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

Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting

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

---

At the advice of policy wonks Johnuniq, Bbb23, and DangerousPanda I am bringing this matter to ANI rather than to AN. The case, involving Skyring (goes by Pete) and HiLo48, is this.

On 4 November 2013 I closed a lengthy ANI discussion and logged an interaction ban between the two. The particulars of that discussion are on the record: it was painful, and there was considerable doubt about Skyring's editing and ways of interacting. At any rate, the ban was logged. Since then each has complained to me about the other: I warned Skyring once and then blocked him briefly, a month later I think; recently I warned HiLo but stopped short of blocking him.

But now disruption has risen again, with a thread started by Pete on Talk:Soccer in Australia. HiLo argues, in a nutshell, that Pete has followed him there, and with some reason. Pete has only one single edit in the article, a revert of HiLo (from August 2013, before the IBAN), against 40 by HiLo, going back to 2010. The talk page is similar: 24 edits for Pete, going back to August 2013, and 375 by HiLo.

So, the question is, is the section Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#About_time_we_talked_about_the_name_again, started by Pete on 1 February, to be taken as indicative of him following (hounding) HiLo to one of the latter's favorite haunts, and thus perhaps of baiting him? It should be noted that the section discusses the whole soccer/football naming controversy, in which HiLo has been outspoken and on the record. In other words, one could expect that this important matter would attract HiLo's attention, and an IBAN preventing him from participating in that thread takes one of the longstanding voices in that debate out of the equation.

Let it be noted, but I need to wrap this up, that NE Ent left Pete a note on his talk page that supports the notion that this was inappropriate on Pete's part (correct me if I'm wrong, Ent), and that Johnuniq and DangerousPanda subscribe to that idea too. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Drmies. Just let me clarify there. My interest is not in the sport, so I'm not active on the article page. Rather, the question of the terminology is what arouses my interest, and that is confined to the talk page. In fact it is pretty much what the talk page is all about, and I urge editors to take a look for themselves. It is painful.

My contributions there have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.

This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote taken. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,

Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pete's response here is effectively the same as it was on Drmies's talk page. I find it disingenuous at best. I think there are several of us in agreement that what Pete did was "wrong". The harder question is what's the remedy, and we may find significantly more disagreement there. Not being a policy wonk (no matter what Drmies says), my view is that Pete violated the WP:IBAN, either its spirit or by implication. If HiLo had responded directly, he would obviously have violated the ban, and I think Pete was goading him to do so. (BTW, I have no history with either editor that I'm aware of, or at least remember.) It reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode (everything does) in which Lucy bets with Ricky that he can't lose his temper for 24 hours and he bets that she can't not buy a new hat for the same period of time. During the next 24 hours, Lucy keeps doing things to try to make Ricky lose his temper. He comes close but always pulls back. I heartily recommend this episode for anyone interested in implied IBAN violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Skyring's contributions on Soccer in Australia are within the allowed activities of WP:IBAN. However, given their lack of prior interest in the subject, as documented by Drmies with the cool tool, the strong opinions at the ANI discussion which lead to ban, the vast size of both Australia and English Wikipedia, in which to engage in questions of terminology, the number of editors already having a robust discussion of the issue, I would say it's of minimal benefit to the Encyclopedia to focus their efforts there; given the potential for conflict between two editors who just don't get along I requested they strike their comments and disengage. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to take the trouble, they might review Special:Contributions/Skyring and see if there is a net benefit from Skyring/Pete's presence—I suspect the answer is no. At a minimum, I support an indefinite topic ban for Skyring regarding soccer/football and its naming controversy. At Drmies' archived talk, I noted (at 1 January 2014) that, checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that:
  • HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
  • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.

I have seen enough of Skyring's style to know that his recent interest in the topic of soccer is almost certainly gaming the system to irritate his opponent—HiLo48 always participates in a new outbreak of the soccer/football battle, but he cannot participate at the moment because the section was started by Skyring. Of course no one can prove that this is an intentional tactic by Skyring, however proof is not needed since all the community wants is drama reduction and productive editing, and anything that might be baiting should be stopped. The great soccer/football debate will continue without Skyring's participation. Skyring will use any opportunity as seen at User talk:Drmies#Sorry to bother you again where Skyring just happened to have noticed that his opponent has commented at User talk:Spinrad (which has a total of five edits in its history)—in the comment, HiLo48 has technically breached the IBAN, but it is such a harmless explanation that only someone going for blood would seize on it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is well aware that we monitor each other's contributions. As for "going for blood", in the section linked, I requested a gentle reminder and that no further action be taken. I don't want to see anyone in trouble, but I do want the personal attacks to cease. That's why I supported the IBAN in the first place. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that: HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014.

Well, It's interesting that you should bring those contributions up. For starters, you say "none in 2014", but I count 76. Perhaps I could ask an independent editor to check my figures?

Looking at some of those contributions makes for interesting reading, coming from someone who claims they don't make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo pointed out, on his talk page and here, that no evidence is given of personal attacks, and I think it's important to point out, for the new readers, that I see no personal attacks by HiLo on Pete since the IBAN. (That's the issue--not whether HiLo has been rude or whatever to other editors--that's unproven, you cannot make that case under your IBAN, and it's not of interest to this discussion--note after edit conflict and Pete's contribution.) It's not even really relevant here, nor is it relevant how exciting or important discussions on the Australian soccer nomenclature are. Indeed, I'm beginning to think that the lengthy commentary by Pete on this matter is intended to draw attention away from the actual matter at heart: whether we should see their interest in the Soccer in Australia article and its talk page as a kind of hounding/baiting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of personal attacks directed against me since the IBAN began. Specifically on HiLo's talk page. I've drawn your attention to them, Drmies, asking that they stop, but you are a busy person, and doubtless have other matters on your mind.

I've commented on the baiting already. Where are the diffs? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are given: edit counts by both of you in the article and the talk page, and your starting that section on the naming issue: first sentence, fourth paragraph of my initial posting. You have left a "What's going on" section on my talk page, the answer to which (if there was a question) is this very ANI report. You also posted "Sorry to bother you again", where you pointed to this diff, and I responded, as did Johnuniq in this very thread. You pointed at a possible IBAN violation (archived, I believe, on my talk page) and I warned HiLo. I do have other matters on my mind, one of which is that I'm getting kind of tired of this thread and responding to your lawyerish comments. And no, I do not believe you have responded in any kind of substance to the baiting issue. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was made before: There is nothing in an IBAN preventing either of us from participating in discussion. The key point is to avoid the other party. Editors do not "own" articles or talk pages, regardless of how many edits they make or who was first. In this case, both of us were active on the relevant talk page before the ban was applied and we have since confined ourselves to different threads. Call it lawyerish, if you must, but that's just a commonsense reading of the relevant policy: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."

So where, precisely, is the hounding? Can you - or anyone else - provide a diff that is one party baiting the other?

If it is your contention that HiLo48 "owns" the article and its talk page, then I find that very problematic indeed. So do you, apparently. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not contend that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you posted on that talk page, seeking to overturn consensus on a topic where you had earlier sought confrontation with HiLo (your one edit to the article), in order to pull them out and violate the IBAN--yes, to bait them. And you're doing the same thing here: you know that HiLo is itching to rebut, and it's a good thing they're keeping their cool. You know, in this battle between the two of you I used to think there was equal blame, more or less. I don't think that anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it is quite clear that there is no consensus to be overturned - it is one long argument. My posts there are aimed at finding and presenting reliable sources showing that the name of the sport has changed. As I noted earlier - did you even read it? - there is no point to baiting the other party in an IBAN and then running to AN/I claiming a breach. That sort of tactic is easily seen through and would boomerang if either party tried it. You raised this AN/I discussion, requiring me to come here to rebut the charges made against me. I have stated my case, I have been honest, I have pointed to the relevant policy and asked for evidence. And nothing concrete is forthcoming but irritation. Which I share.

This comes down to a simple point. If the other party "owns" the article and talk page, then say so, and I will refrain from posting there any more. If not, then I am perfectly within my rights to take part in discussion on a topic which attracts me through my interest in language and popular culture. The mere act of posting is not baiting. I didn't mention the other party in any way, I didn't respond, I didn't interact at all. Go me. Go both of us.

And finally, yes, I very much prefer that all parties keep their cool. That's what this whole thing is about. That's exactly what I want. HiLo48 deserves praise for keeping calm and biting his tongue. May he ever continue to do so, and may we all of us continue to be civil in our dealings with one another. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to comment here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think WP:BANEX says yes, and Pete already has. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. What personal attacks? That unsupported negative statement is the typical sort of nonsense that gets posted at AN/I without consequence. I have not communicated with Pete/Skyring since the ban began. I have made absolutely minimal comments about him. That disruptive statement alone is so unhelpful it should demand a serious consequence, quite apart from the other problem being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I may be someone who is regularly opposed to HiLo's way of dealing with things, but even when I'm on the opposite side, this is one of the clearest gaming of the system attempts that I've seen in a while - as Johnuniq notes, it is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional. Skyring has contributed a miniscule amount to any association football/soccer article, whereas HiLo is far more regularly involved. Skyring being topic banned from anything to do with association football/soccer would be entirely appropriate. And yes, HiLo, you can comment here, since this is an ANI discussion about the interaction ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48 has a perfect right to present his side of the story in his own words and he shall have no interference from me.

  To those whose mind is made up, there is no point arguing. Think what you will. For my part, I am perfectly within my rights under the limitations of an IBAN to participate in Wikipedia discussions on those topics which interest me, and while football does not, popular culture and language has been my fascination from university, and the question of what a particular sport might be called is an important and intriguing one. The name is changing within Australia and it affects not just the one article, but many others. If an Australian player moves to the European leagues during the offseason, does he play Soccer or Association Football and how do we describe him?

  It is not in my heart to goad or bait HiLo48 into breaking the ban and then pounce around and crow over it. Anyone who knows how Wikipedia works also knows exactly how that would play out here. It would be a pointless exercise and it would boomerang badly. If it happens, then it can be dealt with, but it also seems pointless to discuss something that hasn't happened, especially when other editors are projecting thoughts and motivations into my mind that do not, in fact, exist. "It is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional," one editor claims. Well, it's not. I know what's in my mind, and it is not that.

  I have looked carefully at the restrictions and exemptions of an IBAN and I see nothing there to prevent me from continuing my ongoing participation. Looking at the discussion page and archives for that topic, likewise. In fact it seems to me to be a good deal less restrictive than recent interpretations and if it is going to be enforced in a different manner to the words of the policy, then perhaps it is time to reword the policy.

  If anyone thinks that there is any baiting or goading going on, then let them put forward diffs. I'm prepared to stand by my statements. All I ask is that policy be followed, evidence presented, and that fairness prevail. For all parties. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  Perfect! You've got a convincing air of innocence gently blended with the wikilawyer's prove it! However, this is Wikipedia where the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate whether something looking like a turd really is a turd. Is there any reason to imagine that Skyring/Pete's continuing presence in soccer/football issues is required for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  From my perspective the answer is no. I am quite familiar with the events leading up to this case. In the past I have been extremely critical of HiLo48, but more recently I have come around to seeing matters differently. To be brief, in my view if Skyring/Pete gets off with a soccer/football topic ban he will be getting off easy. Jusdafax 06:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a little kid who stands just 3 inches beyond where a dog's chain end, and, when reminded they were told not to tease the animal, says but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle! Earlier in the thread [1] Skyring claims HiLo is monitoring their edits (they know that how?) and they "want the attacks to stop." These are violations of the ban. But the important thing isn't the letter of "the law" (WP:NOJUSTICE), but the spirit, and Skyring is clearly violating it. My first thought was along the lines of topic ban from Soccer in Australia, but I'm concerned that's just kicking the can down the road. Perhaps the interaction ban could be amended to include That means stay the heck away from HiLo48, cause the next time it looks like you're edging anywhere close to him we'll skip the three days of discussion and just jump to the point where we block you, for however long it takes you to get the hint. NE Ent 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a comment about process here. I'm looking at several editors using language related to their assessment of my motives and thoughts. The comment above is a good one "I'm reminded of a little kid..." Well, I'm not a little kid, I'm well into my fifties, and I'm not as naiïve as those assessments assume. Baiting the other party in an iban and then running to an admin or ANI with a complaint is not a winning strategy on Wikipedia, as I trust everyone here is aware. I certainly am, because I've now mentioned it three times.

I'm seeing guesses from editors here about my motivations and intentions that project "that little kid" onto me, and that's quite revealing. It's quite incorrect, because it's not in my mind to annoy or harass the other party, and I've asked for diffs to show the baiting. which have not been provided. Standing just beyond the angry dog's reach is a lovely image, but not really applicable here, where both parties are editors of many years experience and presumably able to control themselves. HiLo48, if I may mention him one more time in this thread, is not a barking dog and has in fact demonstrated considerable pride in his ability to NOT react. Those of you with experience will know that this is quite something, but some editors are treating him as if he were on the verge of snapping, and me as if I know this and am goading him that last little bit.

Neither of us are barking dogs or mischievous children. We are people of some maturity and we have both demonstrated restraint over the course of this iban. Sure, there have been some minor breaches, but at least on my part all I've ever sought has been a reminder of the rules rather than any sort of penalty.

So, instead of evidence - a deliberately provocative post, weasel wording, actual baiting or *** or goading - I'm seeing statements based on emotional projection, revolving around little kids and barking dogs. These are actually quite insulting to both parties, and when I compare these imagined motivations against what is in my own mind, they are quite wrong.

Now, having said that, I can see where this is heading, and I'm obviously not going to change hearts and minds here and now, but I will flag my intention to appeal to whatever step is next. Presumably the Arbcom, and in that forum, we will be dealing more with procedure and evidence and less with emotion and gut feelings. There are some questions in my mind about the limits of interaction bans and "spirit of the law", mentioned above. That is intended - and worded - not to be pettifoggingly precise, but to minimise disruption, and I think it has worked very well in this case. Apart from presuming upon the good nature of Drmies with questions and minor complaints, and this current little dramafest, which in my opinion is quite unneccessary and irritating to all concerned apart from those habitual attendees here who cheerfully chuck in their five cents worth of psychiatric assessment. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of my comments have been a bit over-excited, but the essential problem remains—there is an IBAN between two users, and one of those users is widely known as supporting a particular outcome in the soccer/football debate, and has over 300 edits to the talk page, starting in October 2009. By comparison, the other editor has had a very minor involvement, but would now like to take a role that happens to oppose the first user. The community is mostly concerned with minimizing disruption and maximizing benefit to the encyclopedia, and following that principle suggests that the best outcome would result from the second user avoiding soccer/football. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So. Where's the disruption that you want to minimise? Not trying to be snarky here, just curious if you can point to any at all. Apart from this unnecessary thread, of course. --Pete (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this thread and your previous interactions with HiLo48 for some time but have not felt the need to get involved. However, this post just leaves me speechless. In the vernacular the only appropriate response is to say "don't come the raw prawn here, mate". You are well aware of what you have been trying to do and have been called out for it. Pretending to be all innocent is just not going to cut it. I would suggest that admitting your error and giving sincere undertakings not to repeat them is your only hope of avoiding an enforced Wiki-holiday. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly well aware of what I am trying to do. I know what is in my own heart. And you are wrong. Simple as that. But I ask again. Where is the disruption? In your imagination, it seems. Can you point to anything that has actually occurred? Something outside whatever fantasy you are imagining? Seriously now. Where is the evidence?

That's why I mentioned process above. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and evidence. We check our facts. We don't speculate, imagine, fantasise and pretend. Apart from AN/I, it seems. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Would people please specify a preferred outcome because the advice offered above has not been accepted, and this section is getting too long. A couple of us have hinted that more than a topic ban may be helpful—it might be more realistic to apply an indefinite block until it is clear there will be no further exploratory incursions. However let's just examine whether Skyring/Pete should be indefinitely topic banned from all soccer/football topics and discussions, broadly construed. Is the following correct (not including the views of the two editors concerned):

• No recommendation yet: Bbb23, Drmies.
• Support topic ban: Johnuniq, Jusdafax, Lukeno94, NE Ent.

Please make any corrections or updates required, and I hope others join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and/or block. NE Ent 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Skyring from soccer/football, because I find NE Ent's analogy cogent: "but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle!"[2] The next time Skyring applies his wikilawyering and timewasting skills to this IBAN ("exploratory incursions"), I support a swift indef block. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Given that the discussion has progressed to this point, I boldly went and created a section for it. So to lay it out:-

1. Skyring, who signs as Pete, is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all articles relating to soccer/football. Attempts to skirt/wikilawyer around the topic ban will be met with escalating blocks.
2. Any future attempts to skirt the interaction ban, as viewed by the community, will be met with an indefinite block. The usual exceptions to IBAN's still apply but attempts to game those exceptions will also be met with an indefinite block

Does that about sum it up? Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's strict but I think it's the only solution. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• As a general comment, it seems like the general understanding of IBan (outside of this case) is that 1) both editors can edit the same article, but not interact with each other. and 2) commenting in a thread started by the other is interaction 2a) commenting in any thread the other has commented in is interaction and 3) that includes RFCs or other "official" discussions. Would not just establishing that commenting on official proposals, without mentioning the other person or their argument is acceptable resolve the issue, and let HiLo comment on the RFC? Other ways of interpreting IBan seem to be subject to easy gaming - if you can predict which articles/discussions someone will like get their first and its locked out. Yes we can handle that with topic/community bans, but why not just drop the king of the hill game and make IBan deal with actual interaction? I suppose that does makes it a bit more subjective to enforce... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

IBAN's are notoriously difficult to deal with. Just last week there was a rather lengthy discussion about an IBAN that is in force and whether there has been violations and/or gaming of it (not going to name parties, but regulars at ANI will know who I mean). I added in the condition "as viewed by the community" for obvious reasons. What one editor sees as an IBAN violation may/will not appear so to the violator. This condition solidifies the burden on a community consensus that a violation has occurred. Against a community consensus that the IBAN has been violated there is no wriggle room to wikilawyer around. Blackmane (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and warning - lets do this quickly and move on. Distasteful, but probably for the best. Jusdafax 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support For clarity, I had better sign here although I have supported above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Skyring's edits here and here indicate that they just don't get it. Consequently I support a block, but if consensus is for a topic ban and warning I will support that, but I rather think that if we choose to go down that route we'll just be back here once again pretty soon, since Skyring has shown that they are either unable or unwilling to understand that it is not just the letter of the law that matters but its spirit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Emphasize support of topic ban - Best case scenario: Skyring backs off HiLo altogether, HiLo is therefore able to relax a bit in discussions, Wikipedia gets improved. Worst case scenario: Skyring violates the topic ban or continues to try and skirt around the interaction ban, and gets an indefinite block. Either way, the disruption should pretty much end here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• What disruption are you talking about? Apart from this ANI thread, which I didn't start. Seriously now, if nobody can provide diffs or evidence of disruption, then this thing is going to be appealed to a more reliable forum. I posted on a talk page, continuing my pre-iban participation, and I did it without the intention of baiting or ***. Feel free to compare the tone of discussion in that thread with others on the page. Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

*comment I saw this coming from a mile away and the position that this would put User:Skyring|Pete in. However, I don't see any interruption of an IBAN going on here, neither Pete or the parties involved parties are interacting with each other directly. Where is the IBAN actually being broken here? What is actually going on? I don't see a "quick and dirty" fix as resolving anything in this case. No disruptive behaviour has resulted from either of the two open discussions and they have their own direction flow, in fact they are two completely different discussions. I wont bring the other user into this discussion because it's not about them, I just don't see what Pete is doing wrong here by having an open discussion thread. If I've missed anything in particular in the difs for this please enlighten me where this is the case. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you're not seeing the violation, then either you've not read the thread carefully enough, or you're just not looking properly. HiLo is well known to be a regular contributor to Australian soccer/association football articles, whereas Skyring is well known not to be. Beyond that, HiLo is actively discussing (in multiple places) the possibility of various name changes involving the articles. However, the real nail in the coffin is that HiLo supports things remaining at soccer (not that I'm saying he actively wants to move it, just that he is questioning various changes of the term); Skyring is very deliberately setting himself up in entirely the opposite position, by opening a thread that suggests that a move to "association football" is enacted, knowing full well that HiLo is prevented from posting there by the terms of the IBAN. This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the ban, as well as a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Skyring knows it full well, and you can see the smug undertones in some of his posts as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Smug undertones"? I have to laugh at some of the things being said here. Dead wrong, Lukeno94. Rattling chains is not what I'm about. That's mean, juvenile fun, and it's rather disappointing that so many are projecting their fantasy onto me. "Smug"? Geez. Spit on me a bit more, will ya? --Pete (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Meh - as an Australian editor I've had positive interactions with both (my little exchange with Pete during the original IBAN discussion probably not being among them). Like then, Pete seems determined to dig himself into a hole and not see what everyone else is seeing. If it was unintentional, starting a football discussion while under an IBAN with one of Australian-football-editing's most vocal participants is pretty dumb. If intentional, it's deliberately baiting and antagonistic, but I don't think that's what Pete is about. The simple course of action would be for Pete to accept it was pretty dumb and commit to editing in completely different areas. If he can do that then further action shouldn't be necessary. I'd only support action if he can't or won't - I don't think further action is justified at this stage. Stalwart111 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the original IBAN thread when I inadvertently breached it myself... I could not have expected to have been across that one, particularly when I spent a long spell out with not editing here. No offense to Pete, he seems pretty reasonable. HiLo on the other hand seems less so reasonable... BUT, Pete... SERIOUSLY man... Sometimes it seems you like to dig yourself a good hole. I have my issues with HiLo... But I also know exactly when to shut up and do what the administrators tell me to do.

Inadvertent or not I see both sides of this issue:

1) HiLo has A LOT of cheerleaders for the position he takes up and I could see them deliberately bringing issues to AN/I just to rattle those that oppose his position

on the other hand

2) Either deliberately, or not so opening up a discussion topic in an area where HiLo likes to patrol was more than a little silly... I saw what was going on as soon as the thread was opened. I just have a little faith that Pete didn't do this deliberately. Just my two cents worth...

I don't think Pete deserves a complete topic ban, but I think he should be more wary of inadvertently opening up discussions that he knows full well HiLo cannot contribute to. I'd also loath to see the position put forward here either by interpretation or otherwise that administrators are giving sway to one side of this polemic debate or another... There is already enough accusations flying around and we should all have a little more respect, particularly for admins, which HiLo in particular has at times been in open descent of. I think the current IBAN is enough with a warning that doing something like this again WILL result in a topic ban. I would not like to see a potential voice, one way or another on this matter removed completely and could see how topic banning Pete could be interpreted as giving sway to one particular side of the Soccer in Australia debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm grumpy because I don't like being railroaded, but I fully appreciate about digging myself an ever-deeper hole. Story of my life. Stalwart, you've come closer than anyone else here to saying something that resonates with me. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In your defence Pete, the last time I was dragged up here before AN/I similiar attempts at character assassination were tried on me with incorrect difs which resulted in HiLo48 running away from a boomerang. You should know as well as I do the types of things that go on with HiLo48 and his supporters and you should by now know better to walk into a situation where you can have your pants pulled down like this... Unfortunately, it's just a waiting game to see how the administrators here interpret this one. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may offer some advice in my turn? I'd appreciate it if we kept the other party out of this as much as possible. It's my actions under the telescope here, not anyone else's unless they contributed in some way. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, both in the context of this discussion and in your wider approach to the IBAN and editing in general (which, for each of you, really shouldn't be defined by the IBAN anyway). HiLo has a long history in particular topic areas and you have a long history in other topic areas. The areas where you naturally overlap seem few and far between. I'm all for expanding your horizons but as long as you can each expand them to areas the other has little interest in, you should be fine. In this instance you stumbled across one, probably should have left it alone but didn't. As I said before: meh. Dumb, not intentionally disruptive. Stalwart111 05:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dumb but not intentional, or at least I don't believe so, I believe Pete seems more reasonable than to throw stones at barking dogs --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as I think the proposal I'm offering below (in the same edit as this comment) probably works better. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

I propose that the existing IBAN is modified as follows: The interaction ban currently in force between Skyring (talk · contribs) and HiLo48 (talk · contribs) is modified to exclude all articles related to association football, broadly construed. This exception also applies to all deletion-discussions related to such articles. This modification would allow Skyring to edit articles that HiLo48 have been editing without hindering HiLo48's ability to edit those articles. It's the least restrictive modification I can think of. (P.S. My proposal basically allows Skyring and HiLo48 to interact on articles related to association football (= soccer) as if the IBAN wasn't in place, and exceptions would apply to XfD/DR as those are not exactly on article/article talk namespace.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• No An IBAN was enacted to avoid pointless drama. What is the point of bending over backwards to provide a mechanism so the two users can snarl at each other in a topic where the issue will not be resolved for a another few years (I gather that "soccer" is slowly being replaced with "football" in some places in Australia, or some would like that—don't know which, and when/if that happens, the articles here will be renamed). A comment above includes "HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009...", and that shows that Skyring's interest is recent and minor, and need not be accommodated. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I proposed this because we cannot assume (and probably shouldn't assume) that Skyring is doing it on purpose, on the basis of WP:AGF. Besides, if we take Skyring's initial response to the original request, we can safely assume that it probably would not re-introduce mess, if Skyring indeed only has passing interest. I do not see the harm of doing this. (Besides, remember, just as consensus can change, so can people's interests. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Categorically no - WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and given that Skyring and HiLo have plenty of history, assuming good faith is categorically not appropriate here, in the face of other evidence. This alteration is essentially saying to Skyring that he can start doing this at every article HiLo has ever edited, and can essentially render the IBAN moot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolution please?

It's almost a week. Things have not improved. Can I ask for some sort of resolution please? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My summation of the restrictions gathered a small amount of traction but I don't think any admin could really call it a clear consensus. I'd say that the only clear point is that there will be a final warning with regards to the IBAN. As for the topic ban proposal, I think there needs to be a much clearer consensus for support/opposing it. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think any closing admin might be swayed by that "Things have not improved" comment. But, apart from this thread, I've done little else on Wikipedia this past week.[3] My attention has been on family matters. So what sort of improvement is the community looking for here? --Pete (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think at this stage any topic ban could be seen as a clear breach in policy that AN/I is not used to resolve outcomes on RFCs. I also believe that consensus can and does change often enough, and furthermore based on previous discussions here a lot of the discussion going on at talk:Soccer in Australia has not crossed any particular line YET. Pete's infractions here by the standards of what has led up to this are relatively trivial in nature and I don't believe they were deliberate. A final warning not to do anything that could be construed as requiring interaction with HiLo48 is appropriate here... That means staying away from talk page discussions where HiLo48 is known to be present except for the purposes of voting. Pete should be allowed at this stage to edit any page that he wishes, so long as that doesn't at the same time involve interaction with HiLo48.

The long and the short of it is that Pete should stay as far away from HiLo48 as is practical, and vice versa... The simple message for most of us including Pete is that nothing good will come of these interactions which is why I have also self imposed my own restrictions here. It's clear we all feel strongly one way or another about all of this, but the long and the short of it is that nobody on that page or elsewhere in these or similar discussions is going to come to a common accord through regular discussions when they are dealing with views that are of two polar extremes. --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any RfC. And we don't vote on Wikipedia.

Can an Administrator PLEASE finalise this? It's over a week now since it got here. The existence of this discussion has led to more nonsense being posted about me and the page in question above, and to Pete/Skyring starting a farewell thread at Talk:Soccer in Australia, attracting even more nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Won't someone please think of me... HiLo you need to read the boy who cried wolf, poor you, poor, poor HiLo. You never stop to think you bring the nonsense on yourself... There is a vote going on actually at the moment about where we should go about this in a less drama filled manner and things such as this are exactly what I was talking about. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like HiLo any more than you do, but that post was bang out of line, and extremely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentlefolk. Please. I have the luxury of being able to say that this thread is about me. I have no control over it, nor would I wish anyone to feel they are unable to speak, but it is not helpful to attack others in this particular discussion.

Just me, apparently. :) --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Orestes, thank you for proving my point. I hope that when some helpful administrator finally notices this thread, they decide to also do something about you. Please go away. You are not helping anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion may sound funny…

Maybe it's out of line for me to propose that we all just follow the wikipolicy as laid down: Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. Apart from the exceptions laid down in policy, one of which is dispute resolution in appropriate forums (such as AN/I).

Apparently I need do nothing at all to evoke complaints with bold fonts demanding urgent action, as we see above, which came three full days after my last contribution to the talk page of the article in question. The timestamps tell the story.

So, instead of guessing the states of minds of two different individuals, why not simply apply the iban as per policy and if one side or the other does something that is clearly disruptive or a clear breach of the ban, then we don't need to argue over whether an editor owns a particular article or discussion or RfC or whatever, the evidence will be right there as a diff.

I'm a big boy now, well into my seventh decade, and I'm prepared to own up to my sins, such as they are.

I don't think a topic ban or series of topic bans is needed to prevent either of us from editing the same pages or discussions, so long as we avoid each other. That's the purpose of an iban. And if we want to !vote on a question which interests us both, such as this one, from which HiLo48 may have felt excluded, then we should be able to do so. That is only fair.

After all, our longstanding areas of interest overlap in the field of Australian politics, and if we attempt to sort out who came first to a thread and who had more contributions, then there are going to be some right tangles to unravel!

I don't mind editors holding contrary views. I think it is good for the Wikipedia to have different points of view and different opinions. We seem to have been able to write good articles on controversial topics - such as this one - where strongly-held editorial opinions differ. So long as we editors are civil to each other, follow wikipolicy, and AGF, all goes well.

Why not do the same in this case? Just, you know, follow policy. No action required but both parties warned that itchy eyes are upon them and clear transgressions will be sternly and swiftly acted upon.--Pete (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Compairing how many edits Pete did Compared to HeLo48, I found that Pete only did 6.4% of HiLo48`s edits, So why would he be hounding? Happy Attack Dog (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 has made over 300 edits to the talk page starting in 2009, while prior to the incident in question, Pete only had a dozen edits starting in August 2013. Pete has now camped on that talk page and shows a commitment to arguing strongly against HiLo48's position now and in the future. That is what is known as WP:GAMING an WP:IBAN because HiLo48 cannot respond to anything that Pete says, and while an IBAN allows for two parties to make separate comments in a RfC or whatever, the soccer/football topic cannot be fully resolved (because it involves changes that are allegedly happening in real-world word usage), so the only reasonable outcome is to ask Pete to work elsewhere. Not doing that would make all interaction bans void because, by this precedent, one party could always oppose the other party in any topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Editors do not own articles. I participated in discussion on the page prior to the interaction iban and I continued after - avoiding all interaction with the other party. As per policy.
• Editors do not "camp" on articles. In point of fact I haven't participated there since 7 February in a section headed "Goodbye".[4]
• Ibans cut both ways. The other party cannot respond directly to my comments and I cannot respond directly to his. That's how ibans work. It's not a one-sided affair.
• The policy on ibans and RfCs, AfDs and similar !votes is discussed here. The statement, "it is permissible to comment at discussions such as AfDs (and presumably DYKs), even if the discussion was initiated by one of the parties to the iBAN, as long as the comments directly relate to the content and not the person", is consistent with policy.
• The weight of opinion on a name change here (initiated by User:Gnangarra here) is strongly in favour of a change. One editor plus or minus on either side makes little difference, but no bar has been placed on participation by any editor and I think it is only fair that all interested editors have a say. Such a !vote is not an infraction in the words of policy or the eyes of any reasonable person.
• Editors oppose other editors in their opinions as a matter of course. It is commonplace. Every editor reading this would have expressed disagreement with another's opinion. It is hardly surprising. That is why we have a range of policies to deal with differences. WP:CIVILITY for example. An interaction ban doesn't mean that one editor or another gets a free ride in !votes and discussion. It means that two editors do not interact with each other.
• All we need do is stick to the policy laid down at WP:IBAN. Going against policy and process is a short cut to confusion, dissent and appeals to ArbCom. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing and BLP

I am concerned with Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and his view of BLP. He has been creating a whole heap of unreferenced BLPs, examples include Csaba Sógor, Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza. All three articles are now referenced - but the references have been added by other users. Pigsonthewing seems to be on some kind of mission to churn out as many of these poor, BLP-violating articles as possible, and I view his editing pattern in this regard as disruptive as he seems to be expecting others to clean up after him. Despite me raising the matter at his talk page 48 hours ago, he continues, with the latest, on Salvatore Caronna, containing one 'reference' so poor that it is basically unreferenced. As a minor issue, you will also note many of the articles containing basic formatting errors, further evidencing that Pigsonthewing shows little care for the articles he is creating. My request for him to add a basic reference (something as simple as a bare URL link to an online biography) to the article before clicking 'save' does not seem onerous. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• For such an experienced Wikipedian, these actions are very troubling. I think the creations are linked to a message on his userpage; "I am working on the European Parliament project over the next five days and shall have limited opportunity to edit here." My guess is that he is just churning these out and intending to come and fix them later, but that doesn't sit well with BLP at all. I've read his comments in his talk page discussion, and this is incredibly concerning; it's an atrocious response to a genuine concern, and shows a tremendous lack of interest in following policy. I wonder if Pigsonthewing has ever read WP:BLP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have a tremendously low opinion of unsourced articles (I am in favor of deleting them immediately, regardless of subject matter), and an even lower opinion of people that create unsourced articles (with the caveat that if the creator has only been here for a week, they might not know better). Now that he is aware that users consider this a problem, and now that we know that he doesn't intend on handling the issue constructively, I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't create something like this but to call it a BLP violation is putting it a bit strongly; the first two Google hits confirm. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • While not a "violation violation", the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop; while in that particular article's case you could say it's technically sourced, the other three linked in the OP don't even have that and would be instantly - and justifiably - {{Blpprod}}ded. While I can understand Andy's desire to have all European MPs bluelinked - and we should - creating substubs like that is...inexplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's an important requirement they be sourced and concerning her is not taking the time to do so. Looking through it's probably best to merge these all into a list, as most don't appear to have anything else worth saying (i.e. a biography) and parroting a self-written bio is probably not a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The project is Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament:

"We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public."

If these articles are going to be "a strong focus of the public", the public isn't going to get much information from these sub-stubs. But maybe the MEPs who are up for re-election (or their aides) will nip in and fill them out? The prospect of getting their own articles in Wikipedia before the elections may have helped spur the MEPs to grant access for this project. Nothing wrong with that per se, but surely the requirement isn't to create an article literally within 30 minutes of taking the MEP's picture as was the case here? I don't understand the rush. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this post is actionable. Certainly you can't be calling for administrative sanctions against someone for creating stub BLPs? If you see one floating out there without references, prod it and it will be deleted per policy. My impression is that these are being created with high likelihood that they will be fleshed out in the short term. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is utterly inappropriate to create a whole host of unreferenced super-stub BLPs. This is not a complaint about "stub BLPs" (these are one-liners), and there are far more than just one being created without references. For such an experienced Wikipedian (one with 110k edits at least), this is completely inexcusable, as his response to the case has been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• From an established user creating articles in this type of condition is unacceptable. They are fully aware of our policies and a view to come back to them simply isn't good enough, should be left until they have the time to do it properly. And the part of the reply by him saying Your alternative is to not be a dick is entirely uncalled for and certainly doesn't address the clear issues here.Blethering Scot 20:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah well. Those stubs are really not good and very disappointing--but it can be argued that we're better off with them (I'm not saying I subscribe to that argument). The initial question about them was fair, and then stuff goes downhill, with a bit of support from "helpers" on both sides. Andy calls Snowman a dick, Snowman goes to ANI. But try as I might I cannot find where our BLP policy forbids a BLP without sources from being created in the first place. (That a sourceless BLP can be prodded doesn't mean a sourceless BLP cannot stay.) So no measure will be taken against Andy, and unfortunately his stub creations and the subsequent overreaction (this very thread--sorry, GS) is just one more unpleasant experience for all involved. Best thing to do for all involved editors is to turn some of those articles into DYKs; that's the only thing that will make you feel better. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but to say this is a "overreaction" is unfair, numerous editors seem to share my concern about this editor's lack of regard for BLP. GiantSnowman 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Giant Snowman and count me as another concerned editor. If you create a series of unreferenced BLP's and you have 110k edits, you are way out of line. I don't care what policy or lack of it says, common sense in my view says it is just selfish, and the name calling by Pigsonthewing compounds the attitude problem. As far as editor and admin action on this issue, since it appears to be ongoing, I'd be willing to look at a ban on new BLP's for Pigsonthewing as a remedial step. I further find it troubling that there has been no response here. I'd call it gaming the system. This all approaches a protective block, as I see it. Jusdafax 12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would support an indefinite topic ban on the creation of all new BLPs, to remain in place until such time as Pigsonthewing can understand they fully understand the policy and the problem. GiantSnowman 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's not quite the "Paris is the capital of France" quintessential wiki-example, saying in The Age of Google "María Muñiz de Urquiza is a member of the European parliament" (EP) is pretty darn close. Has Andy falsely accused anyone not a member of EP as being one? I'll quote part of WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." (emphasis original). Is Muñiz de Urquiza's membership in EP actually being challenged? NE Ent 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• However that ignores the fact that all BLP articles must have one reliable source, it also ignores his questionable reaction to being brought up on it. Someone with his longstanding should clearly know better on both counts. Their is no need or urgency to create these articles in this state.Blethering Scot 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "all BLP articles must have one reliable source" -- wp:blp says that where, exactly? NE Ent 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NE Ent at 12:46. Cut Andy some slack here. He's a very busy, highly experienced contributor, who generates very solid material -- as well as launching initiatives like WP:WikiVIP, which really caught the media imagination.

Currently he's trying to get a lot of stuff done in the European Parliament, as well as give a good impression of WP to some important opinion makers. Can we please therefore show a bit of trust in an editor with a long and excellent track record, and leave him to get on with what he's doing. If there are still problems in a week, then by all means we can come back to it. There's a lot he will be aiming to do in a very short period of time with this EU Parliament outreach, in a foreign country with contacts he needs to make and build as he goes along. So let's get out of his way. However stubby these articles may be in their initial transient state, there is every reason to be confident they are likely to evolve rapidly, and long-term issues are unlikely. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that Snowman's objection to Salvatore Caronna was paricularly absurd. The guy is an MEP, so clearly notable; and, while the article was only a micro-stub, its content was sourced by the reference given. If you're introducing Wiki to a group of people, a stub like this can be exactly what you need as a baseline, to then show the article growth process (as well as giving a basic active URL that's then in place for any automated or semi-automated tools you may be then using).

Again, Pigsonthewing is a very experienced editor, doing (yet again) important outreach work. So let's give him some trust, and the chance to get on with it. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but to even remotely compare the widespreadness of the knowledge of an MEP's name/role to Paris being the capital of France is utterly absurd. Almost everyone knows that Paris is the capital of France. Many people, myself included, have absolutely no idea who these people are, and there is absolutely no excuse for creating an unreferenced BLP, because it takes 10 seconds to dump in an unformatted reference, thus negating the problem. If you don't have enough time to reference a BLP, then either create it in userspace, or do not create it at all. I cannot fathom how any of you are defending these actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• He's is an experienced editor thats the point. There is no reason whatsoever that an experienced editor should be creating articles in this state, time is no excuse. We have userspace and afc for a reason nor is the European Parliament project an excuse that these should be rushed into article space. Personally i would support a topic ban as he clearly has no sense of wrong about creating articles of a living person in this state and is intent on ignoring that policy. His reply to GS and further ones on his talk page were also highly uncalled for.Blethering Scot 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• If ya'll want to make up a rule that no unsourced BLP articles can be created, start an RFC. But as of today, there is no such rule. NE Ent 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has no rules, and you know that full well, Ent. You also know that it is inappropriate for any user to create an unreferenced BLP; that's the whole reason BLPPROD exists, after all. It is excusable for a newbie who doesn't have any grasp of policy. It is categorically inexcusable for an editor of 110k edits, let alone one whose initial response is "Your alternative is to not be a dick". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing has dismissed our concerns as nonsense. GiantSnowman 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uuuuuuuuurgh. Guys, there's a significant difference between random drive-by editors creating single-line articles on Brazilians who may or may not have played professional football (watching those BLPs is a hell of a task, and one which those responsible should be thanked for) and project ambassadors (with years of experience) creating them as part of a hands-on attempt to get more editors involved in the project. This isn't some sort of breaching experiment designed to break down our rules on BLPs: quite the opposite. Nonetheless, Andy is (as one of our most public editors) someone who should be setting an example, and it would be unfortunate if those very editors he's attempting to encourage ended up getting rapidly batted for creating their own unsourced BLPs. I'll have a word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which he has since removed without a response. GiantSnowman 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you helping? Is this helping? Is it making your proposed topic ban more likely? If I didn't know all the actors involved here my eyes would certainly have rolled out of their sockets already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Pigsonthewing's refusal to deal with the matter in a constructive way helping? No, it's making it worse if anything as it appears that he doesn't give a damn. Also what topic ban? Another editor mentioned one, I said I would support it - that's it. There has been no formal proposal. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he cares rather more about the root of the matter (improving our biographies) than the (quite bafflingly, in this case) naive onlooker might assume. I do think you're correct that he has no interest at all in being chided by random admins for small-scale pseudo-infractions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Chris, your position is incredibly confusing. You chide Pigsonthewing for creating unsourced BLPs in your first comment, and then seem to be suggesting it is all OK in that one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And I told someone else off for asking him not to, and then did it myself. The inconsistency is truly baffling, so long as one completely ignores the provided rationale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The creation of new unreferenced BLPs is not a "psuedo-infraction". Creating articles that will be instantly and rightfully PRODded, per policy is not improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Katrina Villegas

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

---

As per Callanecc's suggestion I thought of bringing this issue up here. I know it wasn't that long since Katrina started posting and copy-pasting hoax articles of Filipino child actors, but this is eventually becoming a nuisance, given his persistent and relentless efforts at recreating and spawning faked articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - Having had to perform unnecessary good-faith research until it occurred to me that this might be a sock jobber, I would support a ban so that future victims could revert all edits instead of having to go through requisite good faith welcomes, and good faith explanations for why you deleted their hoax articles, and good faith warnings, and good faith detailed reportings at AIV or SPI... Because we all spend far more time getting our "this person is an asshole, and here's the proof" case together than the sockpuppet spends committing their nonsense over and over again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed on that, as that would save time with knowing what's going on. Not to mention that since this is a regional, Philippine-centric subject, and relatively few people from outside the country knows the ins and outs when it comes to local showbiz, it would be of significant benefit for other users and admins to be informed about Kat's modus operandi. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support ban – Agree with Cyphoidbomb; this editor has wasted far too many others' time. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamped to prevent archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Persistent disruption over several months --JamesMoose (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Persistent hoaxers have absolutely no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Chronic hoaxsters have no place on Wikipedia.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I am surprised that stronger action wasn't taken much sooner. If someone is knowingly creating hoaxes, they should be banned (not indef blocked, but banned) on the spot. We shouldn't have need to go through two dozen sock accounts before getting to this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's clear that this editor not only has no interest in improving the encyclopedia, but is intentionally harming it and a ban will give people more support in stopping further damage. -- Atama頭 22:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe

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

---

CensoredScribe has already violated his topic ban regarding categories by adding several pages to Category:Size change in fiction, Category:Giants in television, Category:Giants in films, and Category:Fictional characters who can change size: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I was alerted to this when he edited Power Rangers and Ultraman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong you are mistaken. The restriction I was given according to User:Georgewilliamherbert is for making new categories; not adding to existing categories. "Per [7] the community has concluded that the following editing restriction is placed on your editing, going forwards:

CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank)."Size change is quite clearly an element of ultraman and power rangers no one would deny as they are in every single episode. Please discuss why you don't think these examples are not appropriate; rather than just revert; it is more encyclopedic and sets a better example. I would like to know why you are doing this. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A good portion of the debate was held because of your poor determinations of whether or not the categories you added met WP:DEFINING, and it was my impression that the actual topic ban also included that, beyond whatever Georgewilliamherbert posted on your user talk page. However, I cannot seem to find the discussion in the archives at the moment to confirm this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone have an opinion on whether this revert (of admittedly poor content) is abuse of rollback? Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have rollback anymore. And as far as I was aware that was one of several poor category additions/changes. I did not know it was just a really bad sentence added to that one page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  You should still have added an edit summary. It wasn't clear why you'd reverted and that wasn't vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  A minor quibble I know, but that was done with Twinkle, not with rollback, so not using an edit summary was definitely out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here. And even then, WP:rollback is allowed to be used to revert multiple problematic, even though not vandalistic, changes across several pages given that the user of rollback leaves a message on the talk page of the other editor. As it was the case here and all last week, CensoredScribe posted something on my talk page before I even had a chance to go to his.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here.? So you just effectively "rolled it back" without even looking at it? Am I reading that correctly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I hit "revert" on every edit he made that seemed to be related to the ones I saw pop up on my watchlist. So one of them was not the same as the others and I didn't double check it and was not aware of this fact until brought up by Drmies. Who gives a shit? It was not a great edit anyway. And as I stated above, I would have gone to CensoredScribe's user talk to explain the problems with the edits he made but he is just too god damn fast and went to me first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban on CesoredScribe against any mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions, and any other large changes to categories. He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. You don't impose sanctions on an editor for not violating a topic ban. Either find proof that this editor was formally banned from adding existing categories, or start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories actually being problematic behavior in and of itself, or leave him alone. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  "start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories" This is a new topic ban for a new case. See Ryulong's diffs above. User fails to meet WP:DEFINING as described above. Same problems existed in the ANI thread 3 days ago.--v/r - TP 05:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point is you shouldn't confuse whether he's violating a ban with whether he's violating policy. My interpretation of the OP was that the diffs demonstrated he was violating the ban, rather than violating WP:DEFINING. It's hard for me without knowledge of the topic to evaluate that; I would assume that so long as one giant Power Ranger character exists that is redirected to Power Rangers, the article can be properly categorized under Giants in Fiction. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If one character in all of a work of fiction for which there are probably several hundred named characters falls into one esoteric category, it's okay to categorize that whole work of fiction within that category?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The way you put it I don't know; as I said I don't know the series. But if he says size change occurs in just about every episode, I'm more likely to believe his characterization than yours, because he actually seems to like this stuff. In any case, someone better figure out - if the basis for a topic ban is that his interpretation of DEFINING is unacceptably poor, someone ought to know whether the edits cited are defining or not, right? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with the understanding that he can only add-remove categories where it is obvious that he has been editing the article, not just minor changes and then a category change. I would also support a complete topic ban for anything to do with categories. I got no response when I posted to his talk page telling him that adding El Cid to Category:Mythological sword fighters was inappropriate, and I have now no confidence in his ability to deal with categories at all. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as it should've been put in place in the last ANI thread, irrespective of Ryulong's questionable actions/behaviour. The example highlighted Dougweller shows that CensoredScribe at best has no idea what they are doing, and at worst, is being willfully disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, CensoredScribe's incompetence in this area is troubling, as he has constantly been made aware for months now that his categorizations are not proper, and even with an ANI thread that has forbidden him from making new categories, he thinks it's perfectly fine to treat existing categories the same way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support. This editor has demonstrated, alas, that he requires further experience with Wikipedia before he can be trusted with categorisation. A topic ban will allow time for him to learn the ropes without the temptation to act, and once he can demonstrate he groks the system, it can be lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Administrativd Note - I do not believe any violation of the existing topic ban I enacted has happened, and told CS so on his talk page. However, for evident reasons, I have asked them to stop all category related edits while this ANI discussion runs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban on any category edits - This user has taken up far too much time from other editors policing their edits around categories, not just creating categories but in their addition of articles to inappropriate categories. I've had my run ins, and some of the warnings on his talk page are from me, but it's taking up far too much of everyone's time now and it's becoming unfortunately obvious that they are not able to make sound decisions when it comes to adding an article to a category or not. Canterbury Tail talk 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe Power Rangers having size change is being questioned is it? Every single monster they fight does as much, if they have to constantly be using the power for it to count than superman doesn't have any powers at all by Ryulongs definition. Compared to the other 100 some fictional swordsmen I have added; which were not reverted; I think making an honest mistake with classifying El Cid as a mythological sword fighter is acceptable. None of the characters from bleach were listed as swordsmen before I mentioned it. Why don't we actually discuss whether any of the films or anime I've been adding categories to legitimately feature size growth or giants in fiction? What other category have I been adding to and creating a problem for, exactly? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  CensoredScribe, this isn't about your particular choices on a handful of articles. This is about your established inability to understand WP:DEFINING.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Massive process fail We have a tradition, which makes some sense, that Block discussions belong in ANI while ban discussions belong in AN. OP started a post in ANI with an allegation of a topic ban violation, but no proposed remedy. Perhaps the expectation was a short block, but it wasn't stated. Then it is pointed out that the edits were not a violation of the ban. Some felt the edits were not appropriate, so think a revised topic ban is warranted. Maybe it is, but modifying the terms of a topic ban belong in AN. As for whether a ban is appropriate, I see six edits identified, and unless I miss something, not a single edit to the editors page identifying a problem. I don't think we should be topic banning an editor without a single word to the editor identifying the problem. Recommendation - drop this discussion, explain to CensoredScribe why the edits are not ideal, and see if it continues. If so, entertain a topic ban in AN.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  What? Why should this venue matter? Why should the fact that I did not mention a remedy matter? We already had a ban discussion here last week about CensoredScribe where he should have understood what the issue was. He clearly has not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well, not specifying a remedy makes it hard for editors to support a remedy. You are in ANI, which hints you were looking for a block. But you did not say. Why should we have to guess? Maybe you just wanted someone to talk to the editor? I did. You had a ban discussion,a nd told the editor to stop doing certain things. Now you are bringing something else up. Fair enough, but they deserve a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  You asked why venue matters. ANI is specifically a place to ask for admin actions. What admin action are you requesting? A topic ban is NOT an admin action.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well I came here because I thought he was violating his topic ban which obviously would have resulted in a block. And the fact that he and I were both blocked for 3 days is enough of a warning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Ryulong how would power rangers work without size changing monsters? What does Ultraman do? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this discussion, CensoredScribe. And learn to indent FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He didn't violate any rule, he not creating new categories, only adding to existing ones. Are the examples listed valid edits? I don't know enough about most of the series to comment. I believe Ultraman has constant size changing in that work of fiction, having the capsule monsters that the guy who made Pokemon said inspired him. So that would be a valid category there. Dream Focus 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  The issue with WP:DEFINING was problematic beyond his creation of new categories and was brought up by SummerPhD in the previous thread and one before that and tons of sections on his user talk. Simply banning him from making new categories without discussing them beforehand has not solved the issue with his complete lack of understanding of WP:DEFINING and the evidence that he is competent enough to edit, something brought up in both threads.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Time to close? I've contributed to the discussion so I am not comfortable closing it, but it is now clear that the original request was for a block, and there's no support for a block. There may be reasons to consider modifying the ban, but I'd like to see clearer identifications of the problems, and continued violation before even considering a ban. If that happens, propose a ban at AN. Can we close this?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No... A, you misunderstand the venue issue above, both AN and ANI have served both roles repeatedly, and B, there's a rough consensus now for the wider ban. Closing now would be a disservice to enough discussion to see if an slternative is supported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to change the rules to allow ban discussions here, then we need to change the rules first. Please see the note on Wp:An

Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals,(emphasis added)

Note the absence of such language on Wp:ANI Do we mean what we say, or not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil, See: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community bans and restrictions. To quote:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The "preferred" is and has been in theory rather than in practice. ANI has seen half plus epsilon of such discussions since CBAN was first permitted. This is not unusual or against policy or precedent... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we totally ignore the longstanding process, and allow a topic ban discussion, I do not envy the closer.

• User:TParis proposes prohibiting "mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions..." without defining "mass". The diffs show examples of up to three. Adding three categories to one article constitutes "mass-additions" Seriously?
• User:Dougweller supports a topic ban but defines it differently than TP.
• User:Lukeno94 supports a topic ban but doesn't specify which of the two options are supported.
• User:The Bushranger supports a topic ban, but words it differently than any listed above.

So the first task of the closer is to figure out which topic ban is being supported.

The second challenge for the closer is to confirm that the editor has been sufficiently warned.

The editor was given a topic ban on 6 February. There is a single edit after that date identifying issues with categorization. Are we seriously about to enact a topic ban on the basis of one warning? Seriously, what is the harm in explaining to the editor what edits are problematic, and considering a ban if editing behavior does not change?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was supporting User:TParis's proposal with the alternative of being banned from all category work. I understood "He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically." as defining mass, my wording means basically the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller is correct, I was very specific that CS can edit a single article and add cats. But he cannot make mass changes to many different articles to add a bunch of cats. That editing is where he becomes problematic.--v/r - TP 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A note: Topic ban proposals are regularly held here, as are community bans; it is the latter that are technically supposed to be primarily noted on the "regular" AN. As to the editor being sufficiently warned, the last ANI thread should show that. I support a complete topic ban from anything to do with categories primarily, and anything leading up to that on a secondary basis. To resume being disruptive immediately after that thread, it doesn't matter how many times it happened, it needs to be stopped from happening again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand what's wrong with the fifth cited edit. CensoredScribe put Honey, I Blew Up the Kid in Category:Giants in film. Ryulong reverted this. [11] Now even I've seen that one - the kid is a giant in that, isn't he? I see he also removed the category from Attack of the 50 Foot Woman,^[12] and the two edit warred (as on some other pages) for some time, but there a third party eventually reinserted it. I mean, what's the explanation for how this isn't a case of Giants in film? Wnt (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my original thought, but it is a new category, which I believe was covered under the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see an edit history for this category going back to 2012. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't research it, but I looked at the edit and saw the cat at the bottom of the page in red. I believe Category:Giants in film exists, but the edit was to add Category:Giants in films (one letter difference). I do not know whether it was a typo, or whether the editor attempted to create a new cat which turns out to be close to an existing one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done adding categories; all categories need to have some kind of definition as to how much of the work needs to be dedicated to a concept for it to be defining of that work. An element only appearing at the climax would still be important to the plot even if it has relatively little screen time. I will post on the categories for discussion what the definition of defining should be. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Constant comments like these from CensoredScribe show that he is not aware what WP:DEFINING is and a ban regarding all categories is necessary. He has been told repeatedly that simply because something happens within one episode it does not mean that the whole of the TV show falls within that category.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(UTC)

CensoredScribe's discussion of the issue attempts to define how much screen time an element need have to be a "defining" element. This is after repeated attempts to explain that we need secondary sources using the element as defining[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]etc. To be fair, CS started most of these talk threads. However, that's pretty much all CS did: start the thread and abandon it. As a result, my comments are repetitious. One-sided conversations are not my specialty. I don't think CS "gets" that we want verifiable characteristics that reliable sources say are defining. More to the point, I don't see any indication that CS can "get" it at the moment. As I was probably too involved in this mess at the beginning, I'm not giving my mop-and-bucket-less opinion on a topic ban. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Enough is enough is enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Edits like this [25] show an inability to understand WP categorization and to work constructively with other editors. Ryūlóng may have been a bit over-hasty at times, but CS is the underlying problem here. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You may want to make it more clear that even adding a category requires a reference; as I have never seen a category with a reference tag directly following it on any page before. I assume you want an acclaimed critic or academic scholar saying something was defining like I did with Superman the unauthorized biography which supports the idea he is a vigilante with a reference to the comic in question. Also, I would like to note that only on my talk page not on an ANI discussion has someone mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories which would have been more useful for this kind of discussion than categories for discussion. Cfd specifically does not mention the word creation; finding the proper place to propose categories took much longer than I expected and no one was willing to help me. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god, CensoredScribe just stop. If you are not banned from adding categories to pages as is the current consensus here, any category that is added to a page must be corroborated by the article's content and be considered a defining aspect of the work. Just because one character grows 50 feet tall in one single part of a work of fiction does not mean the whole work of fiction meets the "Size change in fiction" requirements. Just because one fictional character is enslaved for a very small portion of its existence does not mean that character can be considered a "fictional slave". If what you want to categorize the article is not mentioned in the article or by any reputable sources, then don't put it into that category. It's just common sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - CensoredScribe is now creating bad faith category for deletion requests. See Catgeory:Mansions in fiction for instance. I quote the nomination rationale. "I think this is a valid category which would demonstrate the view of the rich as seen in fiction. The category would presumably include a lot of gothic fiction like Batman, the Adams Family, The Munsters and Dark Shadows. However as I am wrong about categories; this means this category should be deleted for being trivial." Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? The only other person who chimed in there also !voted to delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• SNUHRN, did you actually read the rationale? The category may be prime for deletion, but that rationale was hugely out of line, and clearly in violation of WP:POINT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Have been watching this from the sidelines for a while and I'd also throw in my support for a very broadly construed topic ban on all things related to Categories per Andrew Lenahan. However, given the above disruptive behaviour, I wouldn't be averse to an indef block. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The witch hunt will probably continue, but I can't say nothing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for anything remotely related to categories - a bad-faith nomination of a category (regardless of its actual merits) has to be the last straw. Furthermore, CensoredScribe should be formally warned that any further such behaviour (whether related to categories or not) is going to result in an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While I was very critical of CensoredScribe pre-block, it seems like most of the argument here are for editing decisions that were done before the block which would make an expanded block more like punishment. I haven't checked every diff posted here but I think an expanded topic block is only warranted if there have been egregious (not minor) mistakes post-block. Let's see if the current editing restrictions are effective first before expanding them.

Like many discussions on blocking editors, what is palpable is other editors' frustration with CS's past behavior. But he was given a block for that behavior which is over. An expanded topic block/editing restriction should be based on his editing decisions after coming off a block. I also don't think it's wasted time discussing this if it helps one editor to become a more productive contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

He is continuing problematic behavior after the block expired, even if it was not exactly what he was initially banned for because everyone wanted to be soft on him. But his categorization ability has been problematic for longer. SummerPhD had several discussions with him on his talk page and he was brought to ANI before the ban and block were put in place. It's clear from his CFDs for Category:Mansions in fiction and Category:Martial arts tournament films that he does not even know what things meet CFD. There's been enough coddling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per TParis.BMK (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. While every editor deserves the benefit of the doubt, CensoredScribe clearly has no concept of appropriate categorization, and his disruptive editing is distracting others from making more productive contributions. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and OWN violations

Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Phineas Gage.

See User talk:John#Gage and EEng and User talk:EEng#Query.

Long-term problem: As I see it, EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken ownership of our article on Phineas Gage, an interesting and fairly well known case of 19th-century neurological injury. EEng is affiliated with one of the sources he insists on promoting at the article (hence last year's COIN discussion, after which my understanding was that EEng agreed to back off). EEng has certain very specific ideas about what does and does not belong in the article, and on how it should be written and formatted. Those of us who have tried to improve the article have been sent away with a telling off. I long ago gave up trying to help on the article. User:ChrisGualtieri has persisted (against my advice) and his reward has been to be on the receiving end of this diatribe. I think using language like Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a ***. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here. (and forgive me for reproducing the formatting) is beyond the pale. I tried to discuss this with EEng at his user talk but he does not wish to. I know that User:Tryptofish has been trying to mediate at article talk, but I think this is beyond the power of one admin to solve, hence my bringing it here. I urge you to read the whole section to get a picture of what has been going on for months. It has to stop.

Requested actions: Short-term I think a short block is in order for EEng. Long-term I do not see this issue being solved without a topic ban; previous exhortations have not been successful. My own perception is that Chris would be fine if EEng was not misbehaving, but it may be that his behaviour also merits attention. Interested to see what others think. --John (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read that god-awful long COIN thread and I don't see where EEng says he will back off. Can you quote something specific?--v/r - TP 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the problems in understanding this matter is the extreme verbosity involved. I admit I can't find it either. Maybe this is what I was thinking of? Certainly I was aware of a period when EEng stepped back from the article and allowed others to edit it without belittling them. But going by Chris's comments on my talk we seem to be back where we were. --John (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John, thanks for the !promotion, but I'm actually not "one administrator". While I make no claims about my abilities to single-handedly take care of the dispute, I want to advise strongly against blocking anyone. Yet. It's sufficiently complicated that a block would not prevent anything, maybe just postpone it. Really, this is not a block type of situation. There needs to be more discussion, and then evaluation of who does or does not play nice with what comes out of that discussion. If problems continue after that, then we will be in topic ban territory. What I would welcome now would be more eyes on Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh , sorry Tryptofish, I honestly thought you were an admin. FWIW your commentary in trying to resolve this was more than worthy of adminship. If not a block then I think we would need a topic ban. I still think the prolonged nastiness from EEng is blockworthy. Obviously I agree about the more eyes suggestion. --John (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John, have you looked at whether EEng is right? I havent been following the situation for the last two weeks, and wont have time to catch up until tomorrow, but from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a *** is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. I agree with Tryptofish that the situation calls for more eyes rather than blocks at this stage, but it is more eyes from people who can (and will) read sources that is needed. I saw that this topic went to WP:DRN very recently...? How did that go? I dont see it mentioned in this ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The DRN was closed with the discussion being handed over to me for the time being, and with a recommendation to hand it over to the Mediation Committee if I cannot help. When I look at the comments of the two "John"s here, it seems to me that John places too much of the blame on EEng, and John Vandenberg places too much of the blame on Chris. That's all the more reason not to move too hastily to blocking anyone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• A block of EEng would do no good, but the problems are in part because EEng works for/with Macmillan and Macmillan's text is the issue. EEng has self-disclosed his identity on his user page as: ".. the second author of Reference #20, and first author mentioned in Note Z, of this version of the article on Phineas Gage." Which self-discloses EEng as Lena, Macmillan's co-author and co-researcher. This was a major part of the COIN discussion. Though the issue is not me "mis-reading" the source, but the source itself being actually wrong. I want this error to be noted because it is often repeated and it is in the "only scholarly book on Phineas Gage".Macmillan quite confidently gave May 20 as the date of death. If Macmillan went to such pains to personally examine the documents, specifically indicating May 20th as the date of death, by all means I expected it to be accurate. This as EEng pointed out was completely false, and I guess the cited source never existed in the first place! Macmillan may make errors, contradict himself, Harlow and other sources, but EEng (as a partner) should not be resorting to abusive claims that I am "mentally impaired", "hopelessly incompetent" or "a ***". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"works with/for Macmillan" - wtf. Once more you sound like you dont understand academic publishing at all. My guess is you do know, but you keep digging an ever increasing hole for yourself, with user:John occasionally helping you dig. EEng has a COI with the new material that appeared in one paper. That is all. He does not have a COI with every piece of scholarship by any person he may have copublished a paper with. Tryptofish, you imply that user:John has seriously looked at this issue/topic - I have seen no evidence of that - I have seen evidence to the contrary[Im on a phone atm so cant put together the diffs, but the last COIN discussion is an example of John demonstrating this.] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear then since it seems you did not read the initial post here. 1) User:EEng has a conflict of interest in editing this article. (See the COIN report for details.) This is not ok. 2) User:EEng has become increasingly abusive over the last months. (See the two diffs I supplied.) This is not ok either. 3) There may or may not be a problem with User:ChrisGualtieri; I don't know. 4) Other than that I do not hold any strong opinions about anything related to this matter. It would be great if people commenting here could focus on these problems and how we should solve them. Again, if not a block, I think a topic ban is required but I am certainly open to other suggestions. --John (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever John Vandenberg believes I did or did not imply, let me say one thing very explicitly: there is no basis for administrative action here, and this thread should be closed. Maybe there will be a topic ban down the road, but not yet. There is nothing to be gained by further parsing of COI or anything else here, and I suggest that the focus should turn toward improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's rather a strange comment. Whatever the problems there have been I am fairly sure that everybody here in their own way is (or thinks they are) focused on improving the page. My perception is that there are OWN, COI and NPA violations going on here. Whatever other problems people may think there are I have yet to see these perceptions refuted. It has been brushed under the carpet for months and I don't think continuing to deal with it in that way is going to solve the problem. Constructive suggestions please. --John (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess our differing perceptions are reflected in my opinion that your finding my comment strange is, itself, strange. But I maintain very strongly my opposition to any blocks at this time. And WP:There is no deadline, so the situation is not yet an urgent one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase it this way: Since even Chris does not see value in a block (above), I just don't think that any uninvolved administrator would see a valid reason for a block. My constructive suggestion, and I offer it very sincerely, is for you, John, or for anyone else to please come to User talk:Tryptofish and/or Talk:Phineas Gage, and try to help me mediate the disagreement. It's very do-able, and it's premature to conclude that it is doomed to fail. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I've been watching this thread since it started and I don't think there is going to be action here. As Tryptofish has taken the role of mediator here and is very familiar with the situation, I'm inclined to defer to his judgement on this. I suspect other involved admins would feel the same.--v/r - TP 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. I am only keen that the disruption cease. Two tiny points; I didn't find John Vandenberg's intervention here very helpful and I would remind him that throwaway comments like "you keep digging an ever increasing hole for yourself, with user:John occasionally helping you dig" should best be avoided, or if they are essential they should always be accompanied with diffs. The other point is that sometimes a word from an uninvolved admin can be salutary and I am disappointed that on this occasion no-one saw fit to warn EEng for a stunning piece of rudeness which drove a coach and horses through WP:NPA. Never mind; as long as this stops that is fine with me. --John (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that the COI is really relevant here. I see that there is a major conflict between EEng and Chris that stems from a content dispute, and that's best handled via dispute resolution. The ad hominem responses from EEng are not okay and definitely violate WP:NPA no matter what led up to them. If nobody saw fit to warn EEng, consider this a formal warning here from me that whatever frustration EEng may be feeling, calling someone a "hopeless incompetent" in such a manner can lead to a block. Comments like that turn content disputes into something much nastier and we can't let those slide. -- Atama頭 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Atama, and I will try to conform with that warning in my own advice to EEng. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Something that I need to add, however: Just as EEng must not call Chris a "hopeless incompetent", Chris should drop the COI arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? I'd like to hear from User:Binksternet on this one as he made quite a compelling case at the COIN report that EEng's conflict of interest was an underlying problem here. Tryptofish, it definitely won't work to make NPA compliance conditional on Chris calling out a problem which seems to me and Binksternet to be a real one. --John (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ edit warring

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

---

Would someone uninvolved please step in at this current RFA talk page? Multiple users have spent the better part of two days repeatedly reverting one piece of commentary back and forth. Since this concerns an open RFA, it's a potentially sensitive issue; perhaps a crat is willing to step up and figure things out? There are a number of editors to notify about this post; please give me a few minutes and I should have them all covered. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That crap was originally posted by an IP....likely a ban evader...that is why I have been removing it.--MONGO 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to remove someone else's comments, you need a damn sight better reason than "likely" ban evasion. — Scott • talk 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Like hell I do...there are only two probable explanations...the IP is a ban evader and or a chickenshit that doesn't want to use their real username.--MONGO 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fail to see what this has to do with me. I have reinstated material because WP:TPO requires a discussion for material to be removed where there are clear objections to it being removed. I do not accept that the entire 59k of material is as it has been characterised. If there is content that clearly breaches WP:TPG it should be identified and selectively removed. There are clear objections to the content being censored en masse and it therefore should be discussed, not edit warred over. I was incorrect to state in my edit summary that the author had self-identified. That was an error and I apologise. For the reasons stated above I have reinstated the material once, I will not be doing so again. Leaky Caldron 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Once an editor suggested using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reference, I had a feeling the dramu would only escalate. How about I withdraw my candidacy now and we just close this mess now before someone gets blocked? No point to give the author(s) hiding before the IP even more satisfaction. I'd appreciate a courtesy blank of the anon's post once the discussion is archived; if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved that post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎/Statement by 153.19.58.76, since it's so long. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see Future Perfect at Sunrise just protected the page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And, sorry, while I see your motive in doing this, I have deleted that page, and removed the posting from the main page again too. The way I see it, there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict. Why is that person posting from an anonymous IP? Either because they are a banned user and can't post otherwise (in which case it obviously has to be removed), or because they are an established user and don't want it connected to them – in which case it's an equally obvious breach of WP:SCRUTINY. In either case, it's obviously abusive and should not be allowed to stand. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; where it's plain obvious that something comes from a *** sock there is no reason to bend over backwards to accommodate the ***. I've protected the page for a few hours to stop the unacceptable edit-warring too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it's abusive? The comment was mostly a succinct account of some of the candidate's behaviour in relation to the Eastern European Mailing List and its members up to late 2013, supported by diffs. I looked at about half the diffs and found that they did support the claims they nominally supported, so they were not a breach of WP:NPA. Of course the IP was probably an enemy from some past conflict - but we don't know if they're banned, and they may have a valid reason to not disclose their identity. I know nothing about Piotrus, so I found the information helpful in deciding whether to support his candidacy.

Also, since it is clear that you believe the IP's comment should be hidden, and were a party to the edit war, was it appropriate for you to use your admin tool to lock the talk page in your preferred version? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what this is about. No recollection of interaction with the individuals involved. And no idea of the relevance or truth of the material posted. But if someone goes about writing a piece that long (whether a diatribe or otherwise) it warrants remaining on an RfA talk page. There's nothing overtly abusive about it, and if it's meaningless people will see through it, but a lot of RfA lies with someone character and history.

(And having someone post a diatribe about some long, long past drama does no hard to someone's chances during and RfA IMO. It can be a test of someone's suitability. Or it can settle minds that any concerns they have belong with ancient history.)

As a separate issue (so far as it can be separated), I don't agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise admin actions. He/she first removed the material, then locked the page, and deleted the material from a subpage. That's a scorched earth approach that goes beyond merely locking a page at The Wrong Version to prevent warring. A sufficient numbers of editors are involved in the dispute to demonstrate the issue is not cut-and-dry enough to warrant unilateral admin action of that force. --Tóraí (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how your obvious view above on the content you deleted does not conflict with this explanation at WP:AN, "See my rationale here: [48]. – By the way, before anybody starts speculating about "involved" admin actions, I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect. " You knew exactly what you were doing and why. I suggest you reinstate the sub-page at let others be the better, neutral judge than you can be. Leaky Caldron 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What "view about the content"? I have not expressed any. In fact, I personally would probably agree with many of the views expressed by that IP, but that's neither here nor there. Just because the IP may have been right about some things doesn't stop it being an abusive sock post in breach of – at least – WP:SCRUTINY, or – much more likely – WP:BAN. I see with some sadness that most of the people who rally against the removal of the sock posting are just those who are critical of Piotrus, and those who want it removed are those who are supportive of him. I, at least, am utterly free from suspicion of being Piotrus' friend or ally; in this sense I am certainly more qualified to take this decision from a neutral perspective than anybody else who has been involved here so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "view" for example, "that there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict." Maybe, but even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. No reason to remove all of that stuff without discussion. Leaky Caldron 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the comment and then protect the page? Why didn't you just protect the version that existed when you clicked "Protect"? It's clear from your comments here that you think that, because the IP is a banned user or has no good reason to hide his identity when criticising this person, their comment should be removed. You removed it, becoming a party to the edit war, then protected the page. Isn't that WP:INVOLVED? What am I missing? (I'm not looking for sanctions, admonishments or anything, just either a sensible explanation as to where I'm wrong in my analysis here, or an acknowledgement that you made a mistake.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Future, did you consider that the poster may have been someone who left Wikipedia of their own volition? They may be someone who never had an account. Or they may be someone who has lost access to their account (forgotten password, no email or disused email). The options you lay out are not the only ones.

I'm just as uninvolved and I don't see any evidence of a banned user or a sock (just someone who holds a grudge). Are we to consider all unflattering IP posts with suspicion? Should we assume they are all socks or banned users? --Tóraí (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Taken over protection I've taken over the protection. I was about to protect the page myself and I was doing research into the edit war first. When I went back to push the buttons, Fut Prof had already done so. However, had he not done so and only reverted, I would've ended up protecting it in whichever state it was in at the time and that would've been exactly as it is now. So, I've taken over the protection since there are questions about his revert. I don't consider this to incriminate him at all, I'm simply doing it so the question about whether the page should be locked or not are answers: yes, it should be locked. The appropriateness of the IP's comments have no bearing on whether or not protection was appropriate. It was.--v/r - TP 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I was also trying to sort through the mess (I wasn't going to jump straight to full-protect, but whatever, stylistic differences I suppose) when FPaS protected. However, I'd say that if you feel strongly enough that there is a right version to wait for it to appear, you are almost certainly not impartial enough to protect it. If you feel strongly enough to revert back to your right version right before you protect, then you are definitely not impartial enough to protect it. Good end, bad means. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• There is no evidence the IP is evading a ban. I don't think there's any doubt that the IP is someone with an account that has been in conflict with the EEML, but that is no reason on its own to remove the listing. And MONGO, for you to complain about the piece and then to call the IP a "chickenshit" is hilariously hypocritical. The post was very relevant to the entire RfA, particularly given Piotrus' actions in this very RfA, and was fairly lacking in any personal attacks; everything in it was backed up by diffs, and they were fairly accurate as well - I know, because I checked a lot of them. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, particularly not when backed up by the weight of evidence that there was. FPaS' decision to remove the post and then protect the page is, to be blunt, an abuse of their tools, which is disappointing for an admin I usually respect (I wouldn't have cared which version was protected, as long as the protecting admin didn't supervote; I requested protection in the hope that this wouldn't happen, and evidently I was wrong to expect it to be protected as it was.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Had the chickenshit used their username to post their diatribe I wouldn't have removed it.--MONGO 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and given that FPaS deleted the subpage whilst doing their supervoting, can someone restore that, with full protection active please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agreeing with Lukeno94. Perfect summary and conclusion.--Razionale (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have seen a strong need to delete that subpage. As such, I left a note for the deleting sysop, but obviously I respect his judgement on the delete. I can't say that editing immediately before protecting is something I'd have done. Pakaran 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem here, too much respect for an Admin. who has provided not one piece of evidence to justify removing a bit of controversial research and protected a page to his preferred version. How about respecting the editor's who want it restored. Just do it. Leaky Caldron 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Totally agree with Luke, The piece was relevant to the RFA, and shouldn't of been removed at all!, What ever happened to WP:NOTCENSORED these days?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• To echo this, and Anthonyhcole's similar comments, please take a look down this page at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand-related_drama.3F where Future Perfect is acting very similarly on another matter (and now that thread has been closed, he has been straight back to John Nagle's user talk: to repeat the same action, despite very clear requests not to).

AIUI, admins have extra tools but have no privileged voice in discussions. Editors are equal, and equal with admins. I believe this to be an absolutely fundamental part of how WP is constituted.

When we have an issue like this, it is thus a perilous action for an admin to start using admin tools to remove or hide parts of a discussion, good or bad. Editors making decisions or commenting on RfA or SPI should be allowed to remain in full possession of the facts. It is even worse when such actions are being carried out by an admin who is deeply INVOLVED themselves. For an admin to then start threatening blocks of GF editors who object is simply unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, how is this WP:NOTCENSORED? I genuinely don't see how the post falls under that category. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the way I see it .... His post & actions were in essence being hidden so thus I viewed it as censorship .... (Perhaps i'm wrong but agree to disagree and all that.) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I understand now, thanks for explaining. But then, any comments removed from pages, or modified, would also technically have to fall under WP:NOTCENSORED, even if it is not obscene at all. What I was basically doing is moving the text to a new page so that people don't have to scroll through 59kb of text to get to the bottom of the page. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome :), -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• As one of the participants in the edit war, I was not in a position to protect the page or vaporize the subpage which was created to house the IP diatribe. However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA, and every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. The IP editor (who geolocates to a university in Gdansk) has *0* other edits, and (from the polished look of the section) is obviously not a new editor. It's blindingly obvious that he's a ***, and more than likely not is a banned editor looking to extract a pound of flesh from Piotrus for his role in the EEML debacle. I gave the IP post all of the consideration it deserved (very little) and deleted it. When I was reverted, I had intended not to delete it again, and attempted to discuss it with the editor who reverted me. [26] When that was discarded out of hand ("not interested in hearing defense for censorship, sorry")[27] , I proceeded to revert it twice more (and the same editor undid my edits while screaming about "censorship" and a general how-dare-you-disagree-with-me attitude which I found offputting. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't like *** from banned editors. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA. Nope. I haven't voted in the RfA, or (IIRC) the last one either. Harassment is harassment regardless of whether one supports or opposes the candidate, and it should be simply removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

...every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. Nope. I don't know the guy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, given how clearly the post exposes your abusive actions, you shouldn't try to paint yourself as even remotely uninvolved. And I don't really know Piotrus either, but the evidence is both overwhelming and not "harassment" - that's the response of people involved trying to cover their arses. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation. At the same time you appear to be easy to influence, apparently because you're lazy and not particularly... astute. If you actually paid attention you'd note that I never "tried to paint myself as even remotely uninvolved". You are imagining things or you're deliberately misrepresenting things. Either way, doesn't speak well of you. Second, if you think that cowardly anonymous rant was anything but a bunch of bullshit upon bullshit, with irrelevant and false "diffs" sprinkled throughout to give it a semblance of legitimacy, well, what can I say, some people are easy to fool. It didn't "expose" any of my "abusive actions". Again, you are imagining things or you are deliberately misrepresenting things. It was harassment. It was bullshit. It was posted by some anonymous coward. And you, crying "notcensored!" like some twelve year old who doesn't get his way and calls his mommy a fascist, want to enable the harassment and humiliation by anonymous IPs of editors who have done more for Wikipedia than you a hundred times over. Editors, who, frankly, you are not even fit to comment upon (and no, I am not referring to myself). Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, I read quite a few of the diffs, and normally I would be one of those reverting such a set of evidence - but normally it is invalid. Everything I read backed up what the IP said, and none of the diffs I read were even slightly misrepresented. Your desperation to cover your arse is fairly amusing, and fairly pointless. I do not have "a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation" - you are blinded by your own abusive actions, and are desperate to hide them by any means necessary. How sad. Truly, who is the coward here - the person who didn't use their account because they knew of how much abuse they would get (and yes, I've seen the Encyclopedia Dramatica page), or the person desperately trying to cover up overwhelming evidence that shows they should've been banned a while ago? Hmm? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Wait. You're saying that this poor person didn't use their account "because they knew of how much abuse they would get" and then refer to Encyclopedia Dramatica? Essentially implying that if they had posted under their real name either *I* or maybe Piotrus or someone else would've... done a hit piece on them? Look you moron. It was Piotrus and me and others who were harassed on ED by these people, not the other way around. I really hope you're just sitting there lying because it's hard to believe that anyone would be that stupid. You don't have a single, not one, not a shred of evidence that *I* ever "abused" anyone on or off Wiki, outed them or otherwise harassed them. (Criticized them? Sure). So don't make accusations like that, and at least - please! - think a second or two before you write this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk)

• Still trying to cover up, I see. I never said that it would be you that made the abuse on ED, did I? No, that's what you wanted me to have said. Nor did I say that you had abused anyone - I said you had gamed the system, and the EEML ArbCom case categorically proves that. Nor do you have any evidence that this person ever had an account - it is not implausible that they have always edited as an IP. The diffs were not "fake", so that's just you lying through your teeth (whilst accusing others of lying). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you just implied it, in your usual slimy way. As to whether this person ever had an account... please. No, they just popped out of the blue with an IP address talking about stuff that happened in 2006, with a super-nicely formatted bordered and aligned text, digging out diffs on stuff that nobody, not even me remembers, and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies! Stop being daft. (Actually, personally I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one user behind that post but that it was a "group effort" but nm) Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Implied it in my usual slimy way? What utter bollocks you spout in your desperation to try and continuing gaming the system, revealing you have no idea what I do here, but that you're just trying to discredit anyone who opposes you. The IP address may be new, but it doesn't mean that the person behind it wasn't using a different IP. There are several other reasons why they may be using an IP without just jumping to the "OMG they must be banned viewpoint"; someone who has retired from Wikipedia, someone who lost their password and has since changed emails (which is far from uncommon), someone who has undergone courtesy vanishing, or anything along those lines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If they had been "courtesy-vanished" they would not have been supposed to be editing at all, most certainly not in an area in which they were involved in disputes – as this person must have been – before they vanished. If they were simply retired or had lost their account, but were otherwise in good standing, then their very first words in that posting would have been: "I am former editor so-and-so, posting in this way because ...", or at least "I once met Piotrus during a dispute over article so-and-so in 2010". Any reasonable editor with the wiki-experience that this person undoubtedly had would have known that they would otherwise have been immediately suspicious; the fact that they nevertheless did not volunteer this information is proof enough of foul play. Simple common sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Except that they may well have not wanted to disclose their account for the very reasons that have become obvious; the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek, and, given the various underhanded tactics that this group of editors have engaged in, if their account easily leads to the finding of their real name, they may well be very nervous of real-life repercussions. So no, not "simple common sense" - you're just seeing what you want to see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Keep digging Luke, you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous. First you claim, or excuse me, imply, that the anon IP posted his attack as an anon IP because they were afraid that I or Piotrus would make attack pages about them on Enclycopedia Dramatica or something. When I call you out on your bullshit, you desperately call that "bollocks" and proceed to argue that ... the poor anon IP lost his password or something. So which is it, where they posting their attacks as an anon IP because they were scared because of what I might do to them or because they lost their password or something? And then when Future Perfect points out that you're talking nonsense you ... switch back to implying that they posted as an anon IP because "the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek" and because they were afraid of "real-life repercussions" from something I might do. And this after you originally denied that you were implying exactly that. Calling your behavior "slimy" is putting it very very very mildly. I have never outed, abused, harassed ANYONE you little twerp! If you had any decency you'd strike those accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Even in that case they ought still not have edited. WP:SOCK is quite clear on this: pursuing interpersonal disputes is never among the legitimate exceptions justifying posting under undisclosed identity. Or, if they felt there was some exceptionally serious justification for an exception, they ought to have privately contacted Arbcom or some administrator so that they could have vouched for their legitimacy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, you claim you've never harassed anyone. So, explain to me how your comments to both the IP and myself aren't harassment? There are a multitude of legitimate reasons as to why the IP was posting as an IP. One reason is the existence of off-Wiki attack pages, and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used in this case before (irrelevant of which side; the fact is, it is a well-known location for that sort of abuse to occur). That is a reason for them not disclosing their identity, and a reason for them editing as an IP. I gave other reasons as well afterwards, all of which are potential reasons. "The likes of Marek" is a reference to your clique, which has been proven to be an extremely abusive one, with editors having a history of sockpuppetry and a multitude of other violations. The irony of you calling other editors "slimy" is quite strong, to be honest. As is the irony of you accusing users of bullshitting, because that's all you've done since you first joined your clique/cabal. And you're pretty lucky that DangerousPanda hasn't yet found these latest edits, given that you were warned several posts ago to stop making personal attacks (which you make whilst accusing other people of making attacks... ironic yet again). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

explain to me how your comments to both the IP and myself aren't harassment? - you seem not to understand the difference between "criticism" and "harassment". They are not the same. Worse you have a twisted sense of morality, as in *you* appear to believe that if you belittle someone else, if *you* make false bullshit accusations against someone else, if *you* enable attacks and humiliation of Wikipedia editors then that's all hunky dory. But as soon as someone points out to you how messed up this behavior is OMG! THEY IS HARASSING ME! Do you have some special dispensation from God, the United Nations, or your local knitting club which says that "it's okay for Lukeno94 to act like an asshole on Wikipedia but no one is ever allowed to criticize him for it, because gosh darn it that's "harassment""? No? Then quit it with the double standards and take back the false accusations you've been making.

existence of off-Wiki attack pages, and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used in this case before (irrelevant of which side; NO. It is NOT "irrelevant which side". It is central here. Attack pages and ED have been used to attack and harass *myself*, and Piotrus, and others (in some other vile ways which you are not even aware of). *I* have NEVER used attack pages and/or ED to attack or harass anyone. The fact that you seem to think that because someone else used these venues to attack me somehow proves that I would do the same... honestly I don't know how to describe that except "so stupid it hurts" (not to mention bad faithed but nm). Blame the victim much?

And you can throw the words "cabal" and "clique" all you want but that's pretty much in the same vein as you accusing me of planning to make attack pages on people. I don't have a clique or a cabal, sorry to disappoint. Again, you're full of shit and you're lying.

Finally, I didn't see any warnings from DangerousPanda (and jeez christ, can that guy PLEASE stick to a single account, legitimate alternative accounts or not, it's annoying and confusing as hell, and... unbecoming of an administrator) but I'll be damned if I let you sit here and lie about me, accuse me of some vile stuff without any proof, without any evidence, without any decency. You know, given the circumstances I've been quite restrained in telling you what I think of you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is a warning at the bottom of this thread. And if you think that calling someone mentally unstable is not harassment, then quite frankly, you aren't worth talking to. I'd say "you don't belong here", but the EEML case proved that years ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the poor anonymous IP who posted an attack on a Wikipedia editor is feeling very harassed. Will have to get counseling. In my opinion the level of obsessiveness with Piotrus and others, displayed by that person (more likely persons) definitely qualifies them for my description. Digging out obscure innane stuff from 2006? Yup. And buddy, I was here long before you showed up, and I promise you, I'll be here long after you're gone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether the IP's diffs were correct or not is of no relevance whatsoever. The post was abusive not because it was wrong, but because it was made from a position of illegitimate socking. No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name. There is never an excuse for hiding your face in this way, even if you are otherwise an editor in good standing. That alone is compelling grounds for treating the IP as abusive, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Show me the proof that the IP was originally a user with an account, and hasn't always edited as an IP? That's right, there isn't one. You're just making up policies to justify your supervote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. You can't seriously think that this is just some random passer-by, who just happened to get curious about Piotrus and then spent what must have been days digging through six or more years of wiki-history to compile evidence against him? Obviously this is somebody who has been closely following Piotrus and his disputes for years, and had intimate knowledge of the internals of these disputes. Now, show me one long-term IP editor who used to be active in that area and fits that profile. No, of course you don't know such an IP editor, there is no indication at all that this is the case, and I, having followed these disputes from some distance for much of this time, can confidently say there never was one. Sock judgments on Wikipedia don't rely on judicial methods of "proof", see WP:DUCK. If an anon IP or new account pops up out of nowhere and immediately jumps into an old dispute, revealing intimate knowledge of long-past situations, but doesn't volunteer any information about how he came to be so knowledgeable about it, then they are, always, without exception, a sock. Period. And then, every time, some boring old busybody on ANI comes by and starts obsessing about AGF and "show me some proof he's not a legitimate IP editor", bla bla. Yes, he might be a little green Martian too, show me proof that he's not, what the hell. I'm sick and tired of this boring old ritual. Stop insulting our intelligence by playing this stupid game. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• @FP. You have summarised WP:SOCK policy in a very simple way. The problem I have is that the policy as documented does not support your ruling that "No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name." It would be great if the policy actually stated that, but it doesn't. Which heading of WP:ILLEGIT should I be looking at? Leaky Caldron 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's plain as day: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". Obviuosly that also goes for editors choosing to edit logged-out without disclosing their link to their prior edit history (whether that prior edit history be itself through IPs or an account). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

But editing the Talk Page at RfA is not included in the list of prohibited areas. It expressly lists voting at RfA, not adding to the RfA TP. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't expect anybody would sink so low into wikilawyering. With this, you have finally lost any claim to being taken seriously here. Learn this: on Wikipedia, we read policy texts for their intent, not for their letter. Now go away, I'm no longer interested in having any discussion with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's completely uncalled for. I didn't write the policy. I take it as read that those who did included everything they did (and didn't) for a good reason. Leaky Caldron 13:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking on to this for some while, and was in doubt whether I should say something here, but now here it goes: First: Further down Razionale quotes policy: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Thus, after Illraute reinstated the text on February 11 at 5.02, the text should have been left on the talk page. There was absolutely no justification to remove it anymore. The text itself is well written, shows evidence and uses no abusive language. To call a statement of fact a "personal attack" is preposterous, and not supported by any policy or guideline. The reader has to make up his mind what to make of it. And Piotrus should take responsibility for his actions, instead of trying to hide that there ever was anything going on. He would have gotten more support if he discussed his past freely instead of having removed it which led to his being swamped with opposes. Second: To protect a preferred version, after removing the content contrary to policy/guidelines, is conduct unbecoming an admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I admonish you to avoid such actions in the future. Kraxler (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

1. A statement can be abusive even if it doesn't use "abusive language". Outing, lying, etc. 2. Piotrus did take responsibility and didn't try to hide anything. He mentioned the episode in his candidate statement both in this RfA and in the previous one. 3. He didn't "remove it". I did. Because it deserved to be removed. He didn't try "having it removed". 4. Future Perfect acted correctly, both in terms of Wikipedia policy and basic decency. Is it really too much to ask that people actually bother thinking and checking before they come here and talk nonsense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler: you are mistaken about the "reinstating" policy. When it comes to talkpage postings, there's more to "reinstating" a sock's posting under the socking policy than simply to revert it in. You need to revert it in with the explicit aim of making it fully your own, taking full responsibility for it – that usually involves at least an explicit note in an edit summary, more commonly a note on the page itself, telling readers that you fully endorse every word of the posting and wish it to be read as if you yourself had written it all along. Once you do that, you will be held responsible for everything that's in it – if there's a personal attack in it, you will be the one who made the personal attack; if there are negative judgments, allegations or accusations in it, you will be judged as having made them. None of the editors who reinstated the anon's posting indicated that they wished to take this responsibility. And since none of them have so far claimed they in fact investigated and checked every single claim in the screed and verified every single diff, I dare say that it would have been hugely irresponsible for any of them to have done so. Making negative accusations about people at RfA is not a thing to be done lightly, so if even a single diff in that screed had turned out to be false or a single judgment to have been questionable, that would have seriously backfired on the person who reinstated it. But as it is, the way I read the edit history, nobody did do this, so it is still the IP's posting, and the IP's alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why is this turning into a huge drama-fest? Do people think that there is going to be another 65 support votes, which with no more opposes takes the RFA to ~70% support, without that information on the talk page? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Why the love of drama? Why the need to restore this attack on Piotrus by some cowardly anon IP ? Unless... the purpose really *is* just to humiliate him. Plenty of folks around Wikipedia, and especially RfA, who enjoy that kind of thing way too much. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose to TParis's unannounced and authoritarian offer of brushing-under-the-carpet. It aims at suppressing over 200 evidence diffs without any consideration. While the only claim remains that it could be from a banned user, which is possible but a speculation, this is long irrelevant because even if it were, then other users have already taken over the responsibility for the material [28] ("Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."). Yes, taking over material exists, but "taking over protection"s is bizarre and some way to undermine the objection to super-voting. Since the report contains pieces still actionable, anyone trying to suppress it must be held to blame for it. Piotrus is in my opinion an impressive and productive Wikipedian, but his RFA was already lost before the report. The only result from brushing it under the carpet is that Pioturs could and would continue the totally unacceptable tag-teaming, EEML business, misrepresentations, misleading of voters, disregard for checking copyright and so forth. Any reference to the evidence would be shredded as something courtesy blanked.--Razionale (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's necessary for FPaS (whom I don't know from Adam), when he's back online, to explain how he didn't breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge his breach. My concern obviously is that if he breached WP:INVOLVED but thinks the rule doesn't apply to him or doesn't see that he breached the rule, or doesn't think he has to address this reasonable request, then we have a character or competency problem with this editor.

To be very clear: I'm not asking FPaS to explain why his preferred version was superior - that's something about which reasonable people may disagree - but to explain how he did not breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge it was a breach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI for anyone who might not know, the RfA has now been closed (although that doesn't necessarily make the discussion moot). Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Should MONGO be blocked for personal attacks? They've made their third "chickenshit" remark, despite knowing full well it is inappropriate. I agree with Anthony that FPaS needs to explain themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, "chickenshit" is precisely the word that is appropriate here. There's a couple of words that come to mind in relation to your little agitation games here but I'll refrain. FPaS is one of the few people here who has shown some decency, and honestly, you and a few others... are behaving like the stereotype of an immature adolescent internet bully who revels in humiliating others for the fun of it and gets their kicks by exercising petty power in petty fashion. Oh, wait a minute, you don't even have any power, you're not even an admin, just another drama board groupie wasting people's time. Find better places to hang out than ANI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• So you trying to censor and bully people who point out how much you've gamed the system over the years is somehow appropriate? Note that two editors have 100% supported my assessment of the edit war situation, and two editors whom I've barely interacted with anywhere, so I'm clearly not "an immature adolescent internet bully" if I'm talking sense, am I? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeeeeaaahhhh, I'm trying to "bully" an anonymous IP coward with obvious mental problems, who posted a long super creepy, obsessive attack hit piece about another editor. Poor anonymous IP editor. Bullied by the evil Volunteer Marek. Good thing Wikipedia has valiant defenders of the truth, always ready to scream "notcencorsed!" who are here to speak up for the rights of anonymous IP editors to harass and humiliate others. What would this place be like without you? Oh my god! I just realized what it would be like. It would be a place where anonymous IP editors might not be so inclined to harass and humiliate people who have the courage to edit under their own names. The horror!

Yes, buddy, that's on you too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow Marek, that's beneath you. 8-( Now Luke and I have had enough run ins before that no-one is likely to characterise me as simply leaping to the defence of some wiki-friend here, but your comments on him are uncalled for, unhelpful and awfully close to NPA. Especially the implication of "No non-admins at ANI". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm about 1/4" off of clicking the "block" button for VM's personal attacks on the IP right here in ANI. "Obvious mental problems"? Seriously? You consider that even remotely appropriate? I'm still not sure why I'm delaying the inevitable DP 11:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose close

This is descending into a shitfest. The RfA is closed. The point is moot. And I'm sure the IP is pleased. There are community issues, maybe, but the village pump is the best place to discuss them IMO. They are not going to be resolved here.

Any objections to closing this thread to prevent further misery and rancor? --Tóraí (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am formulating a follow-up question for FP. Please leave it a while. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Tóraí (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because the RFA is closed, does not eradicate the surrounding behavioural issues DP 11:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't stop people from perpetually arguing over trivial facts, either. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Did User:Future Perfect at Sunrise break WP:INVOLVED? A simple question I've asked a couple of times above. Here he explains,

"I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect."

This strikes me as the very model of involved: engaging in an edit-war with numerous others in good standing and locking the page in his preferred version. Although in this instance the behaviour was inconsequential - the RfA outcome was inevitable at that point - I'm worried he doesn't grasp the meaning of "involved" and may be doing this kind of thing in other situations. Anyway, it is a reasonable question from an involved editor in good standing (it was my edit he reverted before locking the page in his preferred version) and I think he should address it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he needs to address his blatant abuse of another editor (me) and whether their understanding of the WP:ILLEGIT policy, which they have quoted, is actually defensible. Leaky Caldron 13:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look into the entire RfA, but a glaringly tendentious 58K rant from a previously unknown anonymous source is a clear sign of a lack of good faith, and the intervening admins were perfectly within the limits of discretion by stopping its repetitive insertion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not children. If it's "glaringly tendentious", then we can be expected to judge it on its merits. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While the content is overly long by Wikipedia standards, it's reasonably well written, formatted well, and extensively supported by diffs. It is WMF policy that IPs can edit except for very narrow exceptions and although Rfa voting is one of those exceptions, Rfa talk is not. While the reversion may have fallen within "the limits of discretion" it has not exemplified wisdom, as the resulting ruckus (i.e. this thread) has only Streisanded it into getting a much larger audience that it likely would have otherwise. NE Ent 14:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that assessment would be spot-on if the IP user in question were a genuinely new contributor, but this was obviously the input of someone familiar with the subject and the surrounding issues. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and honestly, common sense and a bit of background knowledge here strongly suggests that we're not talking about a "someone" here but rather "someones". With an "s" at the end. That post was a group effort. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly because we're not children, none of us should expect that people will be tolerant of everyone's time being wasted on bad-faith rants. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course the assessment is spot on. The post was clearly a political act by the author(s) to increase the probability of the Rfa failing. That goal has been achieved -- whether it would have been without the IP post is of course unknown and unknowable. Nonetheless a mature adult assessment of the potential effects of contribution removal should include making predictions as the to probable outcomes. Will the reversion stick, or will other editors reinstate it? Will more or less attention to the post be made by reverting it or ignoring it? In this case with hindsight it should be obvious removing the statement attracted far more attention to it than ignoring it. NE Ent 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment on proposal to close: While the RfA itself is closed, would I be correct in stating that protection of the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs) appears to now be overdue for removal? If so, when unprotected we could yet see further edits/discussion there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Trevj, the talk page is already unprotected. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly if tangentially, I'm almost unsatisfied enough with FPaS' rationale that I'm tempted to take the subpage to DRV, except that it would probably be just as symbolic as the deletion. If someone else chooses to do so, I'll comment there. I don't see a compelling case that the IP was in any fashion involved in the EEML scandal, but I admit to not having closely followed the case even at the time. Pakaran 14:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• We don't actually need the subpage, as it duplicates material still available for viewing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3; sample diff. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thus my usage of the word symbolic. I guess I'm curious why, if FPaS is in the possession of evidence against the logged-out user, he has not taken that evidence to an SPI case or to arbcom. I suppose it's possible he has done the latter, and they're in the process of dealing with it. In any case, I don't think further discussion here is going to improve anything substantially. Pakaran 15:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Huh? What non-obvious "evidence" would I be "in possession of"? I told everybody exactly (and more than once) what I think and what I know about that IP. I have exactly as much evidence about it as everybody else has, combined with a dose of common sense and experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Just a general comment about the term shitfest...is that a festival of shit...a shit flinging event...a shit eating competition...I have yet to find a suitable ans authoritive definition.--MONGO 15:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• The edit's content isn't even relevant or necessary to be included. If anything, it should either be at a subpage, at the bottom of the page, or not there at all, the latter of which is my preferred option. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here's my question: If the IP that posted the disputed content is so clearly a "banned *** sock", why wasn't the IP blocked? Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably for no more sinister reason than that they had only made a single edit and by the time the edit-war drew everybody's attention the IP had been silent for about a day, making retroactive blocking pretty useless? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• If it's a banned *** sock, shouldn't it be blocked on sight, regardless of that? Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 15:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Only if it was a registered account. IPs happen to change between different users and even static ones may not always represent one and the same user. So, while I don't have any opinion about anything else in this thread, blocking a stale IP for block/ban evasion would've been pretty futile. De728631 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• What evidence is there that this even was a sock of a banned user? That's a pretty serious allegation and Future Perfect is awfully quick to throw it around without the slightest evidence. Yesterday they blocked Bort Nort within 3 minutes of their first noticeable edit and removed communication access too. That's too quick for any sort of CU intervention. Future Perfect is far too quick and far too involved to be acting with such haste in this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Um.... he probably blocked Bort Nort because Bort Nort went around to various people's talk pages telling them that he was a sock of a banned user. Really, not that hard to figure out. Can this thread get any more absurd? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Did User:Future Perfect at Sunrise break WP:INVOLVED?

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

---

User:NE Ent closed this thread, and invited others who disagree with its closure to reopen. I think I agree with ending most of that discussion now, but would like to hear from FPaS on this point.

Here he explains,

"I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect."

This strikes me as the very model of involved: engaging in an edit-war with numerous others in good standing and locking the page in his preferred version. Although in this instance the behaviour was inconsequential - the RfA outcome was inevitable at that point - I'm worried he doesn't grasp the meaning of "involved" and may be doing this kind of thing in other situations. Anyway, it is a reasonable question from an involved editor in good standing (it was my edit he reverted before locking the page in his preferred version) and I think he should address it.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• By reverting to his preferred version before protecting, given that this is categorically not a clear-cut case (the number of experienced editors on either side of the edit war and subsequent debate shows that), I would most definitely say that this is a WP:INVOLVED violation. I don't hold out much hope of it being addressed though, given the prior discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think he was involved (WP:INVOLVED). I don't believe he sought to protect the page merely to prevent edit warring (i.e. to protect in at an arbitrary revision). I believe he sought to remove the content and prevent its re-insertion. Doing so is perfectly valid in some circumstances. And I believe he did so in good faith.

Ultimately, nothing worthwhile came from its removal. And nothing was lost by its removal either. My feel is that creating a fuss over it created more impact from the statement than the IP could ever have achieved alone. If the IP was a ***, I'm certain they are grateful to those of you who took the bait (see WP:DENY). If the IP wasn't a ***, I'm sure they are still grateful that their post was brought to so many people's attention.

I don't agree with Future Perfect's call on some elements of the matter (neither do other admins). But I don't think it's necessary for us all to agree all of the time. And there's more to be lost, I believe, in raking over the coals now, than if we just moved on, cooler and wiser for all these goings-on. --Tóraí (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beats me how all you Admins. stick together to defend one another. I mean, you read his very personal, direct attack on me for simply raising a query about policy (I wasn't the only one) and not a word said. If I had said that to another editor, or especially an Admin., I would be warned or blocked. It's not about growing a thick skin, it's about knowing when to not step over the mark to the point of publicly denigrating a fellow editor. As Admins. you should be dishing out warnings, not sitting on your hands. Leaky Caldron 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• People (and non-admins at that) were saying worse things in that discussion than he was, and didn't get warned either, so it's hardly surprising. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Let's just dispense with the opening section of WP:ADMINACCT, eh? The bit that says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.". Leaky Caldron 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't condoning his comments, not even close Leaky, and I'm disappointed you thought I was. The fact is though, only one user was warned out of all of those who made personal attacks and were acting in civilly during that discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is little point to even asking the question here at ANI as the usual deafening silence comes down whenever an admin is questioned. Really it's ArbCom or nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is nothing to do with a cabal of admins imposing silence—it's the fact that FPoA's assessment (see comment at "19:39, 11 February 2014" above) is so obviously correct. While anyone can edit applies, it is necessary to employ WP:DENY rigorously—the alternative would leave talk pages littered with beautifully crafted attacks on editors, posted by throw-away accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:DENY is for vandalism, it's not a convenient "catch-all" for when you don't like the content but "you're pretty sure they're a sockpuppet...or whatever else allows me to remove the comment". I really hope you just didn't read WP:DENY, and that you don't think that the comment is now vandalism? - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Essays like WP:DENY are not necessarily updated to reflect standard procedure. Rather than debate that point, how about responding to the issue I mentioned, namely that the alternative (to applying DENY) would leave talk pages littered with beautifully crafted attacks on editors, posted by throw-away accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DENY is an essay. That's all it is. Some people need to stop referencing it as if it is a solid policy that justifies these actions - when there are no justifications for protecting your preferred version of a page that is disputed by various editors in good standing (this is not one IP editwarring against a bunch of experienced editors, don't forget) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• The bit about "not necessarily updated to reflect standard procedure" is flat-out wrong. Citing things based on what we think they should probably say isn't how Wikipedia works. If you think WP:DENY needs to be changed, propose that on that talk page. As far as the "how about responding" bit, the "attack" was backed up by diffs, so WP:NPA doesn't apply. It wasn't vandalism, so WP:DENY doesn't apply. It wasn't a confirmed sockpuppet, so removing it wasn't valid on the grounds that it was a sockpuppet. The two theories given as justification are that the IP was either someone editing while logged out, or a blocked/banned editor. Either way, the concern is that the edits weren't done in a legit way...so the response is to remove them in a way that isn't legit? That's hypocritical, at best. If it's thought that the IP was a sockpuppet open an SPI rather than leaving hypocritical "beautifully crafted attacks on editors" here at AN/I. Editors have been blocked before for repeatedly using "sockpuppet" to describe someone when no evidence was given. The IP's comments were backed up by diffs, your attacks are not; are you suggesting I should remove your comments per WP:DENY? - Aoidh (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP's comment was not vandalism. Nor was it a personal attack: discussion of a user's conduct or history, with diffs, is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion. The IP may have a valid reason for not identifying their account, if they have one - I don't know the depth of acrimony in the EEML area, but if it is deep then an editor whose account name is their real name may have very good grounds for not identifying themselves when criticising one of the main players in that dispute.

Be all that as it may. My question is not whether the comment should have been deleted. Obviously, reasonable and uninvolved, non-partisan people disagree on that. My question is whether an editor who holds and strongly proclaims one of the opposing views and who is a party to the edit war should protect the page in his preferred version.

I would appreciate it if further comments addressed this question, the title of the sub-thread. If you would like to re-argue whether the content should have been removed, or whether someone has been rude to someone, or any other aspect of this incident please take up NE Ent's offer and re-open the main thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If an editor with an account were to make a subpage with that content, it would be deleted as a WP:POLEMIC violation. In the heat of an RfA, people can get excited about protecting liberty and free speech, but no page on Wikipedia is available for settling grudges, and it has obviously been lovingly prepared by an adversary from some previous dispute—an adversary who is unable or unwilling to use their account. The post is still available in the history if anyone cares. What possible benefit to the encyclopedia may ensue from pursuing this matter?

Re the title: no, FPaS did not violate INVOLVED. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:POLEMIC wouldn't apply because it's not a user page (and that's ignoring the fact that the IP didn't create it as a subpage, but commented on the talk page, where appropriate). If you mean to say that if they had made that comment on their user page that it would have been deleted, probably. However, your comments here would also be deleted, but the difference is that their comments were backed by diffs, whereas yours are not. Are you truly suggesting that it doesn't benefit Wikipedia to ensure that administrators are using their tools correctly? - Aoidh (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED concludes by noting "...it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards", and the revert was part of a sequence of edits by various users, typical concerning contentious material. The edit summary "rv, obviously a statement by some banned *** sock" may be seen as expressing an opinion (and hence involvement) on the validity of the content, which the page history showed no agreement on regarding inclusion of the comments.

I share the view that "editing immediately before protecting", combined with deletion of the subpage doesn't seem to be an obvious run-of-the-mill course of administrative action. The combination of edits by the admin concerned could be seen as not being impartial, although undertaken in good faith to prevent further warring. IMHO there were enough eyes on the page to undertake, say, just one of these actions... and the ANI discussion was already underway. By way of contrast, the subsequent protection by TParis was not undertaken in conjunction with other edits which could imply involvement.

Were I to be in a position where involvement in an area were questioned by others, with respect to associated administrative action(s), I'd like to think that I'd be inclined to revert the action(s) and await the consensus view (particularly after ample opportunity for further reflection). Despite potentially valid convictions regarding the validity of the content (and its origins and intentions), I think that the combination of edits was ill-judged in this case, because "best practice" was not followed. In short, yes, I think that there was an appearance of being involved, and therefore that the combined edits are open to question. These comments have no bearing on my personal opinion of the particular admin, and I apologise in advance for any ill-feeling generated. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Close - again

No one is moving their position here and the Admin. certainly is not going to accept any error for the involved close or for their clear breach of WP:ADMINACCT. It is clear what a majority of contributor's believe and another venue will be required to get an impartial determination of the actions & behaviour that is under discussion. Leaky Caldron 12:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: before this is closed can you respond to Trevj's comments about appearance of involvement, taking sides in an edit war, etc. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Close. This pursuit is ridiculous...should an effort be made to take this to arbcom, I expect that even if they did take the case, they would find no fault here and in fact, might find the badgering that some are subjecting Future Perfect at Sunrise to to be sanctionable...so think hard about opening a case on this matter as all parties will be under scrutiny.--MONGO 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• This is utterly pointless, I suggest either go to ArbCom or forget all this and just move on!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Harrassment and inappropriate PRODding by an Editor

An article created by Rpo.castro has been sent to AfD here, where I agreed with the nomination. There has been a bit of discussion between the Rpo.castro and myself about whether the sources he provided are routine, but nothing that I would consider uncivil or out of hand. However, I checked my watchlist to find that all of a sudden he had PRODed over 50 articles I had created in about 20 minutes, as can be seen here - though I note, not one edit summary to explain what had happened. This seems to me to be a complete over-reaction, and a blatant and repeated contravention of the first part of WP:POINT. Furthermore, though I am not discussing the specific merits of the nominations which I do not see as relevant at the moment, the quantity of nominations in such a short period of time is not only extremely POINTY-y, but tantamount to harrassment, particularly because:

• None of the PRODs were nominated properly, so I only saw them on my watchlist,
• I did not receive any comment about his concerns prior to PRODDING on my talk page, something I would expect to see if he had widespread concerns.
• None of the PRODs were added to the WP:FOOTY list, which is common practice.

If this is not harrassment, then at best it is the disruptive actions of someone who does not know how to nominate articles properly, nor how to engage in constructive discussion when they have major issues. I would propose a ban for a period of time on Rpo.castro nominating articles for deletion.

It may be complete coincidence, but at almost the same time, I noticed 144.64.1.99 reverted a number of random edits I had made across both football and non-football articles, with no clear rhyme or reason, nor any indication as to why they had done this, as can be seen here. Not sure whether this is the same editor, but seems weird that both things should happen in the same day. Fenix down (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did a Geolocate on the IP 144.64.1.99 and it seems to be Portuguese. I believe it's the same IP used by Rpo.castro (talk · contribs) who is creating/updating the Atlantic Cup articles, which is held in Algarve, Portugal. Too much of a coincidence. JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• I don't doubt that the IP is that editor--note the times. All the IP edits were made in a gap in Rpo.castro's edits, and at some point maybe they realized that PRODding is much easier when you're logged in and can use a gadget. Now, all this took place a little while ago and blocking now would be punitive. However, I agree that this editor should a. not do anything in the realm of deletion for a while (perhaps a ban can be proposed, don't know if that's necessary) and b. stay away from Fenix down's edits. If they do any of this again they should be blocked on the spot to keep it in check. (Next time, Fenix, find someone with mass rollback, like me--it's easy and good for my edit count.)

  Rpo.castro, we're still waiting on an explanation. Next disruptive edit, you are likely to be blocked, and maybe for a long time, for harassment. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Drmies:, thanks for the offer of help if this happens again, I'll be sure to take you up on it. Not sure I understand your comment about this all taking place a little while ago, it took place yeasterday evening (11/02/14), both RPO.castro's and the IP edits, though I am not here looking for a total block, just for him to understand that that behaviour is not acceptable and to stay away from PRODdin / AfDing util they can prove they know how to do it properly and appropriately. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Fenix down, I understand if you want action taken; perhaps TParis might do that for you. When I say "a little while ago" I meant something like "not happening right now". Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so blocking someone for something they're not doing now isn't really right. TParis reads this differently: he would argue, I think, that the issue here is not a temporary disruptive spree but rather a kind of WP:HOUNDING. He might argue that even if the editor is not currently PRODding your stuff, they are still harassing you with their very presence. (My block would be for disruption, TParis's for harassment, I think.) If TParis and I disagree, it's only slightly, in the meaning of that disruptive spree--for TParis it's evidence of a character trait, for me it's a temporary, and hopefully one-time, complete loss of good manners. If it happens again TParis was clearly right; if it doesn't the editor may have learned a lesson. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree @Drmies:, I hope it was just a one-off, and no damage was done. He is aware that it has been raised here and that there will be further repurcussions if anything like that happens again. Would like to wait a day or two before closing in case he comes back or wishes to add a comment himself, but am happy to have it recorded as a one-off event if nothing further happens in the next couple of days. Thanks for your attention on this. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm of a different opinion than Drmies. I think we don't need editors on Wikipedia who will mass PROD 50+ pages just for revenge. It would be protective of Wikipedia to remove this editor which is exactly what the block button is for.--v/r - TP 02:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • TParis, for all the abusive admin commentary I hear about me, I may well be too soft. I'm not likely to block someone for one angry outburst, as antisocial and disruptive as this one was, but you are, as always, free to disagree with me, and I couldn't fault you for it. Mind you, I have not looked at the user's other edits (all this FOOTY stuff bores me), so I can't really tell if they're a net positive in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, true. But that doesn't mean that blocks are only done when an editor is in the midst of misbehavior. If you have a vandalism-only account, for example, who has been inactive for days, and the vandalism is only now being discovered and reverted, it wouldn't be punitive to block that editor indefinitely because you're preventing future action from an account that has shown itself to be of no benefit to Wikipedia. If you want to use that kind of rationale in this particular case, however, you'd have to establish that this editor is too much of a danger to allow to contribute to the project any longer. I think that both TParis and Drmies have good points and I think a compromise can be reached here. If the editor is given an "only warning" that if this kind of behavior can lead to an indefinite block if repeated, I think it will satisfy both concerns. The editor is given a chance to avoid the behavior again, but in such a way that we make it clear that such behavior isn't tolerated. And if the behavior is repeated, an immediate indefinite block can reinforce that statement. -- Atama頭 17:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Windows66

Hi everyone. The main cause of the problems with this user is my contribution in the article Black people in Nazi Germany - I developed it in hyperlinks and added a few important notes inclung changes in the head of the article. I stated that Black people during the Nazi rule in Germany were persecuted in a similar way to Gypsies and Poles. True? Yes, this is true indeed.

However, "Windows66" reverted my contribution and instantly wrote me a message on my [Talk page suggesting that he fixed some information]. What he actually did is leaving my contribution unchanged, hyperlinks and other stuff untouched, but he removed the word "ethnic Poles", insinuating that Poles were pure Aryans and were not persecuted for their racial origin as Slavs. He denied the fact that Poles, Serbs and other Slavs were also classified as "Untermenschen" (subhuman) which in the Polish law is classified as the par of Holocaust denial. He said there is no evidence for that and suggested that it is impossible to prove it. So... I started reverting his reverts. He subsequently flooded my talk-page with tons of useless information which I was unable to read and analyse within a quarter of an hour, while [he tells other users not to put even short messages on his talk page]

He perfectly knows the Wikipedia rules and manupulates them in order to shut people's mouths and scare them by numerous accusations, persuaded some administrator to give me a warning for multiple reverts. Then I asked him if he doesn't like Poles or maybe has some prejudice while I found out that he is searching for and editing all the information about the struggles of Polish nation during the World War II in terms of Racial policy of Nazi Germany. And so I received another warning, this time he convinced another administrator (who eventually turned out to be friendly and helpful), Windows66 he did it behind my back without notifying me, so I receiuved a next warning, this time he accused me for accusing him... mainly for antipolonism, racism and Holocaust denial, as I asked does he hate Poles and why so. Well, my bad. I got mad for his stubborn denial of the historical truth.

Then again he accused me of having some "sock-puppets", talking to him from several different IP addresses or even being some other user who is in fact anyhow connected to me. Since the time "Windows66" is constantly stalking me by tracing my contribs in order to eventually revert them if he wishes to, writing messages to me despite i opted for making peace with him.

Meanwhile, sometime ago he clearly stated: "I do not agree that Slavic people as a group were the main victims after Jews and Gypsies". That means, what he denied the groundbreaking and historically proven statistics which are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

And so here I am.... pictured as an aggressor, the worst enemy you could ever imagine, only for trying to defend the historical truth and keeping it on Wikipedia. I omit the fact that I am the victim here and i feel helpless while "Windows66" knows how to juggle the Wikipedia rules so good, that he knows when he can use irony or flood someone's talk-page; I just want you all to know, that I am a defender of historical truth, I safrificed a considerable amount of time for this guy to explain things to him, and finally, I wanted to make peace with him as first - he rejected. (see: User talk:Yatzhek). PS - I come from Poland so forgive me for my mistakes in English. Yatzhek (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you summerize your complaint for us? or atleast add some whitespace? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This user Yatzhek is still attempting the pathetic sympathy card, this user thinks its acceptable to label me racist, anti-Polish, white supremacist and a Holocaust denier. The user got warned for accusing me of Holocaust denial and is STILL continuing this nonsense. You do not have any problems with English so quit the dumb act you are not fooling anyone now, see further up when I reported this user, cheers admins. See this for my previous reporting of this user and the evidence against the user.

Lets look at how this started here, I then proceeded in making a discussion via the talk page of the user here (the even original title of the new section was changed by the user), I then failed to get any cooperation with the user, see here (although the user has removed some information). I then asked Diannaa about the situation, see here which you can see Yatzhek accuse me here of being racist, anti-Polish, a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist (this can be found elsewhere), see here, see here for the failed cooperation with this user me asking for a response with sources and proof and the response is the rant from Yatzhek.

In regards to denying "groundbreaking statistics" is not the case, the user asked me if I believe they were the most persecuted after Jews and Gypsies in which I replied no, this is personal opinion and is not denying anything, see here and my reply here.

I find it hilarious that the user only under an hour ago said he/she will leave me alone and has now created this, see this yet now this has cropped up. Petty little tedious mind games.--Windows66 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the case having wandered to have a look due to the RFPP request, and I don't think Yatzhek has a leg to stand on. Claiming that Poles were on the same level as Gypsies at the time of the Nuremberg Laws is simply inaccurate; if Yatzhek had read what he was referencing, he would see that the Nuremburg Laws were enacted in 1935, whilst it was another four or five years before the proclamation that Gypsies and Poles were comparably "undesirable" was made (as is evidenced by the fact that it is "German soldiers" that are the issue). Anyone trying to search for "Polish" or "Pole" will find nothing in the Nuremberg Laws article. I'm fairly sure that Serbs were not, by default, put at the same level of the scale as black people or Jews were. I'm also fairly sure that the IPs are indeed Yatzhek whilst logged out; the coincidences are just too great. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have put you on the noticeboard mainly because you did it to me earlier while I feel innocent, and I think you totally deserve being checked by the administrators because your contributions are highly questionable. Your behaviour is a hidden-irony connected with personal attacks under the cover of presenting the sources. you won't let noone edit the articles you watch, even if the person would add some sources. By saying "HAHAHAHA" you simply prove your arrogance and ironic attitude towards everyone who tries to open a debate with you.

Why did you present the Nuremberg Laws as your main source and stick to it all the time? It's simply - you want others to see the racial policy of the Nazis only from one source and omit other existing sources and decretes.

PS - you say about your personal opinion, and as far as I see, you are trying to force your personal opinions in the Wikipedia articles by your contributions.

Yatzhek (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yatzhek, whilst I am inclined to agree with you on the fact Windows66 was being inappropriate in their comment, the fact remains that your edits were factually inaccurate. If you read my post above yours, you will see why. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar dispute is taking place on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Poles and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Slavic_peoples

Poles and other Slavs, especially the East Slavic nations, were viewed as racially inferior "subhumans" (second-class "Aryans" ?) destined to be exterminated, enslaved or deported, see Generalplan Ost.

• Oliver Rathkolb, Revisiting the National Socialist Legacy: Coming to Terms With Forced Labor, Expropriation, Compensation, and Restitution, p.84 : "The European peoples to be conquered were hierarchically ranked into alien and Germanic races. Accordingly, there were plans to give Europe a new structure: In Western Europe a work sharing industrial society under German leadership, in the countries of the East, Southeast and later South the exploitation of raw materials and manpower. Being Slavs the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Serbs were only slightly above the Jews in the racial hierarchy. Their fate was to be enslavement or death. ... The realisation of these aims began immediately after German troops had entered Poland on September 1, 1939. ... Shortly afterwards, the deportation of civilian workforce - men and women - followed. At the same time, the Nazi-party and the Gestapo launched a campaign against so-called Slavic "Untermenschen" (subhumans) and "human beasts". This campaign even reached the farthest schools." -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I admit I was a bit awkward and rightly so Yatzhek is refusing to accept he is wrong and is now asking my personal opinion on things which I have on more than one time told is not what talk pages are for and when I have presented evidence it has been deleted. The IP's are obviously Yatzhek's and it is quite clear this is sock puppets because its three different IP's. Why can't you not just let it go Yatzhek? It doesn't matter if you feel whatever, I have not broken any rules and you are wasting your time trying to report me here simply because I reported you, I reported you for accusing me of Holocaust denial, racism, being anti-Polish and also a white supremacist, see WP:PA. Now kindly stop sending me absolute nonsense on my talk pages and try to contribute towards articles not have a go at another user and then play the sympathy cry card when you have been warned and reported, and yet after this you STILL continue. When will you stop?--Windows66 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin input: edit-warring and BLP violations at Stanton Glantz

Could I ask someone to have a word with FergusM1970 (talk · contribs) regarding his behavior on our biography of Stanton Glantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? FergusM1970 apparently has contempt for Glantz, whom he refers to as "Stan the Glans", and is edit-warring to insert contentious material based solely on a personal blog, in clear violation of WP:BLP ([29], [30]). On the talkpage, FergusM1970 denigrates Glantz (a member of the Institute of Medicine and a professor of cardiology at UCSF) as lacking "any sort of medical qualification". He's also accused Glantz on the talkpage of being "a single-issue hack" who's committing research fraud in service of a political agenda. Presumably WP:BLP imposes some limits on the amount of unsourced defamation we permit on talkpages, as well as the sources we use in articles. As I've already commented on the talkpage, I would like external input from uninvolved admins. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I made one revert, checked the rules on RS and left it at that. As for Stan Glantz, I didn't "accuse" him of not having any sort of medical qualification. He DOESN'T have any sort of medical qualification and my source for that is his UCSF profile page. Nor is it me who accused him of research fraud; that was Dr Michael Siegel, who DOES have some medical qualifications.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If we were serious about enforcing our policies in relation to content, BLP and MEDRS as we are about "civility", we would issue an indefinite block. If no one else is willing to and no one gives me a good reason not to, I'll do it. NW (Talk) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where MEDRS comes in and frankly, given how quickly MastCell accused me of edit-warring, I think I was reasonably civil. As for Glantz it is a fact that he doesn't have a medical degree and it is a fact that a professor from Boston University has accused him of misrepresenting research in pursuit of the (single) issue which has occupied his entire career.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Glantz has a Ph.D. rather than an M.D., which is fairly common in public-health research. Many of the world's leading experts on epidemiology and public health are Ph.D.'s, not M.D.'s. But you misleadingly presented this distinction as a means of discrediting Glantz, and claimed that he was completely unqualified in his professional field. That's an obvious falsehood. As for the accusations of research fraud, I hope you now understand that a personal blog is not a suitable source for such material. Your own commentary went far beyond even that personal blog in terms of malice and abusiveness toward the biography subject, and you need to appreciate that you cannot use this project as a platform to express your contempt for article subjects, even if you believe some guy's blog supports your viewpoint. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He does indeed have a PhD, but it's not in medicine - it's in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems. He has no medical qualifications and his postdoc work, while in cardiology, was in purely mechanical aspects. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ergo not a falsehood.

You should really take that up with the world-renowned medical school where Glantz holds a professorship, and with the Institute of Medicine, where he was elected a member. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear that they've got an impostor in their midst. In the meantime, I take it we're in agreement about the need to knock off this sort of nonsense on Wikipedia, at least? MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In general I have great respect for UCSF's medical school - my girlfriend works there, for someone who has an actual medical degree (and a Nobel prize) - but they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to tobacco control. One of Glantz's colleagues, Prue Talbot, recently wrote a paper on nicotine inhalation based on a few YouTube videos she'd watched, which to my humble brain seems less than scientifically rigorous. Of course none of that changes the fact that Glantz has no medical qualifications and is a single-issue activist, but yes, I should have been less intemperate. A couple of his fellow activists got my blood boiling earlier and I should have cracked a beer and calmed down before editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I forgot that after the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Dean of the Medical School, the Provost, Chancellor and Board of Trustees of the UC System, the American Public Health Association, and the Institute of Medicine, I that we have one final layer of review to determine whether someone can truly be qualified as a real expert in their field. No, it's plainly obvious what's going on here—you either dislike the guy's work or you dislike him personally. That is unacceptable and you step away immediately. NW (Talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say he's not an expert; I said he doesn't have any medical qualifications, which he doesn't (as is clear from his UCSF profile page). Yes, I dislike his work. So what? Lots of people, including medically qualified tobacco control experts, dislike his work. That's because he makes claims that the data don't support. Scientists don't like that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you are using Wikipedia servers to defame a living person. Wikipedia has the ability and the responsibility to stop you from doing that. — goethean 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe a comment has to be false before it can be defamatory.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is false to say that Glantz lacks any medical qualifications (an M.D. degree is not the only kind of medical qualification, as any nurse, pharmacist, or public-health researcher could tell you). You've repeated this falsehood several times despite being informed that it's untrue, suggesting a disregard for the truth. You obviously bear substantial malice toward the subject of this falsehood (cf. "Stan the Glans"). I'm not a lawyer, but what you're doing is wrong on ethical if not legal grounds. That's the essence of WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So what medical qualifications does he have, then? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stop this discussion: it's not for here. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but it does seem like I'm being accused of lying and I'd rather like to defend myself, so where should I carry it on?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's OK to ask the editors who insist that Glantz has a medical qualification to back up their claims with some kind of source? I mean, I am being accused of lying about this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really--MastCell is citing your word choice in reference to the subject, and you changed the subject. Doesn't matter: it's not for here. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that I'd been OOB with some of the things I said about Glantz, but he's also accusing me of lying by saying that Glantz has no medical qualifications, even though my source for that is Glantz's UCSF profile.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not a single thing that FergusM has said here pertains. Unless NW issues an indefinite block already, here's what I suggest: if Fergus makes one false move ("edit that violates the letter and spirit of our BLP policy one way or another, broadly construed") on that Glantz page or its talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia (our BLP policy applies to all spaces), they are blocked indefinitely (though not infinitely). Fergus, if you don't realize how wildly inappropriate your comments are, and how far off the mark your responses here in this thread, then maybe you should be blocked on the spot. Save your commentary on this person for your blog, or for dinner conversation. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Is it fine to add facts if I can RS them?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as you make sure you know which moves are false and which ones aren't. Be careful with your words and your interpretations. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair one. I've only started editing medical-related articles quite recently and MEDRS is a minefield (and, I suspect, easily abused). I'll double check my sources.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And when you do, don't throw around "no medical qualification" for a WP:BLP, when your source says, "Stanford University, CA, Postdoc, 1975, Cardiology; University of California San Francisco, CA, Postdoc, 1977, Cardiovascular Research; (1992) Fellow, American College of Cardiology; (2005) Elected to Institute of Medicine" etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Postdoctoral research is not a medical qualification, especially when the doctorate is in engineering. Glantz has no medical qualifications.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on that does not matter, here. For BLP's especially, stick to what sources actually say. He has advanced study in cardiology and been recognized in the medical community for related research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

140.200.208.2

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

---

Seven previous blocks listed at User talk:140.200.208.2, most recently for one year, and now again being used for blatant vandalism. Re-block? 82.132.222.244 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• No. The last edit was vandalism, but the ones before, to Glenn Colquhoun and Michael Brecker, were not. Next time please report at WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting review

Requesting a review of a block on user User:NinaGreen. This editor was indeffed by User:Jehochman for "spam". There is a discussion at Jehochman's talk page. I don't see a policy basis for this block, or where there was any warning given. —Neotarf (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam isn't the right term. Disruption is though and that's a policy reason to block. I wouldn't have done it indef, myself. But the user needs to back off. They are too invested in the discussion and are disrupting progress.--v/r - TP 03:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not spam in the Spam (electronic) sense: it's spam in the Spam (gaming) sense. Jehochman is saying that stuff like this, repeated on lots of users' talk pages, is disruptive and reasonably close to chat spamming. Note that the block message says Your account is blocked until you...Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked Clearly Jehochman's not assuming that this will be an interminable block; he's saying "You're blocked until things improve, and then you should ask to be unblocked". Spam (electronic) should be reverted/removed from pages because advertisements for offwiki things are never appropriate, but Spam (gaming), when done like this, is basically a kind of improper canvassing. We don't remove messages just because they were left in a canvassed manner. Finally, everything I'm saying assumes that Jehochman is correct/justified in this decision. Not having investigated, I'm not convinced either way; I'm just trying to ensure that Jehochman's words aren't misinterpreted or misapplied. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The action of NinaGreen is unacceptable and I was going to leave her a message myself until I saw that they had not only been blocked, but this ANI case had been opened. However, IMO the block is impetuous and punitive. The user should have been engaged in discussion first and accorded an opportunity to respond. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• The block is justified for disruptive conduct. Looking at the contributions of NinaGreen, it is clear that they are filling pages after pages with their idiosyncratic views about the arbitration process, thereby disrupting and preventing discussion of these issues by others, including after arbitrators asked them to stop. This is an adequate warning, which in any case is not necessary for ordinary blocks. I assume that Jehochman will lift the block as soon as NinaGreen confirms convincingly that they will no longer disrupt discussions.  Sandstein  08:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Sandstein, providing additional background. Perhaps the block is justified after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest I was at the point of making this same call (indef block for pointy and disruptive edits after warning) myself. Frankly I have grave problems with editors using that page (or this one) to rehash their personal dislike of ArbCom, its decisions, or AE actions. It is unacceptable and the fact that single purpose throw-away *** accounts[31] are now being used to disrupt that page does not help Nina's case one bit--Cailil ^talk 10:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I find it rather worrying that Neotarf, who was also told to back away from this review for the same sort of problematic contributions, has raised this review. In any case, I agree with the comments above that this block is well-founded (and probably overdue). AGK [•] 11:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Incredibly obviously a valid, reasonable block ES&L 12:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, unfortunately. The actual incident mentioned in the block rationale is only the last straw as regards NinaGreen's recent disruption. Indeed I see signs that she's moving towards the levels of her historical disruption, which was nuclear and as of today never acknowledged by herself. One such sign is this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

• Is it time for a community ban? Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nina has done excellent work developing articles, and I don't think a ban is needed. However, there are clearly areas where she has a blind spot and something is needed so the next outbreak can be handled more quickly. A weakness in procedures is that there is no way of issuing a light-weight and flexible topic ban, but that is what is needed—a mini-discretionary-sanction regime where admins could warn and prevent posts of undue size or frequency or repetition. That's too hard to organize so I would suggest leaving a remedy for a later time, if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Such a sanction could be imposed & enforced via the community with Nina--Cailil ^talk 12:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Mikemikev at Race and genetics article

Banned user Mikemikev is edit-warring at the race and genetics article using multiple Korean IPs, all static IPs. The Korean IPs and behavior, especially some of the edit summaries, make these WP:DUCK blocks. The IPs used up to this point are: 125.141.105.62 (talk · contribs), 218.232.82.76 (talk · contribs), and 118.219.86.87 (talk · contribs). Page should be semi-protected as well for a longer period, previous was for three days.--The ***'s Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by 81.106.127.14

Despite an urgent request to refrain from from personal attacks, 81.106.127.14 has again directed a personal attacks at me. His latest is here:

"English is your second language and having tidied up many of your edits it is clear that you struggle with grammar, idiom and syntax." This is an ad hominim attack, instead of constructive discussion.

Previously he attacked me here, for which he was reported and blocked.

I suspect 81~14 to have used various accounts previously:

• 81.106.127.14 (10 nov 2011 - present)
  • One block
• 81.107.150.246 (11 nov 2010 - 2 oct 2011)
• Langdell (4 april 2010 (one edit))
• 81.106.115.153 (25 nov 2009 - 6 july 2010)
• 81.109.10.218 (4 feb 2009 - 23 nov 2009)
• 81.109.11.33 (2 july 2008 user-account Langdell and IP - 1 jan 2009)
• Langdell (7 aug 2005 - 21 oct 2008 / 4 april 2010 (one edit))
  • Two blocks

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You "warned" someone for personal attacks for calling you "Mr Jonathan"?? Whuh? Your primary diff at the top of this report most certainly does not show a personal attack. A slight sprinkling of 3 year old diffs certainly is not proving anything that you're claiming ES&L 12:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a longer history preceding this; my tolerance of his behaviour has become quite limited. See:

• User talk:Joshua Jonathan: diff warning
• User talk:History2007: diff (including hint of long-term editing)
• User talk:Tao2911: diff

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there some point where you will actually link to a personal attack? I'm not even seeing minor incivility in your links (granted, I've gotten tired of clicking them with a mere hopes of finding something to act upon, yet seeing nothing DP 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I admit that the one at the top seems trivial (especially scrolling through the rest of this page ). It is the repeated pattern which I'm tired of. There is a long-standing pattern of WP:OR by this editor; when he's being questioned about it, he starts with these denigrating remarks. It's the combination which I'm getting fed-up with: again and again checking his sources, explaining what's wrong, and then denigrating remarks, which are not directed at the topic but at my person. Anyway, if you think that there is no personal attack, then let's just close the case. Any good advice on how to respond when I'm getting irritated by this? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've started scrutinizing the sources again... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 reported by User:PLNR (Result: )

Page: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

@Zero0000, has reverted[32] my edit[33] on the specious pretext that it is "editing against consensus".

The article is part of an arbitration case. The content of this edit has been "discussed" extensively on talk page (most recently here), On numerous occasions I have requested that WP:RS would be provided to support the assertion that providing specific details of this tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection. No WP:RS have been provided to support it, only claims that it is and Synth through WP:RS showing that it is relevant to the the tangentially related subject, the Peel Plan, which is obvious and where it is covered.(additionally, introduction of cherry picked details here introduce issues of WP:NPOV)

Since no policy based arguments were provided, productive discussion didn't took place and the editors supporting those details has very long editing history within the scope of this arbitration case, I have requested DRN[34] for un-involved supervision. Again no WP:RS and no participation.

User:Zero0000, revert under the pretext of "consensus" of involved editors, is misleading (there is no consensus), and is nothing but POV pushing and coatrack decoration, ignoring long process of attempt to resolve this, that resulted in no policy based argument i support of inclusion or any compromise. This process of "jerking off"(sorry for the bluntness, but it is, its more than 50K of the same thing) is not conductive toward normal editorial process and only promote editing warring.

I request that either Zero0000 be warned or the issue of policy vs "consensus" be addressed, thanks. --PLNR (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

This is a content dispute that does not belong on this board. However, now that it is here, I'll describe the situation.

A commission in 1937 proposed a partition of Palestine. The earlier text (for quite a while) said there were "provisions for the relocation of both Arab and Jewish populations to areas outside the borders of the new states". This was a severe violation of NPOV, since the proposed population movement was almost entirely (over 99.4%) in one direction. However, PLNR has single-mindedly refused to allow this distortion to be corrected. The discussion starts at Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#1937 Peel Commission transfer and keeps coming back in later sections due to PLNR's obsession. First he claimed the primary source doesn't have the numbers (it does), then that there were no secondary sources (two were provided and one added to the article), then that the detail wasn't important (who can imagine). It can be seen that although a few people thought the population movement should be completely removed, nobody supported PLNR's desire to present it in a grossly misleading fashion. I have no time for this sort of wilful misleading of readers. Zero^talk 10:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by PLNR.

This not a content dispute, this about policy and POV pushing. Unless Zero can produce WP:RS that will show that those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan.(not Peel Plan)

I already covered the context and notability of the issue at hand in the DRN summary [35]. As for what Zero linked, it is the prelude or the beginning of the game of sources. First he added[36] cherry picked sentence from a primary source to "clarify" the plan, with something that in his words "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention"(which is correct, i never seen those details mention in the context of UN plan, however, they are covered in the Peel plan analysis) my argument that question of "balance" should be addressed in the context of the full Peel report, and not implied through a direct quote, from primary source, of a select clause, of one of the recommendations and without proper context(which introduce POV issue), while going into the Peel plan details is undue. It was ignored by claiming the holly grail of WP:RS.

I tried to compromise [37] by providing a more concise overview of all the Peel Plan recommendations, without undue details which had no impact on the UN plan and introduce POV issues. However, the specific numbers were reintroduced, this time claiming the disproportion of the plan has to be mentioned( I requested WP:RS that sate that conclusion about the plan to avoid WP:SYN), claiming that "exchange" in "it proposed that land and population "exchanges" should be carried out ..." implies 'roughly equal exchange' and thus must be explained(I suggested replacing it with a synonymous term like "transfer") and because he preferred "more precise" account(I argued WP:UNDUE, requesting anything to support that inclusion of Peel Plan details is in the context of the UN plan), no they wanted the full quote per WP:RS.

Finally, after I moved to remove due lack of WP:RS supporting the SYN, a WP:RS was dug up which provided the conclusion that was thought out from the start, to present why the Arab rejected the plan. Which is fine, however, instead of simply concise version of it, they insisted to include a full quote and exposition presenting the Arab POV in full details (which is exactly what happened before with another paragraph, in which WP:RS was dug up of undue event to push a point of view inside direct quotes.

I tried to reach a comprise, I tried DRN, and I am tired of this charade and tendentious editing. I wish a simple policy based issue be addressed here. The validity of the inclusion of those details Zero added, without WP:RS which would show that they are DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

PLNR's response is exceedingly deceptive. The fact, I'll state again, is that in 1937 a massive (220,000) forced transfer of Arabs was proposed together with a tiny (1,200) transfer of Jews. Writing the text as if the transfer was balanced is a lie. All of PLNR's energy expended on this, including this "report", is because PLNR wants Wikipedia to tell that lie. You can see this is a fact by looking at the edit he claims (above) is a "compromise": Proposing that land and population exchanges be carried out to overcome demarcation problems. As you can see, the essential nature of the "exchange" is completely hidden.

Above we see him trying to deceive this board as well. On the talk page I wrote "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention that a tiny fraction (0.55%) of the transferred persons would be Jews and describe it just as a transfer of Arabs." Above he quotes just "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention" in order to trick people here into thinking I said that the massive imbalance of the "exchange" is often not mentioned. Apparently PLNR thinks that telling the truth is UNDUE.

Note that we are talking about two paragraphs of background in a long article (75K). The paragraphs are about the rise and fall of the most prominent previous partition proposal (the only other one which had a chance of being implemented). The relevance of the essential features of the proposal is blindingly obvious and PLNR can pick up practically any book on the Arab-Israeli conflict and see them discussed in this context. I mentioned two such books early in the discussion.

As Dlv999 wrote on the talk page after PLNR had kept on about it for almost a week, "PLNR, you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue." Normal editors would have moved on, but not PLNR. He also tried DRN, with no success. Now he is trying to get rid of the opposition by making false claims about them. A topic ban is in order. Zero^talk 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case someone might like to accuse me of edit-warring over this topic: after the first edit on Jan 25 I have only edited the article 3 times, twice to add new sourced content, and only once to revert PLNR's revert. Zero^talk 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by PLNR.

What I want( and policy demand) is simple, instead of assertion about consensus or what is blindingly obvious to you, that you WP:RS that show that those details are WP:DUE in context of the UN plan\background, not for the Peel Plan, nor for your damn conflict. ( Also I have tried DRN, to get uninvolved editor supervision and direction, not sure how it is a con on my part. But speaking of topic bans, I have edit on this article and all related commissions and several events in chronological order, addressing all aspects of it that as I read, you however, stuck on inserting single point of view, addressing what you refer to as "lies")--PLNR (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Zero0000

Regarding the clause I struck out above: I just realised that it was PLNR who introduced the problem in the first place, by changing "Arab population" to "both Arab and Jewish populations", claiming to be following Peel Commission. But even though other article has those words, in the same section it clarifies that the "exchange" was almost all in one direction. So PLNR did not correctly report what the other article said but only imported a misleading fraction of it. I'm happy to believe this was an honest editing error, but the problems started when PLNR refused to admit there was a problem and refused to accept a second sentence from the other article to correct the problem.

There is no rule that a reliable source state must explicitly state that some detail is relevant as background to the topic of the article. It is enough that a reliable source treats the detail as relevant background for the topic. But that is not the issue here anyway. Either we omit the Peel plan from the article or we present it accurately. There is no third option. Zero^talk 09:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have edited the posts above to remove excessive HTML, formatting, and section headers. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems like this would be best raised at WP:AE as a request for enforcement of WP:ARBPIA. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the Html, I wrote the post in the edit warring noticeboard, but then I noticed it was narrowly defined as WP:1RR or WP:3RR. Also I didn't use WP:AE because I had no idea what clause I need to cite there.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course you haven't, because there has been absolutely no breach (by Zero, at least) of any ARBPIA clauses. This is a simple content dispute, requiring no admin involvement and certainly no AE action. RolandR (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, however, I believe that tendentious editing is in the preview of this board. Since we have several editors with long history on this arbitration case, whose contribution are focused on promoting a single point of view, which I find to gives undue weight to sources and or positions, through tangentially related subjects, usually by dumping full sentences/quotes/detail (no summaries or regard to the section coverage as a whole)

I request that the question of whether this is POV-pushing should be addressed here. Either by Zero providing WP:RS that will show that those full details from the tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection or remove it. Otherwise, you set the stage for WP:COATRACK, driving away responsible editors who so far have been trying to make a concise neutral summary of the events, into same edit practice as above. I doubt that multiplying the size of the background section with recycled meaningless details would improve it. --PLNR (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that you are not an admin, and from your talk page it doesn't seem as if you are uninvolved.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• If it is decided that this issue can't be addressed here, I'd appreciate advice as to where this issue can be addressed.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, this case gained some meat, and might seem too much or undesirable to address within this framework, I'd like to emphasize my request in the previous paragraph, that it all comes down to policy based argument to show if those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section or not.--PLNR (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest, as per User:AGK that an AE report be made against PLNR. While sttrictly speaking this is a content dispute, the evidence on the talk page shows a strong consensus against PLNR, an obstinacy in insisting against most editors he is right, and the result now is an attempt to admonish one of the several editors in that consensus. No argument given here by PLNR makes sense, in policy, or even in terms of RS (I could supply half a dozen further sources linking the Peel Commission's suggestion to Zionist deliberations throughout the 40s to the 1947 Partition Plan and its aftermath. It is therefore a behavioural problem (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) (WP:CONSENSUS) and WP:AGF (Zero is 'jerking off', per above) that has become vexatious and taken on the form of a needless harassment.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right Zero was the straw that broke the the camel back, after a long process, which culminated in a DRN. On the constructive side, if you can provide "half a dozen" sources, please do, it what I asked for above (i.e. provide a policy base argument that those details are WP:DUE or remove them). But please no rehash of strawmen arguments, the notability of that select clause in the context of the Peel Plan is known and never been questioned(which is where it is covered with the rest of the clauses). So no mining for Peel WP:RS, please show that those details are notable\DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section. Show me a source that in a couple page concise summary of the UN plan background during the Mandate period, that mentioned those details in full, especially when the next sentence already summarize them as "unequal population exchange", when they have no impact and overall this point of view covered in far more detail than every detail which is mention in every single plan summary.

Which is reason I setup the DRN, so we can get some input from people who aren't heavily involved in "your" case, to address this issue i.e. if it is WP:COATRACK decorating, with sole goal of furthering one point of view in as much detail and color as they can. So we can finally work on providing a concise summary of the topic as whole, providing the read with links to WP:RS and specific topics which cover those subjects in full (WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE) --PLNR (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, persistence in not understanding. There is no policy dictating the specifics of what is or is not due. The policy is interpreted and applied according to consensus, and the consensus there finds no objection to the specific figures, which are in any case a corrective to your desire to cancel out precisely what was at stake in the population transfer. No one except you seems to object to that edit, and therefore persisting in forumshopping to have your way against a consensus is patent obstructionism of the kind that warrants administrative attention. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment @PLNR: it seems that you have decided that all contributors editing the articles of the I-P conflict are pov-pushers and you are in conflict with all of us. Maybe I am an exception but I am not even sure. You should really cool down and practice WP:AGF. The main issue from my point of view is that you seem not to have read a lot on the topic. You use sources that you can find on the internet; most often primary ones and that makes you write or support mistakes or partial facts. My mind is that if you improve both these problem, you could become an interesting contributors because I have the feeling that you are clearly "neutral" on the topic, which it is not often the case. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock (or meat) puppetry and a COI agenda on a suite of articles

• Creative factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Corporate cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Nutshell: I'm looking at what seems transparently a major COI issue from what is either a pair of meatpuppets or a sock group. I need help determining the best steps forward.

User:Creative factor is a new account pursuing an old agenda - removing negative content from JS Group (stuff like this). (We've dealt for years with either a series of obvious corporate employees or one persistent one.) When that failed, he narrowed his focus to a specific section on the company's CEO (see Talk:JS_Group#Deletion). Accordingly, with reasonable concerns, the content on the controversy was moved to a new article on said CEO. Immediately, User:Corporate cat appeared to try to have it removed - first through requesting deletion and then through targeted excision, removing not only the controversy but also reference to the subject's sister, whom he says the subject has disowned. He also immediately began working on articles related to a JS Group rival (seriously), copy-pasting content from the company's own publications to shoehorn in allegations about its CEO (the same issue which Creative factor had objected to at JS Group). Today, Creative factor visited the article Jahangir Siddiqui which Corporate cat has been whitewashing and pulled the same content - not only the material related to the lawsuit, but reference to Siddiqui's sister. He also uploaded a (now deleted) copyvio image for the article Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, which Creative factor has been working and recreated today after its deletion earlier. (History has now been restored.) He used the picture Creative factor uploaded.

Given the timing of edits, this may be more meat puppetry than sockpuppetry, but I am not as experienced in evaluating SPIs as I am copyright issues. Regardless of SPI, I note, the COI is massive and transparent. There is a tandem goal to clean up after one company and slur its rival - the goal is not "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" but to advance the interests of his/their employer - perhaps in retaliation for the alleged behavior I linked above? (link again)

I've just blocked User:Creative factor temporarily for persisting in blanking content, but I think a more workable solution needs to be reached. I'm not sure what that would be - perhaps block the newer account (Corporate cat) and impose a topic ban on Creative factor limiting him to the talk pages of articles related to JS Group and its rival? Whatever we do, it is entirely reasonable to expect that new accounts will block up to continue this agenda. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to block each and every account that's involved in this, as Moonriddengirl says, they're not here to build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, even if they're managing, just, to skirt around policies that would actually get them blocked quickly. It might be useful for the community to agree to discretionary sanctions for these articles, so that users coming to the project in future can be informed of the sanctions, warned if they engage in such behaviour and then blocked if they continue. Just a bit easier that coming here time and time again, as I've a feeling this is going to run and run no matter what happens here today. Nick (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And do it begins. :/ [38]. The first blatant sock trying to force its way. Nick, I agree with you - this is going to keep happening. Discretionary sanctions might be the best way forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM has already authorized Discretionary Sanctions for all articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I guess this one also comes under that scope. -- SMS ^Talk 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, since it's not nationalism, racism or religious preference being pushed here. This is plain and simple corporate rivalry. :/ However, I have now blocked User:Corporate cat as I found that he has since I filed this reuploaded several files that User:Creative factor had, including one "self-made" picture of JS Group's primary rival as "self made" with a source of "the news". As far as I'm concerned, this is the nail in the coffin for sock puppetry. Another sock was also blocked (User:Violent cat). I've tried to neutralized the articles involved and semi-protected those related to the rival company AKD Group - I created the most basic of stubs there as a target for redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Creative factor blocked only 60 hours? I thought that abusive sockpuppetry warranted a longer or an indefinite block. Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does, Epicgenius. :) I had blocked him for 60 hours for disruption before I realized the scale of what was happening here, and since he was blocked for 5 2.5 days figured there was time to arrive at some approach in discussion here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. The only article this user has been editing is Hayazn, where he is constantly making changes without discussion. By the way, I'm also worried that the username is innapropriate. It says "Armen MAH". Mah means "death" in Armenian and as long as I know, one of the leading members of this organization is named Armen Mkrtchyan.[39] There might be a connection here. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Thanks for addressing. The editor seems to be enforcing. He has got like 4 reverts. Suspicious indeed. OccultZone (Talk) 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yerevantsi, perhaps you can make that user name point more explicit, and report it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The username per se is not my prime concern. I just think there might be a connection, because this user is clearly registered for trashing that one article. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just registered an account over at Armenian wikipedia and I'm mainly editing there, so I'm sorry if I don't seem more involved here, although my intention is to stick around and edit some of the Armenian articles. If my username seems inappropriate, I will change it, although MAH is part of my initials and any resemblance to members of Hayazn is purely coincidental.

Regarding the article. Hayazn is an organization that claims to be a party but is not registered as such. Hayazn is also a very controversial entity, they are constantly in the news because their members beat-up LGBT activists, or members of some other opposition groups and that is how they got my attention in the first place.

Yerevantsi, who has been in contact from one of the leaders of Hayaznand has been editing on his behalf (I'm not sure about privacy rules here, can I link to a social network accounts with the same username?) has assumed ownership of the article and won't let me make any changes to it. He deletes any negative information from the article and refuses to compromise. I have been very open to discussion in the articles discussion page and you are all welcome to read it yourselves and see how he stonewalls the discussion.

Here is my added sourced information compared to the one Yerevanci keeps reverting to. I have added the same information to the Armenian version of this article and the regulars there were nothing short of welcoming it. --Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To address the username issue quickly, WP:IU is the part of the username policy that advises that you should avoid usernames that are offensive or disruptive. Even if you didn't intend such disruption, if your username could be misinterpreted in such a way that it can cause disruption you should give serious consideration to changing it. This is for your own good; consider that if your username implies something negative about you, that could color the opinion of other editors in such a way that they may automatically assume ill-intent when you don't mean any. If you want to voluntarily change your name, it's a fairly easy process, just visit WP:CHU/S and make a request. -- Atama頭 18:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like the user name is problematic, at least not to English speakers who don't speak Armenian. Is it problematic in Armenian? Epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

New editor on a tag-bombing spree

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

---

Resolved: Blocked indef. m.o.p 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Surface wall (talk · contribs) registered a new account yesterday and today has been adding {{refimprove}} tags indiscriminately at a rate of 4 to 5 per minute. The articles seem to be chosen randomly, but in the vast majority of cases the tag is wildly inappropriate e.g. Borat (a Featured article), Becoming the Villainess, Philip N. Diehl, and where it is appropriate it seems to be purely by chance. He continues after both another editor and I have spoken to him on his talk page (to no response) and another editor has issued a level 4 disruption warning. There are now hundreds of articles tagged. Can someone please talk some sense to him and is there a way these edits can be rolled-back en masse? Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Editor has been reported to AIV, stopped editing for the moment, and his edits have all been reverted. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. No responses to talk page queries and almost bot-like editing doesn't jive well with me. m.o.p 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:IPadPerson

IPadPerson has a history of using foul language and screaming through edit summaries. I've previously warned him/her that edit summaries like this and this are inappropriate (see here). However, his/her strong temper has persisted and since that warning, we've seem edit summaries such as "Stop changing shit without a reason why", "What the hell was that there for", "How many got damn times have you been told about the SAME DAMN THING!?"

Additionally, he/she refers to good faith edits like this as "disruptive editing" and although referring to this as a good faith edit, proceeded to warn the user on their talk page with not even a general warning, but an "only warning."

It seems the efforts so far to control his/her temper haven't worked, so perhaps a temporary block will. Gloss • talk 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While still a bit bristly, the recent edit summaries have calmed down a lot relative to the ones pre-warning. I'd give the editor a bit more time - perhaps they'd like to weigh in here, as well. m.o.p 17:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile, i.e. this one from Feb 1st. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was before the user received a warning. m.o.p 22:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad world we live in where one has to be told that that sort of thing is unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least they are not personal attacks.… (and I am doubtful about even that) Epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User a clear vandal

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

---

I've stumbled across a user, Irate158, who is a clear vandal. They have created pages of non-existent entities, linked them with real companies and done a whole slew of cross-linking and really just hosed up a slew of articles. I don't have any one incident to report, their whole history is full of vandalism. They've been warned multiple times, which they've apparently just ignored (their Talk page). I'm a very experienced editor, but generally don't go to the lengths of requesting blocking editors, but I don't see anyone else acting on this one, malicious editor. I suggest blocking them and having a bot go through and undo all their edits (if one exists). — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor trying to get rid of a category by emptying it

Devadatta (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to get rid of Category:Monomyths by emptying it, removing it from articles on the ground that it is fringe. I've reverted him just now at Quetzalcoatl as the Oxford Companion to World Mythology mentions monomyth in connection with him.[40] This sort of mass removal of a category seems disruptive and seems to be based on an editor thinking that because Campbell wrote about it it is fringe and should be removed from everything that Campbell didn't mention. It may be a content dispute but doing it this way seems disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Before I started removing the "monomyth" category from most of the articles, I wrote this on [the category's discussion page]. The real issue at hand is whether the theory (or rather hypothesis) of "monomyth" is an academically accepted one. It's not enough that it's popular or just a theory since there are so many (for instance, it would be wrong to categorise Anunaki, the pyramids, Nazca lines etc as "ancient astronauts", no matter how popular it is. It's quite clear that the monomyth concept is popular and well spread. So how academically accepted and valid is it? (Also, even if it turns out to be that, it must be verified article by article, no carte blanche for all.)

It's not enough to show a scholar/academic or two who supports the idea. There's always someone who will do that, just like Nobel laureates who supports pseudo science like homeopathy, AIDS denial or AGW denial. Accepted really means that a majority supports it (which for instance would mean that most text books at undergraduate level teaches it and most researchers support it). Perhaps the standard for Wikipedia should be more lax, so that a sizable minority of ~20% is enough. And it must be shown article for article. I haven't seen anyone do this. Concerning your examples, I can accept that the scholar who wrote the book you link above accepts the monomyth. However, the examples you had on [myth] didn't amount to more that one other academic. However, there's thousands of them. Nonetheless, I'm interested to see what more you can google up. --Devadatta (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

...Devadatta, thats not how wikipedia works, it is not a scientific journal, its an encylopedia. If the catagory meets WP:NOTABILITY it should probably be included. Much to my chagrin scientific rigor has no place here. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:DEFINING - and the fact that deletion of categories is done at WP:CFD, not through depopulation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the category, in fact, I can add Star Wars and (as I understand it) the game Journey to it since the creators say they have been inspired by Campbells ideas. I believe there are other movies and games as well that should be included (by the same token). Also, I don't understand why Wikipedia shouldn't rely on what a majority of experts say, even regarding the categories. For instance, Nazca lines aren't categorized with "Ancient astronauts" (although it certainly is popular and notable), Witch trials aren't categorized with "Horned god", Neuroticism aren't categorized with "Jungian psychology" etc. It seems to me Wikipedia already works this way (and of course WP should not be a scientific journal or similar). --Devadatta (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the removals seem justified to me. The Quetzalcoatl article doesn't mention "monomyth", and the category should not have been restored without a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarassed, misread my source. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a long time, and I have no desire to address the details of this case. I will simply make the following general points:

1. Per WP:VERIFY, we can't put articles into the monomyth category simply because they fit the monomyth pattern. We can put an article in the category only if the article cites a source that identifies the article's subject as an example of Campbell's monomyth. (Such a source need not be a book by Campbell. A source discussing Campbell's monomyth idea would work.)
2. If the text of an article doesn't even identify the article's subject as an example of the monomyth, then the article should be removed from the category immediately.
3. I don't know how one would determine whether "a majority of experts" (to use Devatta's phrase) supports a myth's inclusion in the monomyth category.I don't think we can appeal (as Devatta does) to "a majority of experts" in this context. There's no way to tell whether most "experts" think a specific story (e.g. the story of Odysseus) belongs in the monomyth category.
4. Any judgment about the monomyth concept's academic respectability must take into account both of the following:

• Leslie Northup's statement that the monomyth idea has little support in the mainstream study of mythology (see Monomyth#Criticism)
• The Oxford Companion to World Mythology, which has an article on the "heroic monomyth" (see Christian mythology#Hero myths)

(Full disclosure: Devadatta asked for my input on this issue.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • If we can use Michael R. Collings he wrote "Students of the conventions—including James Frazier, C. G. Jung, James Joyce, Joseph Campbell, Northrop Frye, Mircea Eliade, Otto Rank, and David A. Leeming—have defined the outlines of the “Hero Monomyth,” the paradigm of literary heroism."[41] which might help find sources. I would argue very strongly against the idea that Campbell has to be mentioned in connection with the concept. And I think there is a misunderstanding of categories here, they are navigation aids and we do not need 'a majority of experts'. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • • Hi Doug. I think you misunderstand my comment. I wasn't saying we needed a majority of experts in order to put an article into the monomyth category. I meant that I didn't understand why Devatta was appealing to the concept of "a majority of experts" in this context, since there's simply no way to know whether most experts think a specific story (e.g. the story of Odysseus) belongs in the monomyth category. I have revised my original comment accordingly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And I brought this here because the removals seem indiscriminate - especially given that sometimes he would revert 2 a minute. He cannot possibly have been checking his sources. He removed it from Odyssey although sources, including Campbell, link it.[42] [43] This is a behavior issue. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mount Hermon

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

---

Resolved: Done. m.o.p 22:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mount Hermon article appears to under attack from nationalists (which isn't unusual). Could someone please have a look at it and take the appropriate action, which may involve more than protection ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected by Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). m.o.p 22:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

IP User user_talk:94.10.214.103 and User user_talk:Ellisa2000

Both a user at the IP address user_talk:94.10.214.103 and the user user_talk:Ellisa2000 have been making consistent unsourced edits to religion articles. Both have received repeated warnings.

In particular, IP User_talk:94.10.214.103 changed the membership numbers without updating the listed source on the Catholic Church article three times, once after being warned on his talk page:

• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 13 Feb 2014: [[44]]
• Warning on talk page on 2 Feb 2014: [[45]]
• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 01 Feb 2014: [[46]]
• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 01 Feb 2014: [[47]]

The user has made several other unsourced edits on other pages about religion that are documented on his talk page.

Additionally, user user_talk:Ellisa2000 has made very similar edits to the membership on numbers on the Catholic Church page and to several similar pages to pages on religion. I don't know if they are linked or not.

• Unsourced edit to Catholic Church on 11 Feb 2014: [[48]]

I only have first hand knowledge regarding the edits to the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left warning notices on both talk pages and have had to check back over old edits by the IP user in order to manually revert changes to content unobserved by later contributors.

IP user 94.10.214.103 began playing around with statistics 9 January 2014, while Ellisa2000 began and ended 11 February 2014. While both appear to have tinkered with random pages, there distinct overlaps in the pages and remarkably similar types of changes made on Religion in India, Religion in Serbia, Religion in Montenegro, Religion in Spain, Religion in Bulgaria and Religion in Seychelles. Currently, the IP user has been blocked for 48 hours by HJ Mitchell, while user Ellisa2000 appears to have stopped 'contributing' (for the moment, at least). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another block needed. Please note that, since the 48 hour block on 94.10.214.103 was lifted, the user has resumed their activities. I'm not certain as to whether I should post this directly to the vandalism board in view of the fact that the IP and registered user have been reported here as possibly being one and the same person. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC) EDIT Yup, I've been a nincompoop. That's what happens when you chase down notifications that are a couple of days old. Apologies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellisa2000 is definitely back to the same tricks. I've just rolled back a few entries. Could someone please block this user? There's no point in a pageful of threats to block without affirmative action. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• If they are the same user, why is the IP user blocked, but the named account isn't? Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. I didn't actually submit this report. I assume that Zfish118 suspected they were socks? This isn't how I would have chosen to report the incidents, but this is how they ended up being reported. I haven't had any feedback from anyone, so I don't know who chose to block one and not the other, or whether it's being investigated as a sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. --Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As a P.S. - I don't know why this was considered as being ANI material (a bit of an overreaction). Both the registered user and the IP are irritating vandals who happen to have chosen religious stats as an easy target. Whether they're the same person, a tag team or just coincidentally merging on a few pages, neither have made a peep. Short term blocks and keeping an eye on their activities after the blocks seems sufficient. If they start acting up again, it should just go through the same process until they're permanently blocked (if it comes to that). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

This user has repeatedly [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] added towns to the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map without giving a single source, as it is required (and he knows it, as he had been editing that map for months). When he has been asked to either remove them or give sources to back its inclusion on the map, he refused, reverting the removal of that towns [55], with the excuse that another user (User:Barcaxx1980, who is a newcomer to WP) has also added towns without sources, as if someone doing something wrong gives green light to the rest of users to follow that path. For that reason, and due to the long history of breaking the WP edit policy and disruptive conduct by this user, I request a new block on him. I think its one of the first times I fill one of these reports, so sorry if I make any error. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your signature is REQUIRED to point to either your talkpage or userpage, which it currently does not. Could you please fix that before making any further edits on the project DP 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I have done in that regard is in good faith. No one complained about Barcaxx's edit style which I took up, not on the article's talkpage or on his or my talkpage. If HPUNX has an issue he can just as easily take it up on the article's talkpage, as all users (including myself) have been doing for months on end now.

It should be further known that if there is a general agreement for a fix among users (almost always settled on a talkpage) no particular source for such edits are required. In my case I did in fact use a source, the wikimapia, to give an approximate location of the villages I added. For whatever reason HPUNX has decided to omit that fact in his complaints. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All comprobable false allegations, one by one. First, as it can be seen on User:Barcaxx1980 talk page, both User:Hanibal911 and me warned him that he couldnt add towns to the map without giving sources, so there were people who complained about it. Second, in the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map talk page can be seen that I twice pointed that towns were added without any source, so suggesting that I have resorted to the administrators board without raising the issue in the talk page is simply a lie. Finally, another comprobable invention, there's no such general agreement among users for adding towns to the map without a source, proof of that is other users reverting other adds for not being sourced [56] (and the reverted user didnt behave like Sopher99, but tried to find sources to back his claim). Also, claiming that alleged agreement has the same logic as saying that an agreement has been reached among the editors of an article to add content without source. Clearly, a severe breach of WP edit policy. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx's talkpage has Hanibal instructing him not to use the al-mayadeen as a source. He doesnt mention his other edits.

Regarding your usage of the talkpage, as seen here, its just you cursing out Al-Hanuty for suggesting the use of scholars on twitter and a quick denouncement of me as a user... all two or three hours ago. Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that apart from the lies exposed above, this user have a blindness problem:

• Proof of both User:Hanibal911 and me warning User:Barcaxx1980 about his wrong edits (According to Sopher99, quote "He doesnt mention his other edits"):[57]
• Proof of me raising the issue of adding of towns to the map without sources (and receiving no answer): [58]

Again, you have been exposed.--HCPUNXKID 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you made one warning on the 7th and never got back to it. For your information Barcaxx continued through the 12th with those edits, almost entirely uninterrupted. Like-wise after seeing everyone was fine with it - ie the other 9 users that edit the page - I took up to add more villages. And guess what? Everyone was fine with it - save for you.

So it looks like did consult the talkpage, which I clearly missed. But my point resurfaces even with that - no one responded to your concerns, solidifying the fact your the only one complaining. Sopher99 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Admin,I would like to inform you that editor hannibal911 has added cities without a source.Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of us have - and that's my point. HPUNX is calling me out on edits everyone but him is fine with and which he made no real effort to consult other users about this. Sopher99 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, unless your definition of "many" is two persons (Barcaxx1980 & you).--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admins the editor Alahanuty should be punished for the defamation in my address since if you look my history of editings you can see that I am never edit without specifying the source. Although the user Alahanuty made edits using data from blogs and messages in Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A source does not need to be available online, or in English. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban. Sopher has had the chance to refute but he hasn't. I have come accross such misrepresentations by this editor before and I think a block or topic ban would be in line with our policies on encyclopedic and verifiability principles. Pass a Method talk 03:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I have been active on Syrian pages. I have replaced dead links, filled references. Got those pages on my watchlist. It's usual that Sopher99 can be seen as a lone editor opposing numerous other editors and everytime I would find it. OccultZone (Talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been editing the pages for around 3 years, and if you check the edit count per person for the Syrian Civil War, I have the top count, more than dozens, perhaps numbers exceeding 100 other users. It is only natural that in such a polemical issue like the Syrian civil war, that other users will find some sort of gripe with me over time and group to complain. Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. I agree to other editors. The rules should be the same for all. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support topic-ban, obviously we cannot permit adding information without sources. Once is careless, but this user has gone way beyond "once". That said, I wonder if a topic ban from the "Syria" topic might not be a better way to proceed, at least until the user can demonstrate they are compliant and comfortable with our requirements on verifiability? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Comment both sides did the same thing,so if sopher99 is to be blocked then hannibal911,should be blocked also for doing the same thing.Alhanuty (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty you misrepresent facts as I did not added cities or villages using only the map Wikimapia I substantiated all my changes using data from Wikipedia. But you probably forgot as you edited on the basis of messages in Twitter and blogs. So you are disingenuous accusing me of being that i broken rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the specific article we are talking about is actually a template map for towns of Syria. I have in fact used a source to add those, the wikimapia, which gives the approximate locations of real-life villages in Syria.

I am not too enthusiastic about this support list because 2 of the 4 users are wikihounders who have been quite antagonistic to me in the past. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Very weak & desperate argument, there are dozens of Wikipedians who antagonize you, because of your continued irrational behaviour and POV-pushing, so that's your fault, not theirs...--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally what users here seem to be omitting, or just plain not checking, is that I did in fact use a source, wikimapia, to give the names and locations of the villages. Sopher99 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which as you know is not an acceptable source - esepcially to make claims about specific "villages" being involved in a war ES&L 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check the noticeboard - and no consensus exists for it being unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are really a professional on distorting facts. When we talk about a source needed to add towns to the map, we talk about a source wich states wich side of the Syrian Civil War has control of the town in question. You know that very well, so dont try to act innocently by saying that you use Wikimapia as a source, as that tool cannot be used to verify wich side has control of the towns, only to verify the physical position (lat. & long.) of the towns.--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually on February 9th, when I first started adding the villages, I used this map provided by the BBC to detail which side it belongs to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22798391 . The villages I have added since lines up with the map, and anyone who checked the source I gave could confirm it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding small particular towns basing on a map (wich is not really a BBC map, but from the Syria Needs Analisys Project, it seems you have a problem with sources) wich only includes some provincial capitals and not any town is a non-sense and very, very dubious, for not saying something worse. And also, if we accept the use of general maps to add particular towns, I could perfectly bring newer maps that contradicts several parts of that other map, for example, this (at least this one has towns on it) or even here in WP, this. Also, not to talk when maps contradicts articles wich state that one town is in control of any of the sides of the conflict. So, no, unless we want to mess up the Syrian civil war more than it is yet, we cannot use general country maps with no towns to add particular towns.--HCPUNXKID 20:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99's editing of other contributors posts on this page

I have just noticed that Sopher99 has made significant changes to multiple posts by other contributors in this edit [59] where words have been replaced with '***' - one such word being 'troll'. Unfortunately I can't seem to revert this gross infringement of talk page guidelines.

It seems to me that regardless of other issues, this act of stupidity alone is quite sufficient grounds for an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, he replaced the words "troll" (and derivatives thereof) with "***", as well as "Devil's" (of which the only use was User:The Devil's Advocate's sig), all in the process of fixing a typo. I'm not sure this is intentional, tbh. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I saw something on VPT awhile back about something similar and it turned out to be some sort of plugin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, this happened to Sopher before due to some plugin, and they were advised to not edit Wikipedia if they could not get it to stop DP 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have three or four different word filters. I forgot they were on. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have an edit filter that replaces the word 'troll' with '***' in the text provided for editing? What is this filter called, and is this a default replacement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few, such as "Web-Filter Pro" and "Simple profanity filter" - their chrome extensions. I forgot they alter wikipedia editing text, but I turned them off now. Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with AndyTheGrump, this user thinks he can do everything he want without consequences, and it seems that previous time-limited blocks hadnt make him change his behaviour.--HCPUNXKID 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. My time limited blocks were for violations of the 1 revert rule. I have since stopped even approaching a situation that would lead to a revert violation. Sopher99 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, what you have done is learn how to evade the 1RR rule without being punished, something very different...--HCPUNXKID 17:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to show me an instance? Sopher99 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher think you should honestly admit that often were wrong. But you persistently trying to prove a point and I think it is not constructive. You find it easier to blame someone than to admit their mistakes. But I think it solve the admins who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did I blame someone else? No really, show me one point on this page where I blamed someone else for wrongdoing against wikipedia editing policy Sopher99 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx? No, I only said that users were fine with the edits he made, despite initial concerns on Feb 7th that were never re-adressed onward

HPUNXKID? No, I only said that he was the only one complaining about the edits I made, and little effort to consult me on his concerns, save for 2 sentences on the talkpage that no-one responded to and he never got back to. Thats not a breach of policy and not the cause of the problem.

So tell me again, who am I blaming for the problem? No-one, because my point is there is no problem, just a lapse in judgement about the construction of a template map. Sopher99 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you just had to to talk with the editor Barcaxx1980 and try to explain to him how need edit. If you look at his talk page then you will see what I tried to explain to him how need to properly edit . But he still newcomer unlike you . But you did not try to talk to him and just started to add the citys and villages without identifying the source. Although unlike you, he in most cases use some sources maybe he not always was right but he is new to this actually unlike you or other experienced editors. But all decide the admins because only they can say who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose editor - Cocoplain and the article on Anna Mae Aquash

Since May of 2012 a single purpose editor, Cocoplain, has been attempting to insert a vigorous POV defense for John Graham, one of the convicted murderers of Anna Mae Aquash.[60] This editor offers no reliable sources and inserts edits which are contrary to the reliable sources that are in the article. A cursory review of this editor's contributions clearly shows their intent. Someone other than myself needs to offer assistance to this editor on the Mighty Wik's NPOV policy. Hammersbach (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

With User:Cocoplain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), then step 1 should be to revise your entry at the user talk-page and remove hostile wording, then append a question asking them about finding reliable sources. There are numerous cases of people acquitted years/decades afterward, and most jurors tend to believe police testimony as if true, totally unaware how many police have lied in police reports and in courtroom testimonies, or planted illegal drugs in the backseat of a patrol car to charge a suspect in the backseat. Perhaps open a thread at "Talk:Anna Mae Aquash" to find sources explaining lack of evidence or falsified evidence. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Useless category?

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

---

Hello, first not quiet sure if this is the right place to ask an opinion. If it is not the proper place, please redirect me. I found this new category recently created [61] including in this more general category [62]. I am not sure what is the use of this polled out from another wikipedia category, but it looks like gathering random articles. Do you think we should speedy delete it? D0kkaebi (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like rubbish to me, but I'd take it to WP:CFD to be sure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and redirection. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Not sure if it is a personal attack

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

---

Resolved

 – Yep, that's a personal attack alright. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A reply made by another user in Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) was described as a "downright bullshit" by an IP user, and I was asked to "not give up my treatment" because the IP user was "worried about my literacy". The user also accused us of making "shameless promotion of Japanese government's propaganda view". Here is the edit: [63]. I'm not sure what to do now, and your comment on this incident would be much appreciated. Thank you -- lssrn45 | negotiate 08:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The crack about literacy and "not giving up your treatment" ranks as a personal attack in my book. I've given the IP a warning message; no further action needed here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! lssrn45 | negotiate 10:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

173.14.48.206

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

---

Continued disruptive editing (the same thing over and over) at Bulgaria national football team. IP has already been blocked before for the same disruptions. IP is also registered to the United States Detroit Comcast Business Communications Llc and I think something more permanent should be done to finally stop this IP's disruptions. Mas y mas (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is coming off the heels of a 3 month block, preceded by a 1 month block, and an initial 2 week block, all for disruption at the same page. And I see little-to-no useful contributions, just a single-minded effort to disrupt this single article. If this weren't an IP I would have done an indefinite block, but instead I blocked for 6 months. (This IP seems to be a static address belonging to a single person or household so I'm not too concerned about collateral damage, if there is any then the block can be altered or removed.) -- Atama頭 23:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

DerreckTapp (talk · contribs) who appeared to be previously editing as Tappindustries (talk · contribs) diff Hello Jim, Do you really want a lawsuit on your hands for administering false representation of a biography of a living persons.... Jim1138 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, see: (User creation log); 07:57 . . User account Tappindustries (talk | contribs) was created and should probably be blocked too, if only for the disruptive editing on the Brian L. page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ‎

Given the incredibly high likelihood that the accounts represent the same person, I've blocked them both. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They have been retired to spend more time with their lawyers, then...?  ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User was blanking Brian Litchenberg claiming fraudulent content, later only claiming that the Vanity Fair was fraudulent. Unwilling to provide source. Jim1138 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious legal threat, so I went ahead and blocked him per NLT (he also had tried to delete this ANI section, heh.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mauriliorodriguez (talk · contribs) has also made the same kind of edits to the article. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. There was also that blatant copyvio at about the same time _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN Concerns On Rupert Sheldrake Page

The Rupert Sheldrake page has become a particularly hostile place to edit, and not just because its controversial nature includes a high standard of evidence. The problem is that editors like vzaak and Barney the barney barney are treating this page like their own private soapbox to promote their POV, embodying WP:OWN, violating WP:CIVIL by being condescending or outright hostile and utterly rejecting honest attempts to improve a very tricky page. I have posted to Vzaak's and Barney^3's talk pages to try to resolve the issue, but as is mentioned before this has not worked historically.

As I feel there is still plenty to do on the Sheldrake page, I went in to see if I could bring some compromise with balanced, moderate edits backed by solid sourcing/explanations. After getting no feedback from my talk page proposals I went ahead and adjusted them, requested feedback and proposals if anyone had other ideas. The result was a wall of text full of scolding, warnings and declarations about my ignorance in the matter, accompanied by reverts of practically everything I’d changed, even the grammar corrections. The reasons for these reverts were convoluted and my attempts to address those reasons were ignored (ie. a punctuation revert was explained by a post of MOS:LQ despite my pointing out I had actually corrected a violation of it). A recurring theme was an insistence that any edit by me required my addressing all their demands and getting permission, while they consistently ignored my concerns and edited/reverted without any attempt at consensus. I continued to try to work toward some sort of resolution that fit WP:BLP standards and still addressed all the points they brought up, but every compromise has been summarily rejected and any work reverted to preserve Vzaak’s POV. Here are some related diffs:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594423326&oldid=594335472 (Vzaak here insinuates that I am a proxy user due to editing this topic. This is significant given the high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks" or "proxies")
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300294&oldid=595275653 (Here Vzaak warns me against making any changes to the article unless there is no argument on Talk, AFTER Vzaak made repeated changes to the article with no consensus)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594471532&oldid=594468825 (other editors arguing that changes should be made. Vzaak made superficial word changes that did not address the actual repetition of quotes)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vzaak&diff=595482595&oldid=595171376
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300708&oldid=595274343 (Reversed all changes, including grammatical ones that were correct under the very policy Vzaak used to justify the revert)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595430975&oldid=595422218 (revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak, ignored detailed description of reasons on talk page, extended far beyond personal “likes/dislikes”)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594707680&oldid=594469184 (there was no clear resolution on Talk, misrepresents “redundancy” as problem of simple word repetition, instead of repeating the exact same quote twice)

Barney^3 then weighed in, misrepresented my arguments and proceeded to write condescending ad-hominem insults on my Talk Page. For some reason he chastised me at length for fallacies and arguments I'd never advocated, written or supported. Here are some supporting diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The reason I’m bringing up what would otherwise just be a case of dispute resolution is the fact that this behavior is part of a long-term trend of hostility to alternative opinions, even when they are reasonable, neutral and supported by policy/sources. By systematically reverting edits, reprimanding editors and even harassing those who persist, Vzaak, Barney^3 and a few others have created such a toxic environment that no one else is able to make meaningful progress on the page that they’ve staked out. Whether this is intentional or not is a complex question, but what is certain is that this conduct violates the spirit of WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:CON, WP:HARASS, WP:IMPROVE, to name a few. In particular the feeling seems to be that WP:BLP is completely subordinate to WP:FRINGE, even though it is a biography page, not a theory page. The consequences have been serious and real, resulting in the driving off or aggravated blocking of a large number of otherwise qualified and well-intentioned editors (that in particular may be a larger problem than can be resolved on ANI, I fear).

In addition, Vzaak has made it clear that (until a very recent surge in mass-editing) they are a SPA: from Vzaak’s formation until Feb 11, 74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments were about Rupert Sheldrake. An indication of how heavily Vzaak has dominated the page is also referenced in the fact that Vzaak has made more edits to Rupert Sheldrake than the next three top editors combined. When you have such an emboldened Single Page Account, you end up with a Singe Account Page. That’s effectively what’s happened to Rupert Sheldrake.

This is a list of posts by editors who have given up/grown frustrated with this article, many of whom have had issues with Vzaak and Barney in the recent page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

These are posts by a very large number of editors, most of which have given up on the Sheldrage page, complaining of a long-recognized problem with POV and bias. These editors include David in DC, Iantresman, Lou Sander, The Devil's Advocate, and many others. Most of these posts feature Vzaak and Barney^3 prominently, establishing a pattern of conduct: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This behavior is hostile toward collaboration and detrimental to WP. Countless examples of this conduct establish that this is not an isolated occurrence. Over the past few months I've seen many hundreds of efforts at contribution end in frustration and over-zealous reverting, despite dozens of pleas for consensus, reasonability and accessibility (several of them made by myself). The reason the page is relatively static is not because it is particularly well-crafted, but because those who try to edit it are harassed until they leave, or, in many cases, are threatened by Vzaak and/or Barney^3 with sanctions of dubious legitimacy. This problem isn’t going away, but it is driving away people from WP.

I propose a topic ban on fringe articles against Vzaak and Barney^3 in order to remove the hostile and dominating environment that has developed there. Vzaak has proven to be a viable and useful editor in other areas, and I would not want to lose their future contributions to topics they are less opinionated about. Unless Vzaak is a SPA and has no purpose on WP except to advocate personal POV on fringe topics, this should be a relatively painless way to resolve months of conflict. Both Vzaak and Barney^3 have pursued such sanctions (and worse) against many other editors for far less, and the citations above indicate the sheer volume of disruption they are causing. The Cap'n (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Askahrc is a single purpose account which edits from a Pro-Fringe angle on Rupert Sheldrake. He appears to ignore his own SPA status while commenting on others being single purpose. From what I have seen Askahrc/The Cap'n continued from where Tumbleman left off (including posting big messages of support on tumbleman's page: [64]) and has done more to stir up controversy where there is none than any current editor. Strangely enough I have been characterised by Cap'n as an "affiliate" of Vzaak despite minimal interactions. It is also unseemly that Cap'n appears to have mentioned sympathetic editors with the express purpose of notifying them of this conversation, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by vzaak

I will skip the vague claims and move right to the numbered list of evidence. The "re" links are the original links given by Askahrc.

1. Proxying for Tumbleman, re[65].

Askahrc has been going around promoting Tumbleman's post-block claims.[66][67][68][69] The story is that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence. Callanec, since you handled this SPI would you please inform confirm that this claim by Tumbleman -- proxied here through Askahrc -- is not credible?

Askahrc is also saying that Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) were topic-banned because they were suspected socks of Tumbleman, a preposterous idea that was not mentioned in the respective AE requests, nor anywhere else that I am aware, except in Askahrc's recent activity.

Askahrc also relays Tumbleman's aspersions directed at me (echoed in Tumbleman's post-block socks) which somehow make it my fault that admins concluded that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE ("a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll")[70]. I don't think aspersions by proxy (of a blocked user, no less) are any more appropriate than direct aspersions.

Now Askahrc is taking up Tumbleman's first attempted change to the article, as described in the first paragraph of my statement in Tumbleman's AE[71].

2. Ignoring WP:BRD, re[72]

After Askahrc's bold deletion of a Sheldrake quote[73] (the same deletion Tumbleman made), the quote was eventually restored two days later by me. After failing to persuade others that the quote should be removed, he went ahead and replaced the quote with something else.[74] This was not a competent edit, as explained on the talk page -- the source does not connect morphic resonance to telepathy, nor does it even mention morphic resonance!

3. Askahrc's suggestion creates a positive change to the article, re[75]

Askahrc suggested the word "telepathy" was redundant in the lead. I incorporate this suggestion into the article.[76]

4. Askahrc posts a puzzling message to my talk page, re[77]

I don't know why this is mentioned. Maybe he thought I should have responded sooner on Valentine's day?

5. Sources added to the article, re[78]

Askahrc said that remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect were "fringe science" and changed the article accordingly. I found that an extremely weird assertion, and added sources to back up the original wording.

I politely gave Askahrc a pointer to WP:LQ[79], because his edit[80], with comment "Grammar. Periods go within quotations." is against the MOS. The sources do not contain the periods that Askahrc inserted into the quotes.

6. Revert by IRWolfie-, re[81]

Whatever -- paranormal, parapsychological, don't care. In the talk page I said "parapsychological", but I was referring to the original wording "paranormal". This is not the kind of diff that warrants mention in an ANI.

7. Same as #3

Askahrc is strangely claiming that I misrepresented the redundancy problem as simple word repetition. Askahrc gave two bullet points,[82]

• Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
• His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as telepathy and "the sense of being stared at"[7][8]

and said of these bullet points, "They seem completely redundant to me". I removed the redundancy, per Askahrc's suggestion.

Conclusion

Totally strange, to me. Askahrc makes claims like "74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments" are by me, but just links to my contributions. Moreover, the claim is objectively false because I am the #3 contributor of talk page comments.[83] Obviously, the #3 contributor cannot contribute 81% of comments!

I believe I have been extremely patient with Askahrc, offering extensive explanation and detail on the issue.[84]

Perhaps a community ban of Tumbleman would help avoid this kind of disruptive proxying. vzaak 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Email address in edit summary

The last but one edit to Dave Loggins contains someone's personal email address. If appropriate, could an admin censor/delete this? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Anything that can be done about these Mikemikev IPs?

123.214.175.236 (talk · contribs) and 118.219.86.100 (talk · contribs) are obvious Mikemikev socks, but as the IP addresses are so different I'm guessing a range block is inappropriate? I can sp the talk page but that seems a shame. I've just been attacked as pro-Semitic on one page and an Arab supremacist on another, so I must be doing something right. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)