which Nobs talks about does no such thing. [66] Here Nobs makes the unsupported and from my point of view (given the lack of evidence he offers), despicable claim that Rationalwiki editors have engaged in inserting anti-Semitic vandalism into Conservapedia. [67] Again Nobs makes the claim that Conservapedia underwent "cyber-vandalism attracted by this misuse of a Wikipedia project page". [68] Again Nobs reiterates all the claims of vandalism and anti-semitic content that he made in the previous three points. [69] Once again Nobs attempts to link the insertion of anti-semitic content into Conservapedia with Rationalwiki editors, again without justification or evidence. [70] Again an accusation of suffering personal attacks from a (named) editor that Nobs had already leveled many other accusations against (see above). [71] Yet again, another accusation that Rationalwiki editors have used Wikipedia pages to vandalise Conservapedia. [72] Here Nobs makes the claim that "hostility, incivility, and trolling" had been directed at him, and then asks another named user whether "As a RationalWiki founder, do you have any influence over the conduct of these users who are intent on ridiculing and making life miserable for Conservapedia editors who are also fellow Wikipedians?". Again, Nobs provides no evidence that such a thing has happened. [73] Once again Nobs makes the accusation that "…RationalWiki editors were both involved in discussions on an archived Talk page here about anti-semitic content in conservapedia. I am a Checkuser in Conservapedia and personally reverted much of that content, which was placed by several of the founding editors of RationalWiki" and once again gives no evidence to support this attack on Rationalwiki founders. [74] Nobs makes an accusation about Lipson, an individual named in the article, source and publicly known. Nobs states "Conclusion: Peter Lipson misrepresented the circumstances under which he became involved in the RationalWiki project." [75] and diff Nobs edits the Conservapedia article in such a way as too link and accuse Rationalwiki of being involved with the spate of vandal attacks that Conservapedia alleges happens in 2007 (I have to say alleged at that point because I believe that there have been instances where what Conservapedia considers to be vandalism can differ to how vandalism is described or perceived in criminal law. I don't want to get into libel issues here, so alleged will have to do). [76] Here Nobs makes the strange claim that vandalism is less serious than "malicious editing". He then makes the accusation, once more, that Wikipedia was used by Rationalwiki editors to mount vandalism attacks against Conservapedia. [77] And again the accusation that Rationalwiki members were involved in "coordinating massive vandal attacks." Nobs also prominently mentions Lipson's name in connection with these events. [78] And again, the same accusation that Rationalwiki members were vandalising Conservapedia. Interestingly Nobs even points out that in the article he is using as a source the journalist actually says "malicious editing" in that particular section and context, not vandalism. [79] And again. [80] And again. [81] And again. [82] Now Nobs claims that "The underlying WP:RS essentially states certain named editors, who are also Wikipedia users, engaged in "malicious editing."". The WP:RS mentioned doesn't support seem to support that claim. [83] Again the contention that Rationalwiki co-ordinated vandal attacks. [84] This time Nob makes the accusation that the source mentioned names and accuses individual Rationalwiki members of vandalism. It doesn't. As far as I can see, the only thing the source says about vandalism is: "And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." As you can see, this is a single sentence, set by itself between two paragraphs and, because of it's setting, difficulty has been found in placing an exact context. However, what the source explicitly doesn't do is name individuals and state that they engaged in vandalism. For the record it should also be noted that Rationalwiki specifically states that it doesn't engage in, endorse or condone vandalism of any site. [85] And again, pretty much the same accusation made by Nobs, only this time he claims that the source used in the point above states that Rationalwiki members engage in "malicious vandalism". As far as I can see, it doesn't. [86] And again.

I apologise for the size of the list, but it does illustrate my concern. Over the course of twenty five days Nobs makes a total of 36 allegations on Wikipedia about a variety of matters. Now I can't say that Nobs is wrong in all of his accusations, although where evidence could be seen next to his allegations he often seemed to be. Rather, what concerned me was Nobs' pattern of making accusations and launching attacks during the past month. Now I'm inexperienced in dealing with such matters on Wikipedia and so thought that it would be best if I brought it to somebody's attention. That way this can be reviewed by somebody experienced in these matters and, if it turns out that there is nothing to be worried about, then I can be told that I'm an idiot and to bog off, as opposed to me trying to take this through other channels, being wrong, and causing harm to other users as a result.

Additional info: Nobs was warned about his attacks, etc; against other editors, here. There are also diffs showing Nobs being warned about his attacks by other editors on Talk:Conservapedia and on other User Talk Pages, and diffs showing his attacks being removed. If you wish those posted let me know and I'll attempt to add it here, but I should warn you it is another long list, and could take quite some time to compile.

Any help you could give me in this matter would be brilliant.

Thanks.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind too much, but for readability of this thread and the whole board, I've collapsed the list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem, as I said above (somewhere!) I'm not experienced in these matters so help is gratefully received.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Three neutral Admins have been engaged in this open Mediation for the past severaL weeks. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stunteddwarf/SakuraNoSeirei, This is good work, and I thank you for it. Here's one piece of evidence that was neglected, an editor who was interviewed for the reliable source. This editor didn't use the term "vandalism," or "malicious," he refers to it as "cyber-terror." From the Rataionalwiki 2.0 website. nobs (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest I think Conservapedians and RationalWikians deserve each other. Both sites make me laugh, but in different ways (one is, after all, doing it intentionally). However, at some point we probably have to get the more obviously entrenched partisans to step back form the articles and leave it to people who don't have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the rights and wrongs of the legitimate arguments of the contributors on Talk:Conservapedia. The only concern I am addressing here is Nobs using Wikipedia as a vehicle to launch attacks and allegations against other users, other people and other organisations. As far as I am aware, that is a no-no on Wikipedia. If there is sufficient evidence against a person or organisation to post information in an article that would otherwise be considered an attack then that information should be included inside the article. But if there isn't sufficient evidence, and/or the subject is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then such allegations and attacks should not be aired on Wikipedia Talk pages. There are many other sites that Nobs can use to make his attacks and allegations.

N.B. I notice you are using an external source and have, again, misquoted what somebody has said (for the record the source says "At first we just complained about CP, their policies, petty actions, etc. Then we began a process that was very similar some cyber-terror tactics (although much less sexy, frankly.) Basically, we wanted to cause CP editors/sysops to waste time dealing with us. This would not really bring the site down, but it would tie things in knots. It was very manipulative." As can be seen the editor didn't say that he engaged in cyber-terror, rather he/she began "a process that was very similar some (sic) cyber-terror tactics." That is a very different thing). I'm not sure why you have raised your point here, it does nothing to address the concerns I have raised that you have spent an inordinate amount of time over the past ~month to launch what I consider to be unacceptable attacks and allegations against other editors, people and organisations.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree the article should be written by neutral editors. My efforts have not been to attack or cause problems with active WP users who are also Rationalwiki users. I have bent over backwards to protect their privacy rights and facilitate quiet mediation. The central issue is, what is to be done when a reputable mainstream journalist published information that other sources tend to give evidence was bogus? You will recall, this is what happened to Stacy Schiff in the Essjay controversy where she eventually published a retraction.

And I'm on record extensively over the past six weeks attempting quiet resolution of this problem. Thank you. nobs (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the attacks listed above? It would be good to stay on topic. --76.10.165.2 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A mainstream journalist published information that later it was determined was not true in both the Stacy Schiff instance and the Stephanie Simon of the LA Times instance. These alleged "attacks" all point to the evidence Stephanie Simon of the LA Times was misled by the persons she interviewed from Rationalwiki about (1) who the founder of Rationalwiki was, (2) when Rationalwiki was founded, and (3) under what circumstances Rationalwiki was founded. nobs (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained to you multiple times why your interpretation is wrong. You have ignored it every time and simply repeat the same attacks over and over and over again. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The record clearly states over threes years of discussion in the Conservapedia Archives and RationalWiki talk pages Stephanie Simon errantly reported who the founder of RationalWiki was. This error has been edited out by consensus. Rationalwiki's own website corroborates the second error, when Rationalwiki ws founded. [87] Simon appears to have been misled on this point as well. nobs (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to debate this with you here Rob, this section needs to be focused on your policy violations. Just to demonstrate that your error was explained to you previously [88]. Yet you continue to propagate outrageous claims and attacks against WP editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed private mediation with you at Rationalwiki and have been rebuffed several times and told to bring the problems in the Stephanie Simon article to the relevent talk page in Wikipedia. I have contacted an independent bureaucrat on behalf of Rationalwiki founders to protect their privacy concerns. But the problem for Wikipedia remains, having errant information from a Reliable Source and users with a COI seemingly wanting to stand behind errant information. nobs (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic and address the accusation that you have been repeatedly making serious personal attacks at other WP editors and others. Other matters are irrelevant here and should be discussed in the appropriate places. --76.10.165.2 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I did not make accusations. The Reliable Source, which is in the article, states "According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, "From there, [RationalWiki members] monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." [89] nobs (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the article. It is about the attacks you have made against other editors as described in detail by SakuraNoSeirei at the top of this section. As others have already asked, please stay on topic. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The only accusation or "attack" I can see that warrants any further explanation is the one which references my checkuser rights as a Conservapedia sysop. [ Posting that evidence would be inappropriate. I've been seeking to locate the appropriate party within Wikipedia who can review non-public and confidential information to help resolve these matters.

The other alleged "attacks" can all be seen within any given context. Nowhere have I been accused of incivility or policy breaches while working with three independent Admins. I'll be happy to cease discussing any of this mess publicly, but would like to know where I can address WP:DR#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues for independent review. Thank you. nobs (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You can email private information direct to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The numerous (just search for "semit" on Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 15) accusations about RationalWiki editors/founders inserting anti-Semitic vandalism into Conservapedia had nothing to do with Wikipedia or with improving the article, though. The anti-Semitism issue isn't in the article, and it was only brought up once three years ago on a talk page, where it never moved beyond "Hey, look at that!". Nobs just brought up this issue again (and again) to attack and discredit editors he was in conflict with. The same goes for his other random accusations that he decides to ignore here. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bannination

I have indefinitely blocked, and propose that we consider banned, a user whose entire history is harassing the subject of a WP:BLP, Lia Montelongo. I am presently removing as much of his crap from the history as is reasonably practicable, so it's currently deleted. It will be beack shortly. Accounts include:

• Mk2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liaskarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ameliamontelongo1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amelia.montelongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BravoRio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this is the real Lia Montelongo:

• Liamontelongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles of interest:

• Lia Montelongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Amelia Montelongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (protected redirect, now).

I will semiprotect the talk page of the article on restoration, for obvious reasons. This has been going on for two years at least so it's unlikely to stop at the first attempt. OTRS ticket 2010041610044763 refers. As an aside, why on earth is mrskin.com not blacklisted? It's one of the "sources" this person used. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Four years, not two - Bravo Rio was active in 2006. Endorse ban - This kind of BLP abuse we explicitly and completely do not need here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, this is terrible if someone has been harassing and stalking a living person here for 4 years! Totally unacceptable. Institute permanent community ban. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, did you notice the following sentence in the article itself: After trying acting in the late 1990s, she has since been harassed by a producer for over 10 years with threatening emails and putting her images on projects she is not affiliated with. After many years and requests from her to him to leave her alone he has continued to be persistent with attaching his project to any of her most recent successes in hopes to sell more of his extremely low budget film. She has no option now but to proceed with legal action due to recent defamation and family humiliation. That is probably a clue as to who is doing this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article is fully protected, can an admin please remove this ASAP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• This harassment of a living person is unacceptable. I support a ban. -- Atama頭 23:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Yes I just realized that it's unlikely that dead persons are harassed but you know what I mean.

Is this topic actually notable in Wikipedia terms. I note the article was AfD'd in 2008 with a no consensus outcome. I would imagine if it went back there today, it would be deleted..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, the subject does not appear very notable to me either. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable to list it at AfD, given that it's only Guy's report here that brought it to attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How an article is brought to one's attention should be immaterial, IMO. If you consider the article lacks notability, list it. BLP's need all the attention they can muster. Tiderolls 00:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Only problem is, since the article is protected you can't add the template to the top. Twinkle would probably choke on it too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether or not the article meets our criteria for inclusion, I absolutely would support an indefinite ban under circumstances such as these. jæs (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposed ban per nomination. And if a BLP article has borderline notability but remains an attractive nuisance for a four year campaign of socking and harassment, it's better for everyone if we delete it. Notability is a guideline, not a moral principle. Common sense should reign. Durova⁴¹² 01:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  10 years, off-wiki. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for repeating the request, but can an admin *please* delete the text referred to above (or at least tell us why deletion is not needed). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hideously, even after all this admin attention, the article STILL violated BLP. I've just removed a horrid chunk. The whole thing is also unreferenced. Should be deleted or stubbed now.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block/ban and support deletion/salting of article. Despicable. -- œ^™ 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• See further Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo (2nd nomination)--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely endorse ban. Someone should take a look at Brian Glynn (actor), the male video game model she was alleged to be in a romantic relationship with. He seems about as notable as she does, and I'll likely nominate it for deletion once I get back from dinner if no one else has... but I'm running out the door. AniMate 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go on Bryan's nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sent and received an e-mail from Amelia and she supports deletion of the article. Any administrator who stops by the debate, which is clearly going for a delete vote, might be interested in the e-mail, which I will send if she says that it is alright to do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse banning - repeated BLP violations as well as abuse of more than one account. This simply should be not on. Harassing the subject of a BLP to the point they contact OTRS clearly shows that this person is abusing their editing powers. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 06:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have snowballed the AfD as delete, since there was a risk of it being used as a further locus for this foolishness and the subject evidently has no problem with that. I am very heartened by the overall robust response to this, I should say that the supertanker has probably turned on BLP, this is great news. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• 50kg Banhammer, please. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Not that I think it will matter in practical terms. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Like Shadowjams, I doubt whether a ban will mean much to someone who is willing to behave this way in the first place, but it is the right thing to do nonetheless. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban and this seems like an obvious snowball to me. As I cannot imagine anyone arguing to let a stalker resume editing, I've tagged the accounts appropriately. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan

GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is being disruptive about a single issue and won't get over it. Here is the story:

1. I close a discussion since the consensus was becoming clear.
2. GCF decides it is a premature close, and reverts it (keep in mind, he is one of the two that opposed the move).
3. After sysop Ged UK moves the article based on consensus, GCF, once again, decides to revert me after I re-closed the discussion.
4. Ged UK then reverts his edit once more.
5. Even after telling the others there was consensus, GCF once again reverts it (that makes three times if you lost count).
6. GCF then decides to attack me after I made a (semi-brusque) comment requesting him to revert himself.

I admit I was not exactly perfect in the process, but he is being disruptive, blatantly denying consensus proclaimed by 8+ editors. –Turian (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian, first of all, there were only 7 users who agreed (not more than 8 as you stated above): User:Curtis23 (proposed the move),User:Jeff Silvers, User:Tony2Times, User:Turian, User:MPJ-DK, User:Afkatk, User:3bulletproof16... I count 7. Not 8+...

But regardless, think it is mightily clear that polling is not a substitution for discussion (majority does not replace consensus). You have been informed to read guidelines like WP:VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS, but you have persistently decided to ignore them and instead act uncivilly. You have had problems before with those above guidelines, as also with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CIVIL, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:VANDAL and many others (evidenced bythis days-old discussion from WP:ANI in which you ended up being blocked and various other threads between you and I personally (which you reverted from your talk page; apparently so no one else would be able to easily view them). In fact, there were even some admins who posted in that archived ANI discussion mentioning that you "shouldn't have closed an ongoing discussion" like MoonRiddgenGirl and Dream Focus. By the way, I have to point out that Turian stated he planned on leaving the Professional wrestling WikiProject and leaving the users who opposed the discussion (one of them was GaryColemanFan [the other was myself] alone). This doesn't seem like "leaving him alone", does it? RaaGgio (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is so complicated. GFC reopened the discussion today and I closed it once again. He probably saw that and came here.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First, let me add number eight. I thought there was another one, but I may be wrong. Second, let's consider all of the logical fallacies within your argument:

1. Observational selection, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem tu quoque, red herring: Your comments not once referenced the actions of GCF, but instead, try to minimize my position by tarnishing my name within the argument. You also mention my block (which I was unblocked from) as a reason to not scrutinize such behavior. Comments about me are rather irrelevant.
2. Impugning motives, stacking the deck, appeal to spite: You claim that because I stated that I was going to leave the project, that I must have something evil planned or something vindictive planned. I do not need to be in a project in order to report users or be a part of the discussions. I would had left him alone if he had left consensus alone. My position just merely changed with the circumstances.

I count seven things wrong with your argument. Now, would you care to comment on the fact that multiple editors, including uninvolved ones, have declared that consensus was made, yet he continues to ignore it? –Turian (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying it is irrelevant is a preposterous notion. The thread on ANI, the various blocks and the threads on your talk page all began with the topic of you closing the aforementioned move discussion pre-maturely. Only 7 editors had a consensus when you closed the discussion; regardless of anyone who has agreed with you afterwards (because like I pointed above, there have also been multiple editors who have disagreed too). GaryColemanFan had presented an argument against moving the page, and the counter-argument that was utilized was basically "GaryColemanFan doesn't have to agree; lets move anyway because most of us agree with the nomination". If you take the comment above as an offensive one because I mentioned your previous thread at ANI, then I must apologize for the misunderstanding, but it has a direct concordance with this newer thread. And yes, my post above is also about GCF because I am explaining that he is just obeying Wikipedia guidelines and protocol and you are just "determined to misunderstand". With such determination, it is very difficult to find an agreement. RaaGgio (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. I know you don't like me. I don't give a crap. I know you were the one who voted to oppose the move. I don't give a crap. You are trying to minimize my integrity in order to somehow push yours forward. Everyone has moved one besides you two. Do you perhaps see what is going on here? –Turian (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty I moved on. @#!*% , I made it clear on your talk page that the move could stay in place; that it is not a big deal to me. My integrity has nothing to do with the situation; you are bringing up for discussion GaryColemanFan at ANI, not me. However, I am inclined to defend GaryColemanFan, not because I "don't like you" (as you mentioned above), but because all he is doing is defending the guidelines which you vehemently ignore (WP:VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). Because of your determination to misunderstand, I find it fruitless to argue with you. However, why don't you try something new, like actually addressing (1.) how you believed that consensus was achieved when there was two oppositions with various arguments against the move that hadn't been unproven, (2.) how you followed WP:POLL/WP:VOTE when you closed the discussion a few days after it was brought up and a few minutes after its last edit, and (3.) what you are trying to achieve in this ANI thread other than prevent GaryColemanFan from obtaining the discussion he as an editor has the right to obtain? Unless you directly answer those questions without the pointless responses criticizing my approaches (instead of addressing these concerns), then I'd have to accept that any conversation with you is pointless when you won't even want to discuss the matters at hand. RaaGgio (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not using the number as a crutch. Will you fucking drop that already? The arguments were much stronger. And yes, I have closed discussions where my opinion wasn't the consensus opinion. Get off of it already. –Turian (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian, who cares if the discussion is closed or not? GaryColemanFan can comment there until he's blue in the face, unless consensus changes, it doesn't look like the move will be undone, so who exactly is this hurting? Let it go, let them continue to discuss, and *gasp* you don't have to respond. AniMate 05:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I care. It's disruptive editing, and he has made personal attacks against me by calling me a troll. There is a reason discussions are closed. Why are AfDs closed? Why are RfAs closed? It's the same principle. You cannot say that you condone such behavior, especially the personal attack. –Turian (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you care, and I am telling you to let this go. It's a WikiProject discussion, which isn't the same as RfA or AfD. I'm fairly certain Wikipedia won't fall apart if you ignore this. AniMate 05:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, look at the consistency in admins defending policy... :/ –Turian (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• If he is making personal attacks, bring a thread forward based on that or ask for action based on that. Discussion is not disruptive until it moves into WP:POINTmaking or trolling, and continuing discussion after consensus has been decided is not, on the face of it, either of those things. Ironholds (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

See number 6, he has made attacks. –Turian (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, didn't RaaGgio and Turian have a recent thread on here about a dispute between them? Cats and dogs?! Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This has essentially nothing to do with him, but he has decided that it is relevant, despite the uselessness of such an argument. –Turian (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• The name GaryColemanFan rings a bell - turns out that back in January he was doing a similar thing, WP:OWNing content and arguing and edit-warring endlessly for a point of view against all comers. Is "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=356520738 Get lost, troll] an acceptable form of interaction during a content dispute like this? He seems to me to have an ongoing issue accepting any result that is not his own preferred result. Conclusion: wrestling articles are a locus of lame. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • THANK You! Finally someone said it...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 12:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gary does tend to do that if he doesn't get his way he keeps going until he gets his way (which usually doesn't happen).--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so something must be done. –Turian (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If a block must be issued than make it a 12-24 hour I don't think more is necessary.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest abstaining from a block for now; most of the problems seem to be part of a content dispute. Instead, a final warning for Gary; ; more personal attacks, or failing to abide by consensus, and a block is the likely outcome. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. He is in pressing need of modifying these long-term issues. If the other parties here want to clarify matters via a user RfC that would seem to be a good next step. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Reponse from "the accused"

WP:CONSENSUS is a Wikpedia policy. Specifically drawing your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building, the policy states that "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." This means that discussion is a good thing. On a talk page that is automatically archived, the only possible reason for manually archiving an active discussion (sometimes only several minutes after the last post, as Turian has done several times) is to end discussion. I know that the page was moved (note that Turian himself states that this happened when consensus "was becoming clear", meaning that the discussion had not come to an end). Even if there were a consensus to move the page, however, I have made no efforts to overturn the move or to "fail[...] to abide by consensus". I merely took off the archive box so that people could continue the discussion. This is in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS as well as the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Turian, in stating that a 6-2 vote is clear consensus, shows a deep misunderstanding of this guideline, since consensus has nothing to do with votes and everything to do with discussions...the very discussions he has worked hard to prevent. In summary, I have done nothing but insist that an ongoing, soon to be automatically archived discussion, should be allowed to continue if editors wish to comment. Please also note that "Guy" is neither impartial nor accurate in his comments. He chastizes me for calling someone a troll, but has himself called me an "idiot", a "dick", and a "fuckwit" ([90]).

If I may speak to the "troll" comment, I was responding to a user who came to my talk page and told me to "bow to" his wishes. His post was not a good faith attempt to build an encyclopedia, and was rather an attempt to provoke an argument. I deleted his comments from my talk page and used the word "troll" in the edit summary. I readily admit to this. If he didn't want a response, however, he was always welcome to avoid my talk page altogether. I certainly have no problem promising to avoid calling him names if he abstains from posting on my talk page (unless there is an actual need, such as a 3RR warning—not that I have ever violated 3RR, of course, but it serves as an example). Getting back to the issue at hand (which, in reality, was put to rest months ago), there is absolutely nothing wrong with civil discussion. Consensus had been reached on an article, and "Guy" came along and swayed other people to his side. This is perfectly fair, since consensus can change—something that editors who insisted on stifling debate in the current move discussion no longer seem to care about, especially as several discussions have been closed and archived within one day...certainly not long enough to ensure that editors have a chance to read and comment. I disagreed, but I did not engage in an edit war. Instead, I clarified my position, which had been misrepresented by other editors. This is simply not disruptive, and no "long-term issue" exists. No warning is necessary.

To reiterate, I am not going to comment further on the move discussion, the discussion is going to be archived in 7 days, and I am going to avoid discussions with Turian. Any warning would simply be punitive and against Wikipedia policy (and, certainly, "Guy" can sympathize there, since he spoke out against punitive measures during his block in the not-too-distant past), as there is no ongoing problem that needs to be dealt with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Um Gary, Turian will continue to bother you. You know that right.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how calling someone a "troll" can be anything not disruptive. Do I have anything against you? Do you gain anything from smearing the "opposition"? This isn't a one-sided thing; it is a fairly obvious point that consensus can change and that it is fine to keep discussing something after a decision has been reached (within reasonable limits). It is also a fair point that personal attacks are not tolerated. Your query about Guy above shows you know this. That's why my suggestion is warnings for the personal attacks and consensus-battling - and a chance to move on from here. I'd suggest you take it, and Turian note the point about closing discussions. Ironholds (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have nothing to do with any "consensus-battling". As far as personal attacks, I would direct you to the Wikipedia article on Troll (Internet), which states "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." This definition seems to fit perfectly. He posted an inflammatory message on my talk page ("bow to" my wishes) to provoke and emotional response (an unflattering edit summary). If, however, you feel that my response was inappropriate, I can see where you're coming from. We could always go with the precedent set when "Guy" called me an idiot, a dick, and a fuckwit. I was told, right here at ANI, that posting a message on his talk page (in that case, a warning for deleting content) was sufficient justification for him to call me any names he wanted. At any rate, you seem to be calling for a warning based mostly on a disagreement that was resolved in January. Such a warning might very well set a Wikipedia record for "Warning for the stalest diffs". I strongly suggest that everyone move on, as no issue even exists. I will do my best to avoid Turian, and I will hope he does his best to avoid me. If anything on Wikipedia ever deserved to be manually archived, it's this conversation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• This is blatant wikilawyering, playing with semantic details to obscure a documented underlying fact. Consensus building does not mean holding your ground until everybody else has died of boredom, which is your technique. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So what would your technique be? Ignoring Wikipedia policy and just counting votes to make decisions? RaaGgio (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor Todd

Resolved

 – blocked, watch for socks Toddst1 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, we've had an edit war going on for over a month in the Corporation article, and it has gotten to the point where no progress is going to be made without admin intervention. I'd appreciate if you could have a look.

The user in question, Professor Todd (talk · contribs) has engaged in ongoing edit warring [91], personal attacks [92] [93], and sockpuppetry [94].

Based on his last edits [95], ProfessorTodd expects an admin to resolve the situation in his favour, so it seems that we're past the point of where we can productively discuss the problem on the article's talk page. --Jonovision (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a long line of absurd behavior from a very opinionated editor. The irony is that in all that I've looked at on the talk page and recent reverts, I'm still unclear about what this user objects to. The description (that's sourced) that keeps being removed seems fair. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the use of IPs from exactly the same geographical region that only edit on this page, and always appear to support the user account, is quite a coincidence. It's an almost comical situation. I RVed to a previous version, that had almost no real substantive edits. As someone familiar with corporate law, I'm underwhelmed at any questions of a problem on that page, generally. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly seems to be a problematic situation and a recurring issue. Blocked for one month as this is a repeat of previous problems. If the editor uses any sock accounts or ipsocks during this block, this should be extended to indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Predictably he is now emailing OTRS and no doubt in time will go to unblock-en-l. Somebody he has not previously encountered needs to sit down and explain it to him. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unencyclopedic language by User:UplinkAnsh

On 11 April at the Pakistan Air Force article I reverted an edit because of the nationalistic and unencyclopedic use of the word "crushed":

"During the war 16 PAF pilots volunteered to go to the Middle East in order to support Egypt and Syria but by the time they arrived, Egypt's and syria's militaries had already been crushed by the IDF." (Link to diff)

In this context the abbreviation "IDF" stands for "Israeli Defence Forces". The text was added by an anonymous editor with IP address Special:Contributions/93.172.4.107, which according to www.infosniper.net geo-locates to "Tel-Aviv (05), Israel". I noted this in my edit summary.

My reversion was undone by UplinkAnsh on the same day. He stated the following in his edit summary: "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter." (Link to diff)

I am already in a dispute with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article regarding his unencyclopedic and unverifiable edits. PNS Ghazi was a Pakistani submarine which sank during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

"At the same time Indian destroyer INS Rajput started moving out of port on a mission to Bangladesh.[11][12] What followed was a deadly game where both sides were on tenterhooks."

Diffs of my edits to remove such text followed by reversions by UplinkAnsh:

• Diff of edits on 20 March 2010
• Diff of my edits on 3 April and UplinkAnsh's reversion on 6 April

I have attempted discussion with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article and have found it to be a waste of time. He repeatedly reverts my edits and, although offering to discuss the matter, constantly ignores the points put forward by myself and the references. I believe some sort of action should be taken against UplinkAnsh for his continued unencyclopedic edits. Thanks.--79.76.228.29 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have notified UplinkAnsh of this discussion, as you should have done... Regardless, I find that UA has indeed edited to an anti-Pakistan/pro-India POV in the given diffs, and that the blind revert to the PAF article - which reintroduced a spelling mistake and an obvious POV term from a likely biased ip editor - is particularly problematic. While I am certain that there will be counter claims of bias by Hj108 (talk · contribs) (the presumed id of the ip that filed this report) this appears to be an instance where there should be a warning on further conduct, unless there is a good explanation given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

UplinkAnsh is also involved in an edit war at Bangladesh Liberation War. Toddst1 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out netural editors here that Hj108 has been consistently trying to get me banned by rather than working towards betterment of articles by providing refrences and solving disputes on talk page. He has been consistently complaining on almost every noticeboard that his own views(which are unrefrenced) which he claims to be the official Pakistani version are not being added to PNS Ghazi article.

I would like to trace the details of conflict

1. 18 March: I started to add refrenced data from reliable sites. I found sites based in US, Russia and India. However Pakistani media or offical Pakistani Navy site did not mention the incident and I found no refrences. I invited Hj108 to add more Pakistani sources and discuss on talk page. However Hj108(79.76.228.29) replied only a couple of times not getting into serious discusion and maintained that his views based on a UK based self published site pakdef.infoshould form the bulk of articles text.

Rather than adding more reliable sources all he consistently blanked all all sources which I cited. Following are some of his edits/reverts in which he had blanked comlplete sections of articles along with citiations

• 1st revert : 03:24, 19 March 2010
• 2nd revert : 20:17, 20 March 2010
• 3rd revert : 03:52, 4 April 2010

He then started to complain across various noticeboards.

Following are the list of his complains on various noticeboards and reviews by netural editors

• 1st complain:Complain on Wikiquette
  • Result: Diff of edits done by netural editor
  • The editor also asked us to solve the dispute on talk page but Hj108 rather than entering a discussion again complained on Neutral point of view Noticeboard.
• 2nd complaint:Complain on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
  • Result: He recognised that Hj108's views were completely borrowed from a single self published site and were a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL, so should not be accorded more weight than that according to WP:UNDUE. He also found history section on offical Pakistani Navy site which only mentioned that the submarine was sunk in 1971 with no details, and another netural site based in UK which contained details regarding the article. Hj108 who now had started discussing on talkpage and Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, started calling all cited sources as unreliable and still maintained that pakdef.info contained the only correct and offical Pakistani version.
• 3rd and 4th complaint:He has presently complained on Complain on Administrators' noticeboard and

Complain on Content noticeboard

Following his persistence of adding large amount of data form pakdef.info I verified it's reliablity at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please note the the mission statement of this self published site states:

• Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
• We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
• PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

Editors at Reliable Sources noticeboard also agreed that this site was self published.

Clearly this site which Hj108 whole heartedly believes indoes not appear to be meeting the criteria elucidated at WP:RS. Looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan and discount what is said in the 'mainstream media' and in 'publications from respected policy analysts' reject other material without any explanation. Hardly the qualities WP requires of RS.

So, from my end I have only added refrences from reliable sources to help improve the article PNS Ghazi. If offical Pakistani Navy site and Pakistani news articles do not give details of the sinking of the submarine and only mention that it sunk in 1971, it does not mean we have to add original research of Hj108 and self published site as offical Pakistani version to achieve neturality. I have consistently told Hj108(79.76.228.29) in each of my edit on talkpage he is free to add refrences from reliable Pakistani sources and make edits to the article but his original research does not matter much on wikipedia.

I however accept the edit on PAF article was a mistake. I was working late that night, going through articles history and rather thought the word "crushed" had just been added. I undid the latest revision and went to sleep not checking the results. However my intention for the edit can be seen by the edit summary in which I stated "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter".

Regarding Bangladesh Liberation War the unsourced POV edits of BangladeshPride which added unnecessary verbiage in form of repetition to stress on certain points have been reverted by editors Drmies and Sentinel R as well. I am following wiki policy of assuming first 2 edits to be good faith and now have issued him warning regarding his edits. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

An ip from Tel Aviv changing wording to that of the Egyptian/Syrian forces were "crushed" by the Israeli Defense Force is unlikely to be introducing bias? Uh-huh!? I would also comment that in regards to some of the references provided by you for the sinking of the Pakistani submarine by Indian forces do not actually make that claim - but offer some officers opinions about the possibility of there being a result of depth charging (and the reference regarding the disposition of the Pakistan Navy is a mirror of WP). I mostly see each editor removing the others references in preference to their own, which mirrors a nationalist pov. The fact that the Pakistani sources appear to be a self published site does not mean that the Indian ones are either particularly reliable or otherwise free from bias (and they do appear to be circular also, in that they use each other to back up their claims). However, ultimately, this board is not for dispute resolution but for admin response to possible policy and guideline violations. I think both principle editors in this case need to look very closely at their own editing and try and determine whether they are contributing in an effort to improve the encyclopedia, or to promote a viewpoint which favours one side of a nationalistic subject to the detriment of the other. If it is the latter, then it needs to be recognised that the other viewpoint must be represented (as far as reliable sources allow) for there to be an neutral pov - otherwise an enforced withdrawal of editing privileges is a possibility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

well said LHvU. it appears though HJ108 is forum shopping and hoping to find somebody who is sympathetic. even though WP:RSN thread seems to point out that Pakdef.info is a self published site and not RS he has shown no intent of removing that info and the article on Ghazi continues to present that as the official Pakistani version. one common problem in these situations is when people from a particular side of debate start believing that their version should get 'equal weight' rather than proportional weight in conformity with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. giving fringe theories equal weight in the article does not make an article Neutral.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible G4

Resolved

 – Deleted, DRV is the way forward

Can an administrator look at the deleted history of Sebastian_Cole to check if the new version falls afoul of WP:G4? 86.41.91.196 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd say it probably does. For record:

• 2 December 2008 Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Sebastian Cole" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cole)

is the log entry. The article is a stub, the subject is marginally notable and apparently requested deletion last time around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not "substantially identical"; it looks like entirely fresh text. But the deleted version is largely superior to the old one (only the 2003 award wasn't mentioned there) and contained additional biographical information. The references that support (or don't) the article are much the same. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Finlay. 86.41.91.196 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It contains little more that asserts notability and given that the subject requested deletion of this marginally-sourced BLP last time, I think it needs to be recreated in userspace and taken to DRV if it is to be restored. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:A Sniper

This user is constantly reverting my merge tags here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=356621562&oldid=356620162, and here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=historysubmit&diff=356621461&oldid=356620250

There is currently a discussion to merge or delete the article, Ashkenazi Intelligence, which can be seen here, Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence.

A Sniper is the most vocal proponent for keeping the article, so I wanted him to give answers to the questions I was raising regarding the article. This can be seen in my talk section, User talk:ScienceApe, and his User talk:A Sniper. However he seemed uninterested in answering my questions. I asked him if he was interested in improving the article or just making sure it wasn't deleted, and he admitted that he just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted. I then decided to open up a more serious merger proposal at the respective talk pages, and tag the articles with a notification of merger. However he keeps removing the tags since he is only concerned with preserving the article in question, to which he admitted to. He made it clear to me on my talk that he will continue to remove the tags if I re-add them, so I need some kind of intervention here to prevent him from doing this. ScienceApe (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, one need only check out that two other users (David Kane and Maunus) have already rejected the merge ploy, coupled with ScienceApe's belligerent and frustrated messages at my talk page (attacking me for being a single user account), and the matter becomes more clear. For the record, the last merge attempt was something like four weeks ago, and it is getting old. I have also advised ScienceApe to focus on edits and not another editor, and I have certainly not broken 3RR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to expand the discussion. Slrubenstien brought up great points, and he even asked me to make a new section so people can focus on the points he raised, and the discussion stagnated. There needs to be more discussion. I made no personal attacks at all. You told me you are only concerned with making sure no one deletes the article and I said that you have this one single purpose. You aren't interested in improving the article. I asked you to work with me, you aren't working with me. Nothing is getting done, that's the problem. You keep defeating merger or deletion proposals, but the article is never improved. I want to change that. You are using very condescending language, "With all due respect" or "Best" while your comments are anything but respectful. You are stifling my ability to improve the article. You haven't broken 3RR because I haven't edit warred with you. After you removed my tags, and told me that you would continue to remove them, I just went here, than waste time with a revert war. ScienceApe (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Maunus has just explained in detail why he has gone from your way of thinking to actually improving the article via edits and the addition of content. A Sniper (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A Sniper made a personal attack against me here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAshkenazi_intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=356683761&oldid=356681404 I really don't appreciate being attacked while I'm trying to discuss matters with other users. ScienceApe (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to know how to react to such a frivolous waste of time. This entire admin board filing is based on nothing - it is entirely OK to be bold and revert, as long as there is no violation of 3RR nor an edit war, so what exactly your problem with me is remains a mystery. Your issue seems to be that I refused to engage...and now you call my mentioning of this baseless action as an 'attack'. Other editors had every right to know that you have gone to this noticeboard essentially because I reverted your merge tag and refused to answer your irrelevant questions. A Sniper (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nick bttm

Nick bttm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to upload copyrighted material comprising both unsourced/unlicensed images with false claims of self-creation and text (such as creating The Marine 2 (film) and uploading File:Marine2 dvdcoverart small 1.jpg earlier today). Copyright problems extend back to 2008 judging from his talk page (reporting here per WP:COPYVIO). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A short-term block might help the user become familiar with our policies while they take a break from uploading images. They appear to have been sufficiently warned but haven't taken it on board. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks for creating copyvios. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has broken AfD

Resolved

 – WikEd has broken AfD. Reported at CaCycle's talk page. No intervention required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur (2nd nomination)

One of the editors keen to see this article kept, left a strange 'note' for the closing admin, to the effect that "the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast" (what automatic statistics), so the admin will have to count votes manually. This is not the problem. The problem is that when I went to add a comment about it not being a vote, the edit box came up totally blank and free of content, and when I tried previewing an edit, nothing showed up. This is a new one on me, and is not repeated editing in other places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's working for me, are you sure it wasn't just a fluke? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre. It's not just you, I cant edit it either. I tried to make a test edit (adding "this is a test edit" and a sig), and it didnt show up in the page and it doesnt show up in my contributions either. It probably isnt a "sneaky template" problem, since if it were, it'd at least show me editing the misplaced template. It happens both with and without WikEd installed. I'm stumped. —Soap— 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I cant edit any other AfDs either. —Soap— 21:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able to and then deactivated wikied and it seems to work now... James (T|C) 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can edit that and other AfDs (OS X, Safari 4). Not sure what the issue is for you chaps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even though I also disabled WikEd and still found myself unable to edit AfD's, it seems to work now. So either it was a very temporary glitch of some kind or it really was WikEd and I just had a cache problem for a minute. Im 99% sure it's WikEd that's causing this, but Im not sure exactly how. —Soap— 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can edit this and other AfDs in SeaMonkey without any problem. Is everybody back to editing AfDs all right now? Bishonen | talk 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Soap's right, it is WikEd. Turn it off and presto! editing is back. Turn it back on, and editing is gone. At least I now know what it is....WikEd is doing something strange to the editbox layout as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Soap has reported it and I've reported it - WikEd bugs usually get fixed fairly quick, so I guess that's all that's required. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This was part of the new "streamlined AfD discussions" feature. jæs (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted wikEd back to the previous version and will try to locate that bug, please push Shift-Reload to update. Sorry for that, Cacycle (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New user admits to being a return of a banned user

User:CLOSEXACT admitted a few minutes ago that he was a new account for a banned user, Guitarherochristopher, after I asked him so based on similarity in behavior and the fact that he knew who User:White Shadows was and seems to have borrowed an edit notice from User:Master of Puppets. He does seem to be editing in good faith, having created the G-Surfers article just now, and his old user account has had its talk page access disabled, so he could not post an unblock appeal there. I am starting a thread here because I've never dealt with a situation quite like this and don't know what else to do. I realize he will probably be re-blocked, but that he's at least trying to make productive edits makes me feel he deserves something more than simply being reported directly to AIV or SPI as I would normally do with a sock. —Soap— 01:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Call me crazy but if he can keep up his good edits. I say we give this guy another chance with this current account. I know that he'll be probably re-blocked anyway but thats just my opinion.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that he's not operating any sockpuppets, if that information helps you somehow. --Deskana (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Not even once was this guy ever useing more than one account. He only got "banned" due to his myspacey edits. It apprears that this account is actually being productive and countering the edits that got him banned in the first place. Like I said, give him a chance. I know that my opinion on this contradicts one of WP's core policies but I think that this case is diffrent and I hope that you all see that as well.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is helpful, but an indefinite block for a series of problematic edits is not something that anyone should just be able to sock around (whatever their intentions). That said, his edits have turned productive, which is promising. If he would agree to temporarily cease editing using User:CLOSEXACT, and if he would agree to make an unblock request for User:Guitarherochristopher, I think it should be given serious consideration, with the understanding that a return to unconstructive or unacceptable edits would lead to a swift reblock. I think we ought to hold off on dropping the hammer on the new User:CLOSEXACT, and obviously his old talk page should be unprotected so he can make a proper request there. jæs (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't just get to sock our way back in. This guy generated a mass amount of AN/I traffic.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I was involved in one of his sock puppetry cases (that turned out to be false) he should have his talk page access restored for GHC so he can make a proper unblock request. His socking though has to end.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The sock should be blocked and that is the end of it. Just further evidence that there is no respect for the wikipedia community.--Crossmr (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I support a block of this sock as a violation of GHC's ban.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

May I interrupt this. I am unable to log in under Guitarherochristopher, so don't unblock that account until I respond to User:Soap or somebody in Wikipedia that I figured out to log in under that name.

cLOSEƎXACT

01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You could have immediately made a statement to that effect but you didn't. You could have contacted the blocking admin immediately and you didn't. You could have done so as an IP. It was 2 days after you made the account and only when questioned did you admit who you were.--Crossmr (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I support a block as well. –Turian (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So much for AGF and "we dont do punishment, we just hope people reform and become good editors". What a load we spout out one mouth while we block people and dont give them adequate tools to tell their side. "Lets block someone, PRIOR to getting their side, then allow them to only edit their own talk pages so they cant even take the admin who blocked them to AN/I and get a fair 'trail', then lets have any decisions to unblock them be made by OTHER admins who are unlikely to question the authority of one of their own." Nice system we have here; so very fair. Not saying this individual deserves to be unblocked, not saying he didnt do things wrong, but if its true he has now been editing nicely within the rules and obeying and respecting Wikipedia it is simply wrong to punish him again now for past offences. We now know who he is, unblock his new account, watch him, and if he does something wrong THEN block him.Camelbinky (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not an indefinite shield. There were about 5 or 6 AN/I threads about this user. He had lots of time to give his side of the story or change his behaviour. He finally exhausted patience and was blocked indefinitely. His last chances had been expended. We don't let banned and block users just walk back in the door, especially one who wasn't honest about his previous account. He only admitted it when questioned.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Give the guy a chance here. As stated above, GHC's talk page access was revoked. As I remember, we are dealing with someone who is severely autistic. I suggest we allow GHC talk page access, let him post an unblock request. It he wishes, allow him to change user to the new identity after GHC's unblock request is allowed. If he wishes to use new account, old account can then be redirected to new account. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

are you saying he wasn't given a chance before? Wikipedia isn't therapy.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. It doesn't work that way. I admitted being a banned user and, get this, was blocked an hour and a half later for eight months.^{see also}

• Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200

There's also the borderline new username; containing the substring "sex act".

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:that isn't going to fly as a signature..--Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be something you whipped up special for the occasion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That not my sig, it's my post wrapped around my sig. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, given the evidence of some constructive editing, I'd say that a chance should be given. I appreciate that GHCs editing previously, whilst not damaging to Wikipedia, was not constructive either. Let's not apply the rules absolutely to the letter here, cut a little slack and we may gain a productive editor. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. The claim about autism was made by someone claiming to be his father. I don't think any evidence was actually provided otherwise. In terms of useful edits, he's only made 10 mainspace edits, 3 of which were to link to the new article he created (which has some questionably irrelevant content in it) and a couple of other extremely trivial changes to articles.--Crossmr (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few reasonably constructive edits, yes, but more that are just about formatting his user page and user talk page. His posts to other editors' talk pages are as much about the formatting as the content (and frankly they are almost impossible to read because they are white-on-black). This wouldn't be much of a problem if it hadn't been for the fact that Guitarherochristopher was asked over and over by many different people to stop focusing on the prettification of his user space; see this final warning from an admin for instance. Even applying AGF (and I don't think his intentions are not actively bad) there still seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is about, and given the large amount of extra work that misunderstanding caused to other editors a few months back, I would not think it would be a good idea to lift the ban now. But in any case, he can't go on editing under his new account as if nothing had happened - at the very least he needs to appeal his ban under his old username and argue in a way that shows he understands why his previous editing behaviour was unacceptable, and how it will change. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

An IP user has placed some vandalism on the Pauley Perrette page. This is considered in clear violation of BLP and is vandalism. I believe it should be removed with oversight. Could an admin do that please? Also, yes, I am well aware of bringing this to a high-viewed page, but since it isn't phone numbers/addresses/etc., I don't think it requires email contact. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is simple vandalism, not something that requires oversight. Revert and ignore. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- and watch the page if you like, and also warn the vandal.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abductive long term disruption

abductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be.

Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on Asian fetish. Making odd claims about how you can't name the author of a study unless he has an article himself. First claiming it was WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. [96] and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article [97] which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October [98] and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection.

So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil editor(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello, please forgive me if my English is off,

I am reporting rude and unconstructive behavior by a Mike Allen. I said on the Saw VII discussion page I wanted a source for an edit that was made (and removed) repeatedly by another user. I wanted a source because I try to help the article. Mike Allen immediately uses profanity and rude/dismissive behavior. I remind him as nicely as I can of Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:CIVIL, but he does not listen. He deleted my topic, in the edit summary said I was a "troll" and he would report me and with no reason why.

I brought the topic back because no one else answered, and I wanted another opinion. He removed it again and posted on my talk page saying I am a bad editor, which I felt was a personal insult.

Also, Mike Allen has got User:Chzz to threaten to block me for personal attacks, when I'm the one who has been sworn at repeatedly.

Could a word please be had with him, I don't understand what I'm doing wrong?

For instances, please see [99] and [100]

Thank you 110%, POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• There should have never been a request for a source in the first place. The entry was clearly vandalism and, even if his balls really did itch that day, it damn sure isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't be in the article. Just let it go man. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm not familiar with the jargon? I already made clear on the Saw VII talk page that I do not care about the edit. My complaint is at the continued hypocrisy and harassment on my talk page.POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 04:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• What jargon? The thing about the directors balls itching was clearly vandalism. Removing it would be proper, not leaving it there and asking for a source. Why? Because the entry would be a stupid, trivial fact of absolutely no relevence and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, even if it could be reliably sourced. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • There is no harassment, Power Slave. Demanding that a source be provided for something as retarded as that is about as clear a case of trolling as one can find. I'd be surprised if you didn't earn a short block for this if you persist in keeping this gag running across the project. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • Well I'm sorry I wasn't familiar with the jargon of balls meaning testicles, I always used juevos but that is not the point. The point is that I have followed policy and guideline and other editors are demonizing me. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 04:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, what is meant by earning a short block? POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 04:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the yellow box at the top of the page when you edit this page, which says You must notify any user that you discuss.? Did you do that? No. Woogee (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike Allen requested me to report him so I did. I'm sorry I forgot to tell chzz, but I was not sure if he was a person or an automation. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 04:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did you notify Mike Allen? Well, that's it, I'm not going to continue this, WP:DFTT. Woogee (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page. And again with the "troll" jargon. Please keep the personal assaults to a low. Considering a number of "editors" have been impeding my ability to help the article, I'm inclined to think I am not a troll. You are all hobgoblins in that case. POWERSLAVE^TALK/_CONT 04:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is all nothing but a tempest in a teapot. Power Slave appears to be a non-native English speaker, so perhaps some of the idioms that many of you are using have been unfamiliar to him. Power Slave, the reason that people reacted the way they did was the information that you asked to be sourced was unquestionably vandalism, and you seemed to be asking for sourcing of a vandalism that was appropriately reverted and ignored. Perhaps this whole thread could be archived? There is no administrator action to be taken here. NW (Talk) 04:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism

User Slrubenstein has recently accused me of anti-semitism.[101] I find this libelous personal attack highly offensive and request that an administrator take action immediately. Eugene (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene and Bill the Cat 7 have been making unfortunate and repeated comparisons between questioning whether Jesus existed and Holocaust denial (and flat-earthism etc). In addition, when editors have expressed concern that the Christ myth theory (about the theory that Jesus may not have existed) relies heavily on the views of Christian biblical scholars, Eugene or Bill (Bill certainly, I forget whether Eugene has also said this) responded that, if that's a valid concern, we ought not to trust Jewish historians to write about the Holocaust. Given that Jewish historians may or may not be religious (likely not for the most part, in my view) and that the Holocaust has nothing to do with religion anyway—at least not directly—it's a poor analogy, so I've asked them to find another one, [102] and hopefully that will bring the matter to an end. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Accusing" me of lame analogizing is one thing; accusing me of anti-Semitism is quite another. I take this very seriously. Eugene (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little more than lame, Eugene, but arguably quite offensive, and it's been going on for months. My suggestion is that the analogy come to an end, and we all go back to discussing content. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not; I will not just let this go. I realize that you are an influential administrator on Wikipedia, Slimvirgin, but I simply will not chalk a libelous accusation of anti-semitism up to wiki-talk frustration. I want action against Slrubenstein. Eugene (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally see no libel and I dont take it seriously and hope no one else does, and saw nothing more than PERHAPS stepping over the line into somewhat, and very slight, incivility; nothing that warrants admin action or even any discussion here at AN/I because discussions get heated and often an obstinate editor making extreme claims can push an editor to the edge and that is NOT a reason for admins to get involved. Id also have to agree with Slrubenstein that comparing the belief that Jesus never existed to the belief that the Holocaust never existed is not a good nor legitimate comparison; him calling you out on that isnt calling you anti-semitic it is just pointing out the flaw in your logic. Agree with Slim.Camelbinky (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity for those with hair triggers and you are clearly upset. can you just confirm that you are not invoking NLT and that terms like libelous and slander and taking action are just the upset and anger talking? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: "you are just getting a cheap thrill by using this page to vent a little of your anti-Semitism". I am not asking for a lawsuit so NLT isn't relevant; I'm asking for a wiki-block or something else Wikipedia related. Eugene (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What you've been writing on that talk page does to many look like anti-semitism. Observation, not accusation. If you want something done to him, then are you prepared and willing to accept action against you for your words? Whatever you want done to him, should be done to you as well. Are you ok with that? Words are words... you seemed ok with ignoring many who asked you to stop your analogy and didnt... perhaps now you need to ignore his words that you took offence at.Camelbinky (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll apologize to Bruno Bauer for calling him an anti-Semite [103] the next time I see him--so long as an admin tells Slrubenstein to remove his relevant comment and apologize to me. Eugene (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Or... you can apologize at that talk page for your insensitive pushing of an analogy that was in bad-taste (and not even a correct analogy). Then Slrubenstein can apologize to you. And then you can not mention that analogy ever again and he can not call you anti-semite anymore.Camelbinky (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I continue to mention the analogy because a number of RSes make the analogy.[104] I take it from your comment that nothing will be done. *sigh* Eugene (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• First, truth is (almost) always a defense against libel claims. As others have observed, Eugene's approach in the edits/comments that were being reacted to certainly raise that as a possible defense, in my opinion. I also find Slim's observations disturbing. Also, I don't know, perhaps I'm the only one, but I find it somewhat odd that a Baptist senior pastor is the one demanding "I want action against Slrubenstein", and not coming at this issue with greater understanding of Rubenstein's upset here. That said, it would be better to call a person's approach anti-semitic, rather than the person himself. (minor point -- this certainly isn't slander, as the nom suggests in his title, as it is written communication).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Having made the mistake of reading all the discussion, I'll make the further mistake of commenting on it. Slrubinstein lost his cool and made a personal attack that is obviously in violation of WP:CIVIL. It would be a very sad day if this board does not accept that a violation occurred. In addition, I strongly advise Eugene to replace his analogy with another that won't unnecessarily antagonize other editors for reasons barely related to the article. There are plenty of other analogies that would serve instead. Zero^talk 08:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I tried to go with ID and creationism first. Eugene (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth mentioning that Eugene has been liberally insulting good editors on that page for months just for disagreeing with him, accusing them of anti-Christian bigotry, ignorance, disruption, and lying—even now on his user page. The insults were such that an editor who'd never been in any trouble before, Jbolden1517, ended up being indefblocked after four years of editing, because he lashed out against Eugene with what looked like an offwiki threat. So it's a little odd to see this complaint from Eugene. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• I read most of the section (Talk:Christ myth theory#Historians) that led to the comment that is being complained of here. I do not know what Eugene thinks would be a suitable response to a repeated suggestion that the two historical events (whether Jesus existed, and whether the Holocaust occurred) are somehow equivalent in terms of historical doubt. Slrubenstein very patiently explained in some detail how an extremely prominent historian (who believes that the historical Jesus existed) has nevertheless stated that there is no conclusive proof. Slrubenstein very civily asked Eugene to substantiate the claim that historians cannot establish with certainty that the Holocaust occurred, and Eugene responded with a list of Holocaust deniers (as if there was some comparision between a very hazily documented 2000-year old event and a hugely-documented event from 70 years ago). Then Slrubenstein got a little crotchety and said If you wanted to make some comparison, you would find as examples two acknowledged historians of the Holocaust who make the same claim. Otherwise you are just getting a cheap thrill by using this page to vent a little of your anti-Semitism. Eugene has failed to understand Slrubenstein's message which is actually saying that if there is no credible example of a historian who doubts the Holocaust then Eugene's statement is expressing anti-Semitism. I do not know if that is true; if it is not, WP:COMPETENCE could be invoked to question whether Eugene should be participating in the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• As someone completely uninvolved in this dispute, I give notice that drawing analogies to holocaust denial is offensive, unacceptable and must stop. If any further such comparisons are made and brought to this board then I will happily block the person making them. There is no possibility of that kind of analogy forming a part of constructive dialogue in this case, and in fact it probably violates Godwin's Law. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So reliable sources used as university text books can now be shouted down on the authority of an internet meme? That's kind of creepy. Eugene (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't hide behind antisemitic sources. This ("[...] historians can never settle anything with absolute 100% certainly, not the existence of Jesus, not the Holocaust. [...] despite the fact that fewer academics deny Jesus' historical reality than deny the Holocaust.") was your own, and I am amazed you were not blocked for that. Hans Adler 09:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Put it like this - if you insist in using unnecessarily antagonistic and poor analogies when there are perfectly good alternative ones, you have to accept that (a) people may be offended, and (b) you may be asked to stop doing it. Both have now happened. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, this is really simple. Do not draw parallels with holocaust denial. How hard is that for you to understand? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene will argue that it is the sources that draw the parallel and not him. However, these are invalid comparisons and add nothing to the article. Eugene's userpage makes it clear that debunking the Christ Myth is a mission for him. Bearing in mind his occupation this could almost be considered a conflict of interest. He has also engaged in speculation on the real life identity of another editor (along with Ari) which I thought at the time was unwise [105]. Sophia ♫ 10:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I applied two tests before I made that comment. First, I asked myself whether the analogy is gratuitous, i.e. could Eugene have made his or her point without making the analogy. The answer is, yes, i.e. the analogy is gratuitous. Second, was the analogy appropriate. One might argue that in some instances on that talk page - and it is really shocking how often the analogy is made on that talk page, it is like a child standing on a street corner and just yelling "shit! Shit! Shit!" over and over again - but there are some instances where one could argue that the analogy is appropriate. But not in this specific case. Eugene's point was in no way parallel or comparable to mine, so it doesn't even make sense in context. So it was but unnecessary, and pointless. That is, within the context of the discussion. Talk pages are meant for discussion that might improve the article, not cause pain to other users. Yet that is what Eugene is using the talk page to, to casue pain to other users. I am not asking him to apologize to Bruno Bauer; he could apologize to me, and to anyone else who, reading his words, would take offense. I would rather he just stop.

When I am accused of doing something wrong and the accusation is false, I typically say, "Look, I am not guilty of what you say I am guilty of; I think this is why you misjudged me." When I am accused of doing something wrong and the accusation is true, I generally apologize, and reexamine my behavior. What I do not do is attack others; I certainly don't attack the person who tells me that I have wounded them. What kind of person would? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Warring and POV , need help

An admin is needed to help stop POV and Warring in this page. I have faithfully tried to keep this article as clean and constructive as possible. The article contains a long list that has a lot of unverifiable/wrong information. I have read it and kept the information that I could verify; however, there is another user who is pushing for his own POV without presenting any references/proofs to the huge list he's providing. The situation needs to be controlled. The article needs to be locked; however, caution should be considered here to not lock it at the unverifiable/false information until the other user can provide references/proofs to his huge list.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppeteer Polylepsis, another sock.

I'd like to point out that User:Ao333 is clealy another of the many sockpuppets of serial sockpuppeteer user:Polylepsis but I'm unsure how to file a sockpuppet report. Wetog (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to file a report now Wetog (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)