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

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter

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

---

• Gamergate controversy

(Note claiming exception to the Arbcom finding, as this is a matter in which I am primarily involved.)

We have a situation at the Gamergate article, linked above, where the "NPOV issues" tag has remained on the article for five weeks now, even though there are no specific or immediate issues. The tag was added on October 6th by MSGJ, at the behest of other editors and he has not edited the article since. The nature of the controversy over Gamergate is over the misogyny and harassment of women in video gaming culture, a point-of-view strongly supported by reliable sources. A secondary point-of-view is that the nature of the controversy is about gamer journalism ethics. The side that pushes the latter has become more and more vocal about their minority point-of-view being given equal weight as the primary, but as the sourcing does not support this at all, that would violate WP:UNDUE. So, they tagged the article, and the tag has remained for thirty-five days now.

I intended to remove it last week, but the date slipped by. A thread last night, consisitng largely of vocal single-purpose accounts seems to think the matter is up for a vote, to which I disagree with strongly. Template:POV explicitly warns against tag usage as a badge of shame or as a "warning" to readers. It is meant to solicit other editors to weigh in on the matter. We have done that for over a month now, none of the concerns raised have been found to have merit. I attempted a removal just now to no avail. Admin intervention is requested, as the tag is now being misused. New editors need to keep in mind that a tag removal doesn't mean the end of the discussion, it just means the end of the immediacy of a serious issue or concern that we must warn ever make every page visitor aware of.

Also note that other editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate seem to see the tag as long outliving its usefulness as well. Tony Sidaway attempted to remove it last night, but was reverted by an SPA. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's been decided that Tarc cannot comment at ANI unless someone else raises a thread specifically about him. Moving on, let's discuss the merits of the case itself. Tarc will no longer comment here, in this thread or otherwise, unless he voluntarily chooses to get blocked.--v/r - TP 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Note to all I have initiated an WP:ARCA case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have continued and will continue to point out there is an NPOV problem with the article (mainly impartialness; balance will never be equal due to sourcing), which a few owning editors (see ArbCom case) refuse to acknowledge. While such maintenance tags are not meant for long term use, I can point to hundreds of articles with similar maintenance tags still on the page going back to 2007, so there is no requirement that they have to be removed after a month, especially if active debate is still going on with justified reasons. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure that point out other problematic articles makes a compelling counter-argument. Look at The Troubles, abortion, climate change, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and 9/11. All hugely controversial articles are are subject to editing disputes all the time, yet none are tagged. Disputes are routine; tagging an article with "POV" is a short-term call for wider input into a matter. We've had that for over a month now, and if there are editors that cannot articulate a reason other than "it's biased!", when the sources show otherwise, then it runs afoul of the template usage instructions. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty confident (save for 9/11) that all of those have gone through ArbCom to set what proper editing process should be and approach, in addition to the fact that those are long since "resolved" (years of facts and opinions) so that long-term issues are resolved. This is still developing and only a few months old, and things are still changing, and of course, no ArbCom review yet. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Immediate block of Tarc for violating ArbCom's ban of his use of administrator noticeboards. He is banned from any noticeboard unless it directly concerns the user. He is not allowed to bring forth any issue as he is effectively banned from the admin boards. This is a use of administrator's noticeboard for this purpose and he has fragrantly disobeyed the ArbCom restriction lended to him, and as enforcement, should be blocked. Tutelary (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Sigh Arbcom should have explained what the "normal restrictions" were. Is he banned from all topics which are not explicitly about him, or is he banned from topics that have nothing to do with him? Can someone file a clarification case?--v/r - TP 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I would think that the normal restrictions involved responding to posts about you, rather than starting a new discussion. On the face of it, this appears a clear violation of the sanctions from the case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have initiated an WP:ARCA case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This is a very obvious violation of Arbcom sanctions against Tarc, which explicitly prohibit him from posting on AN/I and Jimbotalk. Here he is stirring up drama by starting a new thread. See: "Tarc restricted (1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions. Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (UTC−7)" Carrite (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Support immediate indefinite block of Tarc for violation of Arbcom sanctions. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Before we all get on the bandwagon, I do believe Tarc has violated it. However, the game is in ArbCom's park and not the community's, else we could just devoid or reject ArbCom by merely having a !vote on it. I'll file an enforcement request when I get home, or some admin can just block now. It's a pretty overt violation; after all. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Support for indef block of Tarc in violation of ArbCom sanctions. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) My reading of those restrictions is that they're intended to prevent Tarc from becoming involved in ongoing noticeboard drama. His proposal to remove the NPOV tag, which is being used out of policy, is being filibustered by many editors with very few contributions outside of the gamergate debacle. This seems like a clear case of 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Anybody who keeps shouting "immediate indef block of Tarc" here needs to first read the Arbcom decision himself. We don't do indef blocks for one-off violations of arbcom restrictions, even if this turns out to be one (which I'm not entirely certain of). The length of a block is a matter of administrative discretion, but the maximum would be a month, and since he declared he believed an exemption applied (and I have no reason to doubt his good faith in that), I doubt even a short block is in order – if we think he was wrong about that, we simply close the thread down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tarc did violate his restrictions. He may have, or he may not have, I don't know. Would it make the Gamergate article to be perfect? Does his complaint have no merit? Perhaps two independent and unrelated discussions need to occur here... --Jayron32 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Will someone please muzzle these 3 characters...Tuletary, Carrite, and Dungeon-whatever...please? The middle one in particular, a busybody with personal animosity who has nothing to do with the topic area. The Arbcom prohibition has a "normal restrictions" clause, i.e. WP:BANEX's "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" line. I, on behalf of myself and other established editors who have been keeping the muck out of the Gamergate article, am seeking intervention in a dispute because I/we are unable to fight the constant edit-warring over this tag without resorting to edit-warring ourselves. This is textbook "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". Tarc (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) You deliberately leave out the next line. It has to be related to the ban itself. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once). asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban. appealing the ban. You are absolutely in violation of this as you are not questioning the ban of itself, but trying to us the AN board to bring action against something. ArbCom specifically sanctioned you for this, and you are violating it. Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Yep, Tarc, WP:BANEX doesn't cover this; it's only about "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". I suggest we close this thread down, and if anybody else besides Tarc wishes to have a discussion about that Gamergate tag, they can re-open a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Oh for fuck's sake, I cannot be prevented from seeking redress when there is a situation in which I am involved in requires admin input. Arbcom wanted me out of admin discussions which I had no prior involvement in, as I used to comment on ANI postings quite frequently. None of this affects the merit of SPAs and their associates trolling the Gamergate article to force a scarlet letter tag in perpetuity. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Tarc, apparently we think this is not covered as an exemption from your ban. Now don't sin again. Oppose any kind of block on Tarc, in case we were still voting on this. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, if I remember right, hasn't Future Perfect interfered with another thread involving one of the 5 horsemen of WikiBias? Specifically this? [1] I've already archived it locally and on the web, if you're wondering, you know, just to be safe [2], as I know that users with certain privledges can modify and delete logs, not implying anything, but I'm just being cautious. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Drama aside, can we get some actual administrator attention to this issue and the page in general? That would be extremely helpful. FWIW as far as I can see the page meets WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and the one outsstanding POV issue on the talk page contains calls for violating those policies and is basically and excercise in beating a dead horse, but admins are of course free to make up their own minds on that. Artw (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if I opened up a seperate AN/I for the actual issue that could do with some administrator attention? Artw (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as the POV issues remain, so should the tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• While it is quite early, given that the usual suspects at the article have generally weighed in, if an uninvolved admin would review Talk:Gamergate_controversy#NPOV_tag_removal.2C_Nov_10th.2C_late to see if there has been made a valid argument for keeping the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Which set of usual suspects? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree: Whatever the history with Tarc, it's clear that what we have is, at best, a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. The NPOV tag is a pretext under which this effort will continue indefinitely, and it is not merited by the current state of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

...a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. [citation needed]. No seriously. I haven't single a single gram of proof that any editors are engaging in 8chan in any way, but what I did see was absolute trolling on the 8chan thread, people claiming and spoofing themselves to be Ryulong and North to parody them in some sort of weird hysteria. Nonetheless, we cannot control what goes on on other sites. The neutrality has been disputed many times--Just view the freakin' archives. It's ridiculous on how we can't find a way to resolve this. But the article in its presence form methinks should be TNT'd due to all the statements it makes. (Metaphorically, not actually. Just see very little salvagable stuff that isn't a 60% compromise between both sides, leading to botched sentences and the like). Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:, could you provide some diffs of this? pbp 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, the article should be nuked, and not be recreatable until January 2015. --DSA510 Pls No H8

• I don't care what 8chan is doing, but I oppose the removal of the NPOV thread and I have nothing to do with them. The attempt to paint editors as being commanded by 8chan is not appreciated. starship.paint ~ regal 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• At the risk of being seen as emulating Baseball Bugs, this reminds of an old Baby Snooks and Daddy exchange, guest-starring Groucho Marx:

Groucho: You have a very ill-mannered child!

Daddy: Hey, resent that!

Groucho: Do you deny it?

Daddy: Noooo...I just resent it.

--Calton | Talk 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: The issue brought up by several editors is that the tone of the article is in violation of the NPOV, not about some old discussion about "the nature of the controversy over Gamergate". Adversarial and hostile tone do not belong in either article or talk pages. Since much of the article is about living persons, WP:BLPSTYLE should taken as a requirement rather than a hint that article should be written in a dispassionate tone, in a non-partisan manner, and avoiding both understatements and overstatements. All three is current issues with the article and thus the tag should stay. Belorn (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• are you sure? that is not the way I read the instructions for the templates use. Template Instructions: " The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. ... This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. ... This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the talkpage, I see much discussion about BLP and NPOV issues that fits the requirements of the template. Is there something I'm missing here? KonveyorBelt 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you see lots of SPAs coming in and claiming "BIAS !!! Its not NEUTRAL!!! You are not covering MY SIDE!!!". But those are not " pointing to specific issues that are actionable" based on "the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources". Please point to a discussion that meets the criteria, particularly one applicable to the entire article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me, TPRoD, is that something written in a Scarlet pen? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• There is an entire RFC on concerns about the neutrality of the article. Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. I do acknowledge the majority of reliable sources do depict harassment, etc. but, to quote Masem, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. That is the specific neutrality problem in the article. Also, an additional problem in the lead-> search for Masem's post in Talk:Gamergate controversy on "18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)". starship.paint ~ regal 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof)" - that's your own personal feeling. The only question is, do reliable sources use these so-called "negative words" such as "harassment" and "misogyny". And you're goddamn right they do. So you're basically whining about the fact that the article reflects reliable sources. Get over it. Quit tagging the article per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's other outlets for your frustration on the internet. Hundreds of them. This ain't one of them. Volunteer Marek  23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's of course no way that we can hide those words in the discussion of GG - they fill 90% of the sources at least. However, per IMPARTIAL and FRINGE, we cannot act like the press's opinion is the only opinion. We're not going to balance the article, but we can write it impartially to treat both sides in a clinically neutral manner as NPOV requires. This means we don't need to use lengthy pull quotes (which bring those words up again over and over) to hammer in the press's side of the argument, but we do have to mention these as serious issues that the situation has presented and has tainted the GG arguments. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

thats just crazy talk. you would need to through out our policy of UNDUE AND all of the reliable sources AND then inappropriately give the claims that have been repeatedly invalidated by the sources credence. Your TE pushing of such nonsense needs to stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all the discussion on the talk page, I don't see any useful reliable sources there that aren't in the article. To quote WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There are a buttload of sources on one side of this issue, just as there are a buttload of sources on one side of the shape of the earth, but our role is not to ensure that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about ensuring that "that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches". It's about presenting and phrasing the discussion in an impartial and neutral manner, and not taking any sides. starship.paint ~ regal 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the tag, please identify specifically one of these "phrasings" or "not taking sides" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, starship, Avono, Belorn, Random, and Retartist, (all five of whom argued for keeping the tag) are all very much not SPAs as you claim. Not sure why this is being raised here as it is clearly a content dispute and not a matter for administrative attention, unless you are requesting full protection of the article, but that should be requested at RPP. You are literally just fueling the edit war.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree: I agree with the devil's advocate that this isn't an appropriate issue for ANI. If anything a failure at the talkpage should result in an RFC to get more opinions. Seeking to settle content disputes through administrative action rather than consensus is an endemic problem here. As far as the tag goes, it is clearly the case that the neutrality of the article in under dispute, and casually reading the article makes me feel that is correct. The article is pseudo-psychoanalysis written by people with no experience in psychology trying to diagnose an unorganized group as being driven to misogyny due to a cultural identity crisis. Being a reviewer of videogames doesn't qualify you to discuss the death of "the gamer" identity. I also couldn't help but notice that after skimming the article I have come absolutely no closer to understanding what these groups are even arguing about; it seems the article should be renamed Analysis of GamerGater's motives by the media.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree. The weight of reliable sources is so far tipped against them, that User:Masem has resorted to attempting to jettison a core principle of Wikipedia regarding reliable sources with tortured -- and evidence-free -- claim about how ironclad reliable sources aren't actually reliable, owing to some original reasoning rendering them suspect, which is -- somehow -- supposed to therefore allow the GamerGate partisans s,ome sort of carte blanche to tip the scales. And User:The Devil's Advocate is, of course, once more indulging in his hobby of being contrarian for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The bulk of the sourcing about GG is opinions; there has been no verified evidence (outside of observation) that the GG movement is one based on misogyny: The pattern appears misogynistic to most of the press, but that's opinion, and not fact. That does not jettison any RSes, but instead demands we treat them as opinion pieces and not fact. The overreliance of opinions, however, does pose an NPOV problem.--MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• BLP issues: One has to be careful: the Gamergate controversy is basically a number of unfounded attacks on a number of named individuals, and a number of - to use the term people are using above - "Gamergaters" who want to promote these attacks. We can't, per WP:BLP, repeat the claims of the Gamergaters without quite a lot of sourcing explaining that there's no evidence. As such, we literally cannot give into the demands. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree - removed it once, only to be reverted by one of the involved editors here whose other edits consist of MMA and "professional" "wrestling" article minutia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disappointing that an admin someone needs to bring up my background to make a point, and only half right about that too. (yeah my post is ironic) starship.paint ~ regal 13:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree The many enthusiasts will prevent removal of the POV tag despite the fact that there is no reason for its presence other than as an expression of discontent. The talk page discussion gives no examples of problematic text, and the only justification is to point to an unclear vote. The issues presented by this topic are rare, and an uninvolved admin should remove the tag and warn anyone restoring it that a precise justification is required before addition. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's been many many other sections , outside of that one, at least by myself, through the current and the archives. The lead is not impartial (immediately focusing on an effect of the controversy and not the subject of it), and the section about the ethics concerns of the GG is written against how IMPARTIAL and FRINGE would suggest, giving those parts the benefit of the doubt. I've also repeatedly address the use of far too many lengthy quotes to drill how "GG IS BAD, OKAY". We don't have to give that side any sympathy since the sources don't do it, but we shouldn't prejudge them in WP's tone and voice. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Masem, you are inverting the very meaning of WP:FRINGE to say that when the reliable sources report something, Wikipedia should go out of our way to find less reliable sources that disagree. That's exactly what WP:FRINGE is supposed to preclude: a false equivalency in the name of a bogus balance not supported by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That's absolutely not what I'm asking for. I've been working on the basis that the sources that are there are fixed. And they are clearly against the GG side. That can't change, the article will absolutely carry a pre-dominate "antiGG" basis. However, impartialness and balance are two different things. And no, I'm not asking either for what the proGG would really love, having them smell like flowers and trash the press side, that's absolutely impossible. I am trying to get the article to be impartial - which means that when we present any arguments in favor of proGG, we don't give those any more praise in WP's voice, and when we present arguments against GG, we don't condemn them in the same way- the balance of sources is not touched at all. Absolutely 100%, we are going to say "the mainstream press considers GG misogystic-driven movement", as that is impartial, but we cannot say "GG is a misogystic-driven movement" , or use lenghty pull quotes to keep pounding that point into place. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As an example of what I would consider impartial, this [3] is an edit (later reverted) to the section about the ethics concerns of the GG, which generally have been laughed off, for the most part, by the press. My change did not drop any sources (in fact added more critical sources of the movement), but simply reordered the language to follow how FRINGE puts it - give the minority point at least whatever reason space can be given. Which works out to a handful of sentences out of 5 total paragraphs - the balance that the credibility of the GG's ethics issues have been given in the press. But the way it is written (give or take grammar) doesn't prejudge the GG side as the prior version had done, until after we've given all we really can on the GG side. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Masem, you're really getting it wrong. "Some say X", "Some say Y", is your version of "impartial"? That's not an encyclopaedia article, that's a bunch of wish-washy nonsense. You're trying to skirt around the facts reported by reliable sources, discrediting them with "some". If you actually had to write out the substance of the "some", it would be "nearly all sources that Wikipedia usually considers reliable". This is WP:GEVAL, pure and simple, and it is wrong. I'm shocked to see that you are an administrator, given that you clearly lack comprehension of the applicable policies. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  No it's not, that's absolutely not what I have. We have a controversy, with two primary sides. The GG side which has minimal - but enough - coverage to explain what their point is, and the rest of the media/press that strongly condemned that side for its actions and its unactionable statements. As per FRINGE, like the Birthers or the 9/11 truthers, we explain - without prejudgement - what the fringe point is, and then we start explaining the criticism about that point. "Some say X" "Some say Y" is a fair way to handle that. WE have to be wishy-washy and not take any sides regardless of the press (aka court of public opinion) in presenting information, though that won't change the balance. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry Masem, but your claims about Gamergate have no basis in standard procedure and you are losing credibility. There is no pro-gamergate organization that could be described in a neutral manner per what it did and what statements it made. The only thing that actually exists is an ill-defined group of gamers, some of whom have performed despicable harassment, with many more who have supported the harassment—even at Wikipedia, we see commentary about how the claims of the victims may be a hoax. There are plenty of gamers who do not support harassment, but no reliable sources have tracked them down and written a coherent account of what they have done and what statements they have made. Therefore, there is very little material that can show pro-gamergate activity in a positive manner. The resulting article is a product of WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Again, I'm not asking to show it in a positive manner (we can't), but simply to give them a say without comment in a clinically neutral manner. For example, one thing we can document from antiGG sources is that the proGG side wants reviews for games done in a more objective manner, which most of us all agree is a contradiction of what a review is. But we can document from a high quality RS that this is there claim. And that's all we'd be able to say in any sort of favor about it. So the next sentence in the prose would be the appropriate response to that by the press, which has been one of ridicule. However, I am aware there are many many more claims that some GGers have made like "false flags" by the targets of harassment, but these claims have not been picked up by any reliable source at all, so there's absolutely no reason to include that. My point is that there is a few points made about the GG side that are made by the better reliable sources that we can address without comment or twisting the statement, and then provide a lengthy counterpoint about why that's not going to fly. It is just like we do with other FRINGE topics. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't that more or less what the second sentence of the article says? "Many supporters ... say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism" Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, but after presenting the result of the controversy (the harassment and misogyny) which is prejudging the issue and not impartial; compared to where if we simply moved that part of the first sentence to the third sentence, we ascribe no "topic" of what the controversy is broadly about (that's part of the issue of reporting it in the first place) and then present one side (second sentence), and then the counterpoint of the other side (third sentence). This is a similar way to redo the section about ethics considers as I linked in the diff above, stating that those concerns without prejudging them, and then throwing all the opinions of the press to show how fringy they are. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  That's because the controversy has nothing to do with journalism ethics — outside of the pro-GG fringe, the debate is entirely framed around the campaign of vile harassment and threats made by the movement's supporters. Nobody outside the movement takes the "but ethics" claims seriously, because as has been discussed in literally dozens of reliable sources, the movement hasn't made any meaningful claims that neutral sources view as being about journalism ethics. The only people with the POV that GamerGate is about journalism ethics are GG supporters, and they are demonstrably a fringe POV, based upon the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. What we have is a situation where everyone outside GG looks at the movement and says "Wow, there's a lot of misogynistic harassment against women who aren't even journalists, they're bizarrely demanding 'objective reviews' that don't exist, they want to silence anyone who is criticising games from a feminist perspective and are still clinging to long-discredited arguments about Zoe Quinn. Literally none of this has anything to do with journalism ethics." GG supporters respond "but ethics!" repeated ad infinitum. Wikipedia cannot fail to take into account that clear and indisputable dichotomy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It takes a quick glance at the article to see that there is bias, so I find these complaints ridiculous. If you want specifics:

Actor Wil Wheaton and former NFL player Chris Kluwe also posted criticisms of GamerGate, with Kluwe's being noted for its use of "creative insults",

Why are we randomly praising the insults of someone against GamerGate as being "creative"?

"virulent opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games."

Is one reporter, really sufficient to back up the claim that so-called "GamerGaters" are fundamentally opposed to social criticism and analysis of videogames? That is a ridiculous thing for someone to be opposed to and sounds like projecting.

"However, Hill said that Gamergate's perception of how the games industry works is "completely different" from reality"

This needs elaboration. It is just a floating sentence, it doesn't connect with the previous sentence or subsequent sentence. Can we at least **explain** what their perception of the games industry is if we are going to call it completely wrong?

"Gamergate really can't claim to have exposed anything but their own visceral meanness, which borders on fascism,"

Are we just building a coatrack to hang any negative quotes we can find about GamerGaters?

"Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff said "Every single question of journalistic ethics GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with", yet "GamerGate seems to keep raging simply to do two things: harass women and endlessly perpetuate itself so it can keep harassing women."

I am confused. Earlier in this article, it is stated "Video game journalists have acknowledged that there are conflicts of interest and other ethical problems within the video game industry, with some news sites adopting new policies in response to the Gamergate controversy." This is a recurrent theme in this article, stating that there are legitimate problems with ethics in gaming journalism, but that Gamergaters haven't focused on these problems. Now we are quoting a journalist stating that Gamergaters cannot come up with a single legitimate ethics problem, and that they are driven solely to by a desire to harass women. At the very least I would like to hear what these debunked questions of journalism ethics were/are?

"In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. "

What could be less biased then mentioning that there are GamerGaters who are "known neo-nazis". I'm sure there are Republican and Democrat neo-Nazis as well, should we just mention that in passing in their respective articles?

While saying gamers were just "opposed to change for the sake of change",

So they are misogynists, with neo-Nazis, who are opposed to any type of social criticism or analysis of videogames, are opposed to change just because they hate change. I'm sure there's more in this article I would dislike if I continued reading it, but I think I've made my point, and I think those claiming that the article isn't biased have not actually read the article.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are almost exclusively complaining about quoted text rather than anything original to Wikipedia. And this belongs on the article talk page rather than here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a point with that "creative insults" thing (it's unnecessary), but are pretty wrong about everything else. Volunteer Marek  05:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Creative insults" is a quote from one of the sources cited in the article that essentially paraphrases Kluwe's uses of the phrases "slackjawed pickletits", "slopebrowed weaseldicks", and "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol" amongst others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@ All 3 of you: it is obviously biased to cherry pick a bunch of random insults and place them them throughout an article, please explain how mentioning that there are Neo-Nazis who are also gamergaters is not "unnecessary", and please consider issues like how repeatedly characterizing a subject with negative adjectives while applying positive ones like "creative" to the criticizer of the subject can generate an overall biased tone to the article. Please see the article on Hitler and notice how it doesn't excessively pepper the prose with disparaging adjectives and quotes about Hitler, but actually tries to inform the reader about the subject. That is what an NPOV article is.AioftheStorm (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we really allowing the constant comparisons to Hitler on ANI when it has been banned from the talk page? But I digress.

If you would read the reference being cited for the "Neo-Nazi" mention, it would go on to say how Gamergate has been co-opted by right-wing conservatives who don't give a damn about video games or video game journalism and are instead people who are anti-women, anti-feminism, or anti-minorities. And "creative insults" is a quote in the reference cited. Everything is in the references being cited. They are all marked as quotations from the citations. Read the references instead of going on and on about bias that doesn't exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been to the talkpage, so I have no idea about special Hitler sanctions, and I fail to see how pointing out that the Hitler article is NPOV despite the overwhelming amount of sources being extremely negative about him would be in anyways problematic or how it constitutes "constant comparisons to Hitler". You have not provided any argument about the merits of inclusion of details such as there are known Neo-Nazis who are gamergaters, you have simply and inadequately responded that all these factoids have appeared in reliable sources. Inclusion in a reliable source is not sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, there are concerns such as NPOV and there are mechanisms such as placing tags at the tops of articles in order to ensure that those concerns are addressed. And since I can't use Hitler I will bring up another generic "bad guy", Commodus, and point out that his article isn't hodgepodge of negative attack quotes. Are there thousands of negative attack quotes about Commodus? Most certainly, probably enough to fill hundreds of articles. But it would be similarly biased if it contained those.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Hitler" comparisons prevail in offsite discussions. And I answered our questions regarding the "Neo-Nazi" mention and the "creative insults" question. Not to mention that there's nothing on Gamergate controversy that says "this group is evil". There is a statement saying what they've done is misogynistic which is a statement supported by like 75% of the citations on that article so I don't know why people constantly compare the Gamergate article to the articles Hitler, Commodus, the KKK, and plenty of other people or groups considered morally "evil".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which part of your response explains why the mention of Neo-Nazis in this passage is at all relevant:

In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. He also said that any attempts to engage with GamerGate was seen as an act of provocation while silence on the matter was seen as hostility. He also said that when The Escapist tried to get a balanced piece from people on both sides of the argument, the male Gamergate interviewees were "eager to provide and flesh out a mythology that rationalises hatred towards the feminist/progressive element in games", leading Stone to compare them to Rush Limbaugh and Richard Littlejohn, while any female participants sought anonymity. He also compared them to the men's rights movement in that they sidelined any discussion on sexism for which they may hold a form of responsibility, and instead make themselves out to be victims.[96]

The bolded part could be completely removed and it would do nothing to change the meaning of the other parts of the passage. You seem to be arguing that mentioning neo-Nazis is relevant because the source connects it to groups like neo-Nazis infiltrating the Gamergaters. But the Wikipedia article provides no such context, instead it provides a thoughtless list of negative tidbits culled from a source with no indication of importance.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it can't be removed. It's a key part of Stone's point that GamerGate is being co-opted by fringe groups to push their own ends, taking advantage of the fact that GG has no organized leadership or objectives which could steer it away from political extremism. The Guardian is one of the most respected English-language news sources on the planet and an indisputable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"a key part of Stone's point" that is never presented in the Wikipedia article. All Wikipedia does is state there are known neo-Nazis who are gamergate supports, an obviously inflammatory salacious detail, and the only time Stone mentions neo-nazis is in this one line "Marching under the incredibly vague banner of “journalistic ethics” allows bona fide neo-nazis to hold hands with ticked-off customers and claim common cause.". He could have replaced neo-nazis with any other extremist group without changing his message; the fact that he mentions neo-nazis is hardly a "key part" of Stone's op-ed. All Stone is arguing is that anyone can march under their banner due to its vague goal, and what Wikipedia has instead reported is simply that "Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis". There are obvious differences between how Wikipedia and Stone are presenting this: Stone uses it to highlight a point which could've been highlighted with any fringe group, Wikipedia mentions it in it of itself. Besides this nobody has still addressed the fact that the article is a coatrack of unnecessarily inflammatory quotes.AioftheStorm (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• You know, some may say certain specific GamerGate concerns about ethics in journalism are fringe or not (can you really call it fringe when numerous major outlets adjust their policies in response?), but the view that ethics in journalism is a major or predominant concern of GamerGate is hardly fringe. Numerous sources, including ones cited in the article, agree that GamerGate is about ethics in gaming journalism. Some are fully sympathetic, others see that as being overshadowed by harassment, but there is really no way anyone can look over the entire body of sources and come to the conclusion that agreeing with GamerGate is akin to believing the Earth is a square. It is a minority view, but not a fringe view. The majority view is definitely not that somehow these concerns are just a smokescreen, though there are some sources presenting that view. You would not get that from reading the article in its current state, because editors like Tarc have been allowed to run wild. Best way to describe the majority view would be, basically, that people feel any legitimate ethics concerns they have are overshadowed by harassment. Honestly, whatever the Arbs intended when they allowed Tarc certain unstated exceptions for posting at ANI, I am pretty sure "gathering a posse to edit war and canvass a discussion where I am involved" was not what they had in mind. Pretty sure such a use of ANI was actually the opposite of their intentions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  It's a major predominant concern of Gamergate, but their concerns are as a whole fringe unto themselves because outside of the "Patreon" clauses put forth at Kotaku and the Escapist and Polygon, there was no actual corruption to speak of. They just added the clause to just make sure that these idiotic complaints ledged against the people involved won't happen again. There obviously is corruption in video game journalism, but it's not coming from any personal relationships between indie developers and any people writing on Kotaku or Polygon who may have sent them $5 on their crowdfunding campaigns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The editor-in-chief of Destructoid resigned over some questionable activities on GameJournPros dude and you actually fucking know that shit too since you at one point reluctantly added it to the article. Sure, that sort of stuff is not getting widespread coverage and when issues GamerGate does discuss get covered, such as Shadow of Mordor or the Aussie Gaming media stuff, GamerGate is rarely ever mentioned by these outlets, so you obviously know it is not limited to Patreon donations. On another note, why the hell are any of us discussing this at ANI again? What admin action is being requested?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  It was also removed from the article for BLP reasons seeing as issues weren't confirmed. And Gamergate didn't break that story IIRC. And the administrative request is to deal with editors that demand that the NPOV tag remain despite common sense on Wikipedia saying otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  You are wrong about GamerGate not having anything to do with that, but leaving that aside, how exactly is an administrator supposed to do something about those editors or the tag? Tarc claimed most of the people who objected to removing the tag were SPAs, but all you have to do is look at the names I mentioned to realize that ain't gonna fly. Is he calling on admins to choose sides in a dispute and enforce it? Are we now using ANI to address content issues? Seriously, what the hell are people agreeing to above? That is not particularly clear to me. Looks like Tarc is just trying to rally an army behind him to push his position in a content dispute and the others are signing on for the task or is just looking to get an admin to make a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  They're supposed to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the editors themselves cannot or will not. The NPOV tag does not belong on the article as a way for the gaters to say "WE DISAGREE WITH THIS" when there are no valid complaints regarding the neutrality of the page, particularly when so many administrators and editors have been extensively disagreeing with the actions of several established editors pushing a POV under the guise of seeking neutrality as well as the various obvious single purpose accounts (that is brand new accounts created to stir the pot) and accounts revived by Redditors and the 4chan to 8chan exodus to get past the semi-protected status. But we have no real rule on this, at least not until ArbCom actually decides that Gamergate is worth their time and the concept of "zombie accounts" gets written into Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except, the tag is being kept because there are various disputes regarding the article's neutrality that are not resolved. Some of them are long-running issues that have never been resolved. The only reason the article is in its current state is because you and a group of other editors have spent far more time than anyone else systematically slanting all material towards your POV then revert as much as possible to insure your preferred version sticks simply because other people tire of dealing with you guys. Once again, why is this an admin issue? The validity of the tag is fundamentally a content dispute. Despite what you and Tarc have said, a very large number of established editors with significant pre-GamerGate editing history this year have been objecting to your edits and the attempts to remove the tag. You appear to be either canvassing or looking for a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia. And no. This "very large number of established editors with significant pre-Gamergate editing history this year" almost exclusively refers to the "zombie accounts" issue. Nearly all of these people have done nothing on Wikipedia in the past 3 months other than push the Gamergater POV. Barely any of them have touched an article that is not in some way related to Gamergate because every time someone tries to get something done on the article the clarion call is sent out to r/KotakuInAction and /gg/ to keep everything in the status quo and hope that they get rid of the people that they disagree with through whatever vague attempts to game people into being so fed up with them that they get banned. There are so many more people in good standing who are established editors who are here more often and most of them are administrators who are looking at this dispute and finding it so impossible to get through because of the constant disruption happening from offsite that is only being enabled by the editors effectively on their side. That's why they're exclusively looking to discredit myself, Tarc, TaraInDC, TheRedPenOfDoom, and NorthBySouthBaranof and not giving a shit about anything editors like you or Tutelary have done. That's why there's a thread on /gg/ right now imploring people to go through my over 200k edits looking for anything that they can feed to Retartist to use if the arbcom case gets accepted. Why they've gone to ED and Wikipedia Review and Wikipedocracy to find whatever they can against me. Why they brought up banned users I had had a hand in getting rid of who released my old emails or other personal details that had no reason to end up on any website. It shouldn't go this Hubble Deep Field deep but here we are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia.

  You don't understand NPOV, it is not to select the POV of the right/mainstream/winning side and reflect that and remove the other sides POV, it is to have a neutral POV that doesn't apply value judgements to any of the sides.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "neutral POV" is one that completely discounts one "side" of the "debate"'s very arguments for existing. Gaters are no different than people going "Grassy Knoll" or "Obama is a Kenyan".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The neutral POV isn't whatever POV you think is correct. Flat-Earthers are obviously wrong about their views, but an NPOV article would a)Report their views, b)Report the contradicting view of all known science, c)Not adopt the condescending and incredulous tone that most people have when discussing people who believe the world is flat.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except Gamergate controversy isn't an article about the Gamergate movement, as denoted by its title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, I am just going to stop addressing this shit. The arbitration request is open and evidence from the past week will be provided if necessary. Sadly, you and Tarc do not even seem to get that you are digging a hole for yourselves with these remarks. P.S. Auerbach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Appending "Controversy" to the end of anything suffixed with -gate is a redundancy, and it was only done here because Gamergate was already the name of a type of ant. The fact that you think this article isn't about GamerGaters and doesn't need to report their beliefs illustrates how badly it needs a rewrite, and the importance of the NPOV template at the top.AioftheStorm (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  "GamerGate" the movement doesn't meet WP:GNG as much as "GamerGate" the controversy surrounding the movement does. The article is not solely about "GamerGaters" so there's no reason to frame any information in the article in any way that legitimizes their causes at any stage of their history because the world at large doesn't believe them. The article can contain their claims as to being all about ethics in video game journalism but that's not the majority view point on what GamerGate has become. The reliable sources used in the article depict GamerGate as an anti-feminist backlash in video game culture rather than any sort of valid consumer movement and that the claims of ethics (whether it be pointing out alleged corruption in the video game media or the demands that video game reviews be more objective) are not valid or are being used as a front to further the campaign of hatred towards the women in video game development or the feminist critics who dared to speak their mind, no matter how many times they can say that the person who sent the shooting threat to USU was some "Brazilian clickbait blogger" or deny that anyone in their movement has been involved in any of the publications of addresses and phone numbers or the constant harassment and death threats sent to people. Multiple people completely uninvolved in video games journalism have made these distinctions. And there have been multiple people who have identified that the various talking head heroes of GamerGate are a bunch of right-wing pundits who have had nothing to do with video games before but have had plenty to do with anti-feminism. "But ethics" is a meme now because no one takes the demands of Gamergate seriously until someone has to call the FBI to report extremely specific and violent threats. All of this is supported by the sources in the article. Except maybe the "Brazilian clickbait blogger" bit because I don't think any reliable source has actually covered that but it is a constant point of contention on /gg/ when they have to complain about Sarkeesian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close please, this is clearly a content dispute. There is already a talk page discussion about the removal of the tag, and (apparently) there is no consensus to remove it. Please note I am completely uninvolved about GamerGate, I am just tired to see on daily basis inconsistent and sometimes frivolous GamerGate threads at WP:AN. Cavarrone 09:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware this is the first thread in at least a week because that was when the general sanctions were put in place. And "no consensus to remove" is inorrect because the people arguing for retention have no guideline or policy based reason for retention. It is being used to say "We don't like how this article depicts our side" when their side doesn't have a majority view point on the matter as stated time and time again. Perhaps this is a content dispute, but it needs an administrator to end it seeing as multiple uninvolved editors, one of whom was an administrator, all attempted to remove the tag based on their understanding of the events ([4], [5], [6], [7]) and all were immediately reverted ([8], [9], [10], [11])—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree This is an attempt to create a false consensus in a less viewed part of Wikipedia, this discussion belongs on its talk page, as it was placed before, and time and time again, there's been NO consensus, and there's a real concern about NPOV Loganmac (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • HUH? how is bringing in outside views to "a less viewed part of Wikipedia" an attempt to create a "false consensus"??????-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree There is NPOV problem and every source, no matter how reliable, is labeled "fringe" or "unreliable" unless it supports a particular narrative, then the source is "okay" for that purpose. Tarc, for violating Arbcom sanctions and forum shopping should be topic banned at a minimum based on the general sanctions as applied to the topic. Amping up the drama should be dealt with extreme prejudice. The tag should remain until consensus is reached which has not happened. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • again, what specific issues in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DHeyward. There are too many marginal sources in the article. It doesn't matter what they say or who they support, anything less than the highest quality mainstream sources should be removed. I'll put a list on the article talk page presently. aprock (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with too many marginal sources. Lines like this one from the online-only "Paste Magazine": "In Paste magazine, Garrett Martin suggested that any concerns about ethics in journalism were merely a cover for attacking women, even if some sincerely believed otherwise." It directly contradicts other sources that state that gamergater's legitimate concerns are drown out by misogyny, by now stating that they they have no legitimate concerns and are all about misogyny. And what even are their concerns? The article never mentions them, because according to editors here the article is about criticism of gamergaters and not gamergaters and therefore their views don't need to be presented. This article is literally nothing more than a disparate collection of criticisms of gamergaters culled from op-eds, and serves only to highlight the fact that our site is unequipped to handle controversial topics.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources have been discussed on the talk page. The removal of content based on a small but persistent group of editors has created the NPOV issue and is the exact reason why NPOV tags exist. The contant discussion is extremely long and that should be the first clue that there is an NPOV problem. The whole NotYourShield meme was created out of this. Everyone in touch with reality knows this is the case but the current narrative removes this perspective based on arbitrary interpretations on the realiabilty of sources. It's dubious at best and deceitful at worst. WP should not be a social justice cheerleader nor should it be a shill for gamer viewpoints. It's currently biased as a social justice cheerleader whence the NPOV tag. The one constant theme in discussion is acknowledgement that other prominent viewpoints exist but because of bizarre interpretations of policy, they can't be reflected in the article. That's an NPOV problem. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually identify specific "arbitrary misrepesentations". Yes, there are a bunch of rabble that repeatedly appear chanting the mantra "UNFAIR! BIAS! POV!" But, no one is, as is required for the NPOV banner, identifying specific instances in the article that are actually bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's on the talk page. Are you unaware on the shear volume of talk pages comments? Are you unaware that sites like "gawker" are acceptable for on narrative but deemed unreliable for another? That's the convoluted logic on the talk page that justifies the NPOV tag. We cannot summarize the volume of talk arguments here. It's a POV problem that is obvious by the shear number of talk page comments that challenge NPOV with no compromise or collaboration. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what immediate admin action is needed here. I'd appreciate it if Orangemike could keep an eye on the page and talk page discussion (as we have a shortage of uninvolved admins), but I don't think there's anything here which looks like an "incident" Protonk (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: The admin action requested is a determination of whether or not there is a community consensus for whether the conditions for placing/removing the tag have been met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of tag. Tags are supposed to be for actual problems with articles, not for stubborn but fringe groups to register their continued disapproval with the correct application of Wikipedia policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Pointless !vote to keep tag The neutrality of the article has been disputed so many times. It's just short of I believe...uh...an insane number. But this !vote is pointless because you can't vote on content. And specifically administrators trying to use their tools to endorse or deny content I think is a big step too far; and a dangerous precedent. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've hit on a brainstorm of why there is the consternation on this article, and recognizing that there are two different types of POV here: the one that is coming from the proGG side that would want the article to more reflective of their side - something we absolutely cannot do given the sources - and the writing style POV issues that myself and others have pointed out. I have proposed an idea of rethink the structure of the article to make it 100% clear that the article primarily about the controversy over the harassment, and not as much about the "controversy" that the GG movement wants addressing; with that clarity in the setup of the article, there is absolutely no way we can justify the first POV aspect, and I'm confident we can remove the POV nature on the writing style since we won't be kludging the two aspects together. More details can be found at [12], if anyone wishes to comment. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordination

I was asked above to provide evidence of lobbying at 8chan. See https://8chan.co/gg/2.html (this will scroll to a later page eventually, of course) where a thread specifically seeks to gather evidence against NorthBySouthBaranof, Ryulong, Tarc, RedPenOfDoom, TaraInDC, Gamaliel, and Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Another wikipedia thread is here: https://8chan.co/gg/res/478105+50.html.

But 8chan aside, there is an overwhelming likelihood that this page will be edit-warred indefinitely by GamerGate supporters. As long as they can muster a few editors at the talk page, they can perpetually argue that removing the NPOV tag is not supported by consensus because support for removing the tag will never be unanimous. This will ultimately require a policy decision. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan's GamerGate board talks about stuff concerning GamerGate? Shock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sausage making of wikipedia articles is not about gamergate. The targeting of editors is certainly a disruptive tactic. aprock (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can say finally that collecting on wiki links is a 'disruptive tactic'. (No literally, that's what they were doing. Though they kind of got carried away by taking screenshots of Ryulong's Twitter and trying to submit or aver that is valid proof.) Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, this is the new thread. "WP ARBCOM GENERAL" I'm merely monitoring it for links. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Close per WP:DR policy - stop the spillover drama over a content dispute tag

• Propose close as beyond scope of ANI per WP:DR, section 4. The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). This request was started by an editor under arbcom sanction and should have been WP:BOOMERANGed immediately and closed so dispute resolution can occur. There is no action that is immediately necessary on a 3 month dispute. Close and salt gamergate content disputes. --DHeyward (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• And.. what do you want the admin to do? - This is WP:ANI, these kind of things should be handled on the article's talkpage. In my opinion I would go ahead and even say that the article should be fully protected until a consensus is worked out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

@Mdann52: You were predictably and almost immediately reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the restoration (eg removing the tag) per this close decision. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Close is absolutely and positively gaming the consensus policy

One user cannot close this heavy, hard hitting discussion because apparently 5 'agree' and 5 'disagree' votes is now a consensus towards the 'agree' side. When did we started getting into this? WP:ANI cannot be used to deal with content disputes, and for the 'No discussion ongoing on talk page.' Are you freakin' serious? Check out the archives and archives and the just recently, the NPOV dispute section and the like. There was absolutely on going discussion so I've reverted such a close. There is positively and absolutely NO CONSENSUS to remove the tag in any formality. More on his close, he also reverted the tag before his close, citing WP:ANI...before he closed the discussion based on the false premise that there was no active discussion. Tutelary (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have restored the close; you're clearly involved in this controversy and should not be unilaterally undoing a close merely because you disagree with the outcome. Consensus is not !voting, and all consensus decisions must fundamentally comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with this closure. Discussion at the talk page is clearly ongoing, consensus over there is overwhelming right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

1) it's !notavote. and 2) mere claims of "bias" without identifying specific actionable instances where the article is not representative of the mainstream sources is not a valid rationale for the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: As for the timing issue, If you are going to bring up a 2 minute gap between me removing the tag and saving the close, that is stupid (the difference is actually due to an edit conflict if I remember correctly, or I may have just forgotten to click save, realised my error, then completed it). As I've mentioned on my talk page, leaving a tag in place that is clearly having no effect is like tagging an article for notability while at AfD. In this case, there should not be a tag in place, as discussions keep breaking down and starting up. As and when there is a serious discussion into this, then this may be worth revisiting, but only when a NPOV can be shown, which IMO as an uninvolved editor prior to this, it has not. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've really been trying to justify it and even changed up the close trying to justify it. First, you say 'no valid discussion on talk page' to the close, making it biased and absolutely false. Then, when other editors complained, you didn't revert it. You still haven't reverted it. You've kept it there even though there was blatantly no consensus at all in this WP:ANI thread for ANI to rule in a content dispute. One single editor--you decided to instigate this 'close' and edit warred for it to stay in spite of its problems. Now, I'd like to ask you a single question; Was this a conduct dispute or a content dispute, in your eyes? If it's a conduct dispute, then you're in violation of closing a discussion in which you can't possibly enact the solution. (a violation of non admin closure) If it's a content dispute, then ANI cannot help and you've extended ANI's scope which is in itself a violation of its sovereignty and authority. And what's up with moving the goalposts? Seriously. First 'No active discussion' -> Active discussion starts -> 'No useful discussion started, just same rehasing' -> 'No uninvolved editor says there's a problem' (that's actually a Quest for Knowledge saying that there's a problem, btw) What's next? 'NPOV tag stays out until Tutelary gets off of my back?' Come now, don't you see the problematic nature of your close? I'm going to ask that you self revert the closure out of respect for other editors' remarks on it, not just myself. Tutelary (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct that it's not a vote. The problems with the article are clearly outlined, from tone to sourcing to balance and bias. Of course the tag should remain. The only reason it's been removed is because one side doesn't like it, and that's a problem regardless of what side you fall on the debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter Pt 2

Why was this discussion closed (and against consensus)? Many uninvolved editors (such as myself) have pointed out several issues with the article. The only editors who want the tag removed are heavily involved in this dispute. If anything, this should have been closed to keep the NPOV tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to be a non-involved editor. If you do have specific and actionable NPOV concerns I would suggest you point them out in Talk:Gamergate controversy. This discussion should be closed. — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I only have one edit to the article itself (a style change) - I don't think that make me involved. The thread that you point it is about a poorly worded, confusing sentence, not about NPOV. And for the record, I have attempted to provide an outside view on the article talk page.[13] Perhaps you don't intend it this way, but you give the appearance of wanting to close down legitimate discussion, rather than resolve disputes in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this, it says a lot about the current POV pushers already mentions when they worry about the POV tag, they might want people to take the article content as fact Loganmac (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion does not say the article is neutral, or there are no issues, just that there is not a consensus to include the POV tag. Anyone interpreting my close as saying the POV is perfect is not reading it in the manner intended; Personally, I have no opinion on the tone of the article, as I really have not read the article nor the sources enough to determine this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

However, there was ongoing discussion specifically about the tag; this section started by Volunteer Marek (a "put up or shut up"), I responded to with my specific issues as to why the NPOV tag should stay. And that's one of several sections about NPOV at the present talk page. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

...Which appears to support the action taken here, with you admitting people are refusing to build a consensus. If this is the case, then a tag encouraging discussion is not going to do it's job in any way. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But the tag should help (discounting the fact/influence of external pressures to make changes to this article in a certain way) bring new voices to the discussion that might provide more insight or the like, as long as there remains a significant dispute. I will point out that no cleanup tag has a time limit on which actions should or should not be taken - I've seen articles tagged since 2007 with one or more of these. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I do want to be clear, there's two ways that the POV tag could be taken. One way is the way that the external groups want to push for, that being that the article doesn't cover GG enough, puts it in far too much a bad light because of the weight of press criticism, etc. The problem is the sources cannot at all support that point, per NPOV/UNDUE/WEIGHT. If the POV tag was being used only for that, I would be completely behind it's removal. But I and others have pointed out the second way that the tag should be taken, in that while the article, broadly, meets the appropriate balance required by NPOV and available sourcing, the wording and approach is not an impartial take on the situation, which could be improved; the idea is not to make GG look any better (Because the sources prevent us), but to at least tone down the vitriol that the press has towards GG, that is presented in a manner that gives a strong non-impartial view of the situation. That's a POV situation that can be addressed and discussed, if people would work towards consensus, and thus a reason to keep the tag. (I'll follow any ANI decision on that, of course, I'm just expressing the reasons here) --MASEM (t) 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How is is IMPARTIAL to misrepresent by "toning down" the external commentary that has been directed at GG? "Toning down" would in fact seem to be antithetical to WP:IMPARTIAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: You have that backwards. The NPOV tag has been in the article for a long time. If someone wants to remove the tag, the burden to obtain consensus is on them, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have not decided on this issue yet but an editor from 2010 who had contributed to a variety of topics does not seem to indicate a SPA to me. Chillum 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [14] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[15]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per User:Ivanvector and because I believe that Ricky abused the tools. Caden ^cool 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [28], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'd only like to note that most of the editors requesting the topic ban (including Ricky, who initiated the ban and was given the "Official Frown of Disapproval for imposing a ban in a matter upon which they also expressed a deliberative view and been an active editor") are involved in the matter at hand. I came here to edit, not to fight with anyone. And anyone who checks my earlier editing work will see how much I contributed to Malagurski-related articles. He or she will also see how much I am unable to do so anymore because of constant obstructions by editors who would rather have no Malagurski-related articles on Wikipedia whatsoever. So, if the Wikipedia community wants to ban someone who is genuinely interested in this topic and has contributed to the best of my ability, I will respect that decision. It would've helped if there was at least one friendly editor working on Malagurski-related articles who didn't immediately jump on me, accusing me of being Malagurski or promoting him, just because I wouldn't join the anti-Malagurski band wagon. I tried to be neutral and anyone who invests more time into my edit history will see how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself (sourced, of course). But it wasn't enough. If the decision here is that a ban on my contributions towards Malagurski-related articles should not be placed, any edit I make to those articles will be reverted, by Pincrete, Bobrayner, citing "consensus" they create through mere plurality. I am effectively already banned, so make it official, if you please. Or, instead of just discussing the matter here, have a look at the Malagurski-related articles, edit them, contribute to their quality. Help create real consensus, that's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Anybody can open cases here, write "Support" or "Oppose", briefly divulge why, and leave. If you wrote here, show interest and help make these articles better. Banning or not banning me won't make them better. And I came here to make them better. Since I can't do that anymore, it's up to you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to comment, Ricky81682 has been involved in the articles for approx. 1 month, bobrayner loosely involved for 3 years. How does 2 editors become UrbanVillager's MOST of the editors requesting the topic ban … are involved in the matter at hand? UrbanVillager says how much criticism towards Malagurski and his work I agreed to be added to the article, how much I brought up myself. I know of only one (very mild) criticism supplied by UrbanVillager (that the films are controversial, from a javno interview), correct me please if I am wrong.

I know of no anti-Malagurski band wagon, and when asked by myself and Euryalus, to prove "conspiracies", "editors that openly despise the work" and "canvassing' that UrbanVillager accuses other editors of (in 'response' below), UrbanVillager relied on a single remark from an editor retired two years ago, and (out of context) talk page comments from me on my first day as an editor also over 2 years ago. I'm afraid that the history shows that UrbanVillager HAS fought with every editor in the last two years, and HAS fought to keep article pages as promotional as possible, using disruption, personal abuse, misrepresenting sources, ignoring copyvio and pursuing spurious ANI's in order to do so. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, you're forgetting Joy, who has been involved in the issue since as early as 2012 ([29]). You're forgetting NinjaRobotPirate as well, who is also involved [30], so the only uninvolved editors supporting the ban are No such user and Future Perfect at Sunrise, both, however, very involved in Balkans-related topics, such as the ones Malagurski discusses in his films. When it comes to editors uninvolved with Malagurski-related articles, 2 are for the ban, 3 are against. That isn't much of a consensus for a ban. Nevertheless, I have already explained why with the help of you, Pincrete, and your friend Bobrayner, I am already effectively banned from Malagurski-related articles as every edit I make is disputed and essentially blocked by you two, so any decision made here makes no difference. It's sad that Malagurski-related articles attract more editors who are against his work than those who are genuinely interested in making the articles neutral and of a good quality, but if that's the way Wikipedia is heading, I refuse to be a part of it. That's why any decision made here makes no difference, and I call on other editors who don't have a personal view regarding Malagurski and his work to join the editing process and help make those articles better. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, NinjaRobotPirate's 'involvement', extends to a single response on talk, to a RSN posting. Joy, has (I believe), not edited on any of these articles for 2-3 years, (though yes, Joy was involved in previous ANIs). You repeatedly allude to 'conspiracies', 'band wagons', 'canvassing' (in the above comment and in 'response' below), you contrast your own 'neutrality' with others (ALL others it seems) POV. I and others have asked for proofs, where are they? Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) … … ps I AGREE that involving new editors would benefit the neutrality of the articles and have posted a request in the past on the film noticeboard. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reponse

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [31]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'. He accuses editors of canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [32] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:

"I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [33]

Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [34], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [35]

Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [36], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [37]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. The more substantive point underlying that discussion, was HOW to represent the many controversial claims in this film, since Opbeith's and my complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases, and remained so till very recently (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor how to report it).

The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of UrbanVillager's 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for further information

Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[38], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[39]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . Thus in this SPI there was no suspicion of any 'crime' having occurred.

The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[40] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[41]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[42], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[43], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [44]

UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[45]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). I don't want to clog up this ANI with 'content' matters, but whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[46] [47][48]

The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [49], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have dared to ask for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), most of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."

We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)

I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?

Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, in respect of personal abuse against me, it has taken place since June this year. I have assembled the proofs below, but still regard other matters as more important. I have struck through my earlier remark about 'good faith', which was born out of exasperation. I have wasted an inordinate amount of time in the last 2 months defending myself against accusations which were wholly spurious. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have collapsed the proofs section below, as I do not wish it to distract this ANI. Belligerent behaviour is unpleasant, however, it is less serious than the purpose for which it is employed, which is to retain ownership in order that the article continues to be little better than a promotional outpost of the film maker's own publicity machine, which I contend it has hitherto been. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse

Evidence of personal abuse requested by Ivanvector

I have been asked by Ivanvector, to provide proofs for my 'lion's share' para above concerning personal abuse. Below are the proofs, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context. Do you speak English? [50] ... This was a response to my observation that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself. In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[51] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==:-[52] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[53]. (large sections of the article were removed shortly therafter for copyvio of the film maker's website) Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article [54]. The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[55] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality',(during the edit war referred to by IvanVector above) my response is in the 'next' edit. your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[56] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper (ie self-sourced), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having given a presentation at Google headquarters in USA shortly before (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice'). No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [57] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit. His Royal Highness Pincrete[58] ... As referred to above, this also accuses two other editors and misrepresents the 'reviews'. Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[59] ... I claim that I was informing, since the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[60] "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[61] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. On this occasion I retaliated by pointing out that UrbanVillager's English isn't perfect (I believe this is the only time I have done so). The entire article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for copyvio.

Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' another editor on that editor's talk page, which I am willing to provide proofs of 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ps UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Global edit histories

These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [62] … … German [63] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [64] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [65] … … Italian [66] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [67] nb complaints about block [68]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [69] … … Romanian [70] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [71] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [72] … … Serbian [73] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[74] … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [75]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains: discretionary sanctions

There is probably enough of a consensus above to (re-)implement this topic ban, but as I said (comment buried in discussion) I think that is unduly harsh for an editor with a declared interest in only that topic - we are effectively community banning UrbanVillager by doing so. I suggested a block but that would be against WP:NOTPUNISHMENT at this point. And I also think that this discussion has tired everyone here out already, let alone the multiple other discussions that have happened recently. So I'd like to propose a different avenue of resolution:

The Weight of Chains is subject to discretionary sanctions in the Balkans subject area - the tag was posted by Ricky81682 on October 1, 2014, but all Malagurski-related articles could be tagged for discretionary sanctions for the same reason. I don't see that any of the editors involved in this discussion have been properly alerted (per ArbCom's guidance). There has been enough misbehaviour at that article alone that several of the editors commenting here could be currently waiting out their initial one-month blocks for disruption, had they been properly alerted. I propose alerting those users now with {{Ds/alert}}, and taking no further action at this time. If the users continue to be disruptive, they can be dealt with quickly under WP:AC/DS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think a topic ban may be harsh but the editor is taking on a topic (not just the filmmaker but the theory itself) that falls under ARCOM sanctions for a reason and it's being that there's a lot of nasty arguments from people who aren't here with the right mindset. Four years of warnings about editing on either that filmmaker, his films or other things in the same sphere seems like enough time with enough warnings about tenacious editing to say 'go work on something that isn't subject to these Eastern European arguments so we can see if it's you or the topic that's the problem.' Would this warning about Malagurski specifically be notice? (Based on this discussion it seems). I'm putting it out there, I don't think any editor would understand that the entirety of his works is within the sanctions but I can live with just warnings if everything gets tagged and all the editors all around are warned about it. The talk pages have been nothing but sockpuppetry accusations and other comments that really are poisoning the well all around but that likely comes with the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That definitely counts as alerting under the WP:AC/DS guidance, but that is from 2012, and users are supposed to have been alerted within the past twelve months for discretionary sanction actions to be valid. The template is also supposed to be applied to the user's talk page, so the advisory on the Weight of Chains talk doesn't count for this purpose. My impression is that Malagurski is notable because of his controversial views, so it does make sense to me that the entirety of our writing about him falls under the ArbCom decision. We could request an interpretation, but I see no harm in delivering the warnings anyway - they are not meant to imply wrongdoing (the alert template says so). Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also: this proposal is not intended to be mutually exclusive to the topic ban above. We could block/ban UrbanVillager and warn everyone else, if that is what the consensus dictates (although I remain opposed to the topic ban myself). Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally, the old warning on user talk is still valid; last time I looked, warnings under the old pre-2014 system were grandfathered in and are to lose their validity only 12 months after the coming into force of the new procedures, which was around May 2014 if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bureaucracy! Well if that old warning can be considered valid, then the topic ban that Ricky applied is valid, although he did so under the auspices of community consensus and not under the authority of discretionary sanctions, and he may be involved. There's a weak consensus above; if the ban is restored and UrbanVillager appeals to ArbCom, citing procedural nonsense here or not being aware of the old warning, we're likely to end up right back here again. And it's possible that they will get the message from how thoroughly their behaviour is being criticized here that they'll shape up. And if not, then a long block supported by a fresh warning will be very difficult to appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question. Is it the case that the proposed discretionary sanctions would automatically apply to ANY editors, (including new editors) editing these pages? If so, I think them a very good idea, since whilst I have argued elsewhere that the problems of these pages are NOT classic 'Balkan problems', the imposition of greater regulation would benefit ANYONE coming to these pages for the 'right' reasons. I would hold this point of view regardless of the outcome of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Balkans discretionary sanctions apply to the topic, not the editor or the page. While the sanction is in effect, any editor who disrupts can be warned by any user, and then blocked by any admin if they continue. (This is not my idea, it's from WP:AC/DS) It was determined elsewhere that WoC falls under the sanction due to the film's content, but other pages we're talking about would be open to debate. Ivanvector (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret

This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as:

• The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.
• And we all [k]now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [76] and [77] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [78]

Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[79]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [80][81][82][83][84] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[85][86] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[87] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I will address all these false accusations.

• The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
• #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
• My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article.
• The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[88] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [89] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to "exclude the position of the World Health Organization". The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

While we have this comment The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless, which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that sarcastic comment, at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word. Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article #1 #2. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no problem if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral on topic ban (for now). Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either. I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. Doc James, just my take on the points you listed:

1. I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.
2. For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).
3. I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.

Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[90] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[91] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[92][93] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his talk page. Now he deleted sourced text again. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is unhelpful and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[94] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [95], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.

So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[96] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an unfounded accusation, one that you have repeated in quite a few places. Your source says nothing of the kind. It is contrary WP:AGF. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring here on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.

• I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.
  

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was warned again. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of AF's contributions shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

  For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in this Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to this DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. Formerly 98, QuackGuru, Doc James, Cloudjpk, Johnuniq, FloNight, Alexbrn and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only EllenCT has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]

  Overall AF's involvement at regarding this topic is very disruptive and a topic ban is warranted. Zad68 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - the travesty at Electronic cigarette has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Wikipedia medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) because they mitigate the damage from smoke inhalation. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! Sic transit gloria mundi! I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Wikipedia, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with WP:OWNership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, Ellen, this ANI discussion needs to remain focused on editor behavior and not turn into a content discussion. You haven't made any behavior-based argument here against a topic ban for AF. We need to be able to have disagreements about sourcing and content without engaging in disruptive behavior, as AF has done. Zad68 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

*Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

I am also concerned about the effect this long running battle has on the culture of Wikipedia. The Electronic Cigarette article has been edited 272 times this week and the Talk page 508 times. We usually have at least one RFc ongoing. This is an edit war on the scale of WWI, with an equal level of deadlock.

Its time for the United Nations to send in some peacekeeping troops. I'd urge a fairly lengthy freeze of the article contents. I think a two week or longer ban on ALL EDITS by ALL PARTIES would potentially have a saluatory effect at this point. This, combined with topic bans for those whose behavior is indicative of not putting the encyclopedia first might put us on the right track. I'd recommend both of these actions, but either one by itself might help. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on good progress today. Will oppose tentatively contingent on continued progress. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4 Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. Diff 5 Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on some good progress today. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban It is sad reflection of the state of relations between users who edit the e-cig article that what is effectively a content dispute gets raised here. From all that I have seen AlbinoFerret's behaviour and actions have been mostly positive ones (and certainly in good faith). In regards to the points originally raised, AlbinoFerret's low opinion of The WHO that was voiced on a talk page is not a violation of any policies/guidelines that I know of, he is fully entitled to an opinion. The point regarding him calling QuackGuru "the master of ridiculous" also carries little weight since the intention was clearly to highlight QuackGuru's (an editor with an [exceptionally long block log], last blocked for disruptive editing on the e-cig article) own derogatory use of "ridiculous". WP:CANVASSING, well if it was canvassing AlbinoFerret very soon realised their mistake and notified editors with opposing opinions. WP:SPA is not specifically prohibited as I understand it, I see no evidence that they are engaging in advocacy and little evidence has been presented that they have a WP:COI. Better to WP:AGF in the face of a lack of evidence I think.Levelledout (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban this is a content dispute. I have done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Much has been said in the comments about an RFC I started on "Speculative" statements citing WP:CBALL. There has never been consensus for adding these "Unknown" and "unclear" statements. As noted they have been removed by me and others. Only to have the larger group of medical editors restore them, even if someone else removes them. But WP isnt build on who the larger group is, but consensus. I started the RFC top see where consensus lies. Citing it as a problem, use of an RFC to see what the consensus of the editors is, only goes to prove that this is a content issue. The fewer non medical editors, the easier it will be for group ownership to continue. AlbinoFerret 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, what I'm seeing isn't just a content dispute. It's concerns over behavior stemming from a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. Sometimes editors have a tough time disentangling those ideas. I've seen your concerns about "Unknown" and "unclear" statements on the page, and it looks like that is one of the main things that is getting the talk page pretty bloated. WP:CRYSTALBALL pertains to us as editors trying to figure out what future relevance may be. If a reliable source though is summarizing scientific research and stating its current state of knowledge in the field, that's a very different case (i.e., Here are important things that we don't know much about yet). Points like that don't seem to be getting across, which is a behavior issue described by WP:IDHT. Sometimes that's a competence issue, sometimes it's just being passionate in a controversial topic and not being as receptive to criticism depending on the editor. Normally, that is a behavior that can be remedied as it's not as serious as an isolated incident, but it can become very disruptive when it persists over time. I'd suggest just stepping back for a bit and reflecting on some of the legitimate criticism made about your behavior. You're definitely in a position where admin action isn't needed if you can resolve your behavior, so I'd suggest learning about how scientific research is summarized and maybe ask over at WP:NPOVN about how unknowns are summarized in literature too. I'm only slightly positive on a ban because it does seem like it would improve the talk page discussion, but it doesn't seem like a good option at all compared to following the path I just mentioned. You've definitely got room to move forward on this, so good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Kingofaces43, sometimes the words of an uninvolved editor have more impact when there is a controversy. I was hoping for more uninvolved editors to comment on the RFC, perhaps if that had happened it would have been withdrawn sooner. That a few people voted No to inclusion had me thinking perhaps I was correct that there was no consensus. I have withdrawn the RCF based on your post. I did go looking for information on WPNOV, but I asked the question in the wrong place. AlbinoFerret 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - this is just too disruptive. AlbinoFerret thinks he did done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Originally AlbinoFerret said I dont see a word about deleting anything in the RFC. but later he misused the RFC to remove text he does not like with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing".[105] He wrote in his edit summary remove older study that newer ones find answers to. It was not a study. It is a WP:MEDRS compliant review. He has a pattern of deleting well sourced text he does not like. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe adding speculative statements to the article has consensus, removing [edits shows there is no consensus,also this edit did not remove this claim from the article, but just from the lede, it existed in the Harm reduction section. This edit cited by QuackGuru was a misunderstanding thinking that other reviews had cleared things up. The claim exists in the article today and hasnt been removed. Two of the diffs added by you are duplicates of other links in your comment. AlbinoFerret 08:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban = Those edits were made more than a week ago. When it comes to WP:CANVASSING, WP:BOOMERANG should apply to Doc James for canvassing repeatedly. -A1candidate (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. User:AlbinoFerret, please explain your accusation here. My recent edit did not change any section name. I commented on the talk page the section name should be simple rather than long. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I had already apologised at the exact same moment you were posting here. It was your pal Cloudjpk who reverted back to the inaccurate section name. After you did not change it, I changed it to one of the proposed names. The section name is inaccurate as it discusses 3 different particle sizes. Your wanting to keep the name and phrasing you have edited in is a ownership issue. AlbinoFerret

It was previously explained on the talk page that the text and sources describe the particles in the ultrafine range. User:Formerly 98 wrote: "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?"[106]

There is no need to have a long section name and you never had consensus in the first place to change the section name. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The name still needs to be changed. The reasons why are clear. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. After 2 days of discussing it, I changed it to better describe its content. It needs to be changed as we speak because of a revert. This is an ongoing issue, things are done to improve the article, only to be reverted. AlbinoFerret 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed. The section name is accurate. Now you are arguing to change the wording back to vapor. But the article says "Mist produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor.[2]" Do you understand the term vapor is inaccurate? QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing, but discussing. The word Vapor is common usage when discussing e-cigarettes. WP:MEDMOS tells us we should write for the common reader using normal terms when possible, not jargon. It was never agreed to change every instance of vapor to mist. There was a discussion in the lede about the constant swapping out of vapor to aerosol by you, another ownership issue. An agreement was made for that sentence, excluding the whole article (see the last comment in the section I linked to), to change that sentence to mist. You have been busy changing vapor to mist, but forgot about aerosol. If it works for one word, it works for both. You have argued consistancy, if it works for one word , it should work for both words that were part of that discussion. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you think your edit matched your edit summary? Part of your edit included deleting the wikilink for no apparent reason and you changed the text that was in quotes. You should not change the quoted text. Changing the text that were quoted is original research. You previously wrote "...a wikilink to aerosol isnt that bad either." QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. This wikilink was placed by you in order to get around the agreement you are trying to enforce. You originally added it here. You want things to be consistent. Based on limited agreements. But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in[107], because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like WP:MEDMOS say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. [108][109], [110], [111] [112], and here where you accused me of filing a fake 3rr report You insist on inserting WP:OR [113][114][115]. You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase[116][117][118]. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims [119]. You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov [120] and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order[121][122] you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place[123]. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I may not be perfect and I may have a lot to learn when dealing with disruptive people. But when I do make mistakes, I apologize for them, and make changes going forward. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word Mist vs Vapor vs Aerosol to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against WP:AGF with what I consider very serious accusations with no proof. These accusations include WP:ADVOCACY and to "carry on ideological WP:BATTLES". He is also suggesting we carry out WP:OR by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Wikipedia has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. AlbinoFerret 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - this is a thinly-veiled attempt to resolve a content dispute by getting an editor with opposing views removed from the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG

I want RTG (talk · contribs) to be interaction banned from me. He has done nothing but insert himself into disputes where I have been involved and show zero actual knowledge of the disputes at hand or the policies he's claiming I'm violating. After a day out I came back to my talk page to this after dealing with this nonsense two weeks ago and everything closed off in here two months ago. He has done nothing but pester me and demand I get punished for what he thinks are policy violations when every time he has been wrong on his interpretation. I want him to leave me alone for the rest of his or my tenure on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I got dragged into the drama when he pinged me from your talk page. I'm not sure what possessed him to respond to so many conversations in such a hostile manner. When I dislike a person, I stay far away from their talk page. Maybe RTG can offer an explanation for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think RTG has flown the coop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction, I just found this edit he made a few hours ago where he is doing the exact same shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. At the least, an interaction ban seems reasonable here. An editor should be able to edit in peace without having commentary about him/herself inserted constantly. Five comments in three days is starting to look like wikihounding. There are better solutions than hounding an editor, but RTG does not seem interested in them (or explaining this behavior). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  And he's still complaining about the fact that he didn't believe that the Instantnood sockpuppetry case should have been held at all. This is ridiculous. He's edited after I left the message and has yet to comment here. I will send him another message.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban given the obviously retaliatory thread RTG opened below. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• If RTG voluntarily agreed to leave you alone, would you agree to do the same? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  I don't go out of my way to be an asshole to him. There's really no reason for me to be formally banned from him, despite his claims below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  Really though, wouldn't it need to be a two way ban? If it were just him banned from interacting with you, then you could comment to him and he would be prohibited from commenting back. If he were able to comment back to you, then why did we have the ban again? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  It has always been a standard part of one-way interaction bans that if the non-banned party initiates interaction with the banned party, that automatically creates an exemption for the banned party to respond. Obviously it would be extremely unfair otherwise. But with this proviso, there is nothing ipso facto wrong or unfair about one-way bans. Not saying that I'm advocating one here myself, just saying as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

This user has been here since April 13, 2014 and has already racked up quite a few warnings (see User talk:Djcheburashka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)). As of recent, they've been generally disruptive. Actions include:

• Bad faith AfDs on Feminist school of criminology and Dark figure of crime. (See this, and this)
• Removal of comments from AfDs ([124], [125])
• Template regulars or sending them nasty messages when they revert their edits (e.g., [126], [127], [128])
• Assuming bad faith and accusing editors ([129], [130])
• Edit war on Dasha Zhukova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Roscelese's own talk page User talk:Roscelese (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hounding/following Roscelese ([131], [132], [133], started section on Talk:War on Women soon after Roscelese edited)

User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault (see this edit, edit, this edit, this edit, this whole NPOVN mess, edits on False accusation of rape, edits on David Lisak) as well as financial crimes (e.g., this BLP proposal, edits on Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin).

I won't say they haven't made constructive edits, but their recent actions have garnered the attention of a number of editors. But the editor history on their talk page speaks volumes. I would at the very least suggest an IBAN with Roscelese and a TBAN on all things sexual crime related (as that's where the most disruptive behavior has occurred). But honestly I get a big WP:NOTHERE feeling and think a site ban might be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have a desire to drag uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese[134]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Some more reading, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User:Djcheburashka, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Page protection... and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Harassment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban. The disruption in areas related to women is self-evident, but the user's behavior at Dark figure of crime is also illustrative, and additionally, his harassment of various users (including stalking and canvassing) is something that there's no reason to think will not happen again in other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support siteban. I too thought an iBan would be enough, but I no longer think so. Only a community imposed siteban will do. They lack the ability to see that their behavior is the problem. They lack "behavioral competence". Their behavior is very much like the blocked User:Worldedixor. They could be twins. A huge timesink, with denial and lots of blaming of others. This comment of mine, while written to Worldedixor, applies here too. I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor. The inability to process and accept advice creates huge problems. Both of them need to be sitebanned. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Response This is a bad-faith request by a pair of editors who engage in improper tag-team editing with a third, User:Roscelese. After I found serious sourcing problems with a page and tried to discuss them on the talk page, and R refused to do so or allow editing, I started a POV discussion (properly). R then reverted the POV page repeatedly, causing me to ask for protection and administrator intervention. In fact, it was me who requested the protection on those pages so the "edit war" would stop and the dispute resolution process could proceed. The retaliation for that is what brought us here.

There are a lot of accusations here, which should be addressed, and I apologize in advance that because of the shotgun approach above I need a bit of length to respond:

I do not have a "bone to pick" regarding sexual assault. It is true that after a decade practicing law, when I see someone say that the false-reporting rate for 'any' crime is 6%, it makes me laugh my coffee out my nose. We're discussing this about sexual assault only because that crime has political implications, and wherever there's politics there are extremist academic claims alongside the mainstream discussion. (To preempt the inevitable misogyny allegations: My view is that rape is probably underreported more than most other crimes, but also probably falsely reported more than most other crimes. One reason is that rape laws are very complex, and people often believe they've been raped when, under the law of the jurisdiction, they have not.) Anyway, when I saw stuff on the page that didn't make sense to me, my response was to go into detail, read the sources, and try to improve the page. I thought my edits and proposals should have been relatively uncontroversial since they were quite moderate -- expanding the discussion of sources, putting things in chronological order. The vehemence and nastiness that followed is part of why I suspect bad faith -- something I did not raise until the nastiness had gone on for an extended period of time and involved multiple personal attacks.

EvergreenFir became involved then. She and R use tag-team editing that page and a number of other pages.

There was no edit war on Dasha Zhukova. I and others revised the page over a period of time after opening discussion on the talk page and soliciting comment. The page has had a not-very-often vandalism issue where periodically someone will drive-by and without comment try to revert the page to the preceding form. A few nights ago an editor (one not otherwise involved here), claiming to be fixing honorifics, brought the page to the preceding form. (I find behavior like that to be curious, but that's a topic for another day.) I reverted the changes and asked the user to open discussion on the talk page and seek consensus if he wanted to change the article. That's when Calton, who had no prior involvement with the page but had made a series of nasty comments on the discussions about the Rosceles issue, showed up to unrevert my revert. That's straightforward disruptive editing, and I left the template along with an explanation of the page's history. I invited Calton, if he cares about the page, to raise the issue on the article talk page. He declined. I also invited him to explain to me why he felt my disruption template was improper, and offered to self-revert if he had a good explanation. He declined again.

Regarding whether I have a "bone to pick" with financial crimes - well, I suppose that is true in a sense, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of financial frauds. My edits to these pages Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin, were generally adopted, usually after raising the issues for consensus and discussion on the talk pages. Early on I wasn't as good about that, but I've gotten better. I've also made a proposal regarding WP:BLP and convicted felony fraudsters, because I think there are special issues that arise in fact-checking fraudster biography claims. Many of my other edits on these pages involved removing pointless cutesy biographical detail sourced only to the subjects' memoirs.

The actual edits that this is about concern pages where sources have been misrepresented in favor of a study by David Lisak. Lisak, during his now-over career as an academic researcher, published studies claiming, among other things, that 16% of men are confessed rapists, 9% of the men on college campuses are "serial rapists," and 8% are child molesters. The edit to David Lisak that they object to, is that for the lede I want to use Lisak's own description of his occupation from his website of his occupation. Described on this site as a "leading researcher" in his field and expert who helps prosecutors, in fact Liskan has no affiliation with any research institution -- he was rejected by the academy and the courts a decade or so ago. He is now a consultant who gives speeches on sexual assault. A political sector continues to promote his work, and they're large enough for it to not be WP:FRINGE (barely), and that's fine. I don't think it should be marginalized. But neither should Lisak be lionized, nor should the wiki declare that any disagreement with him has been "discredited," as though opposing work, which is the majority of the field, were the intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers. I think the pages should simply relate the facts, saying what the studies say, what Lisak actually did, and what he actually does. They don't need to take a side.

I understand that B, E and R disagree with me about Lisak's views. This does not make my participation "disruptive" -- it means issues should be resolved through the talk pages, and if necessary the POV dispute and other dispute resolution mechanisms. I have tried to do that. This is the retaliation.

Regarding Brangifer: He claims to be a neutral, said any pages where he and R both edited must be incidental and he doesn't know about it, etc. But, see here: Talk:War_on_Women. The substantive issue with that page concerns one half of a single sentence. Another editor tried to take it out as unsourced and wrong. R objected, and bullied him off. I took a look at the sources and realized he was right. I therefore opened a talk page discussion on the subject. (To preempt the bias accusation, my view is that what Republicans were doing on womens' rights issues, which they never really stopped, are bad enough to speak for themselves, but are exaggerated and distorted in the page.) There is a pattern here: editor find a problem with a page and attempt to help. The response (most vehemently from R, usually with support from B or E or both, sometimes others) is a refusal to discuss substantive issues and torrent of accusations of bias and incompetence, threats, disruption templates, etc. Going through some of these, I realized that in some cases, I agreed with the editors who had been bullied-off (in most cases I did not). I therefore have started to re-raise those issues. An interaction or site ban would, of course, allow them to (falsely) maintain that there's a consensus in favor of their version of the pages, again without having to address the issues that led multiple editors to object. Similarly, an interaction ban, where the other editor has touched a slew of pages on topics in connection with their own agenda, would simply prevent someone they disagree with from joining the discussion, allowing the continued claim of a consensus that doesn't really exist.

If you think I may have been harassive or abusive, I refer you to the comments that Brangifer and Calton have been leaving on my talk page. Nasty, personal, aggressive, pointless --- and neither of them has said a thing about the underlying issues that led to this, which have to do with improper sourcing, POV issues, and a refusal to participate in either the consensus-building or POV dispute resolution process.

Regarding templates, I stand by every template I applied. Regarding templates for "regulars" -- is that a joke? Even if it mattered whether the person was a "regular," the templates were proper. R has received similar warnings and block threats from numerous editors and several admins for what has been a multi-year career of abusive behavior, bullying, improperly using templates herself to bully and harass other users, violating blocks, and so forth. Mine were comparatively mild. Calton, I haven't checked whether he has, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't considering his self-proclaimed role as Batman-of-the-wiki.

Regarding the afd for two pages: I realize now that I made technical errors when I nominated those pages and in response to a vote from R that I'd misinterpreted as another improper reversion attempt. Those were my mistakes, and I take responsibility for them, but they were technical in nature, not bad faith. There was a substantive error in one of the requests, though. Because of that and all of the static, I have not re-nominated either page. I do intend to return to them once the rest of this has calmed down and they can be discussed (unless they are improved in the meantime) without all the strum und drang. Both pages have serious writing and lack-of-source problems for years that no-one's bothered to fix. Why did R get involved in this so quickly? Either because she was tracking what I was doing, or because of tag-teaming with evergreenfir; the pages seem to be linked to her forthcoming PhD dissertation.

Regarding this 'I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor.' from B, I thought we didn't have a hierarchy on wikipedia? We have editors, we have administrators, and we have ArbCom, but that's really it. Editors' work is supposed to be evaluated based on the quality of the work, not the tenure of the editor. Doesn't B's comment really say it all?

Regarding "hounding" and bringing in others, I have gone through many of R's edits after seeing how she dealt with mine and problems on a few other pages. Most of the edits I looked at seem to be perfectly good. Some of them, on women's rights issues in particular, seem to have real issues. R has had run-ins with a number of people on those issues over the years. Each time, there's a core group (e.g., E, R, sometimes B) who seem to track each other and show up quickly so they can declare consensus. WP:CIRCUS. Editors are not just disagreed with, they're driven off with threats, disruption templates, and accusations. If those editors' views were cumulated, 'they' would be the consensus. It's also true that, where R received certain block warnings from administrators, where those warnings involved conduct similar to what I saw here, I reached out to the admins to ask them to get involved.

I think that covers it. If there are additional accusations I may pop back in to respond, and if anyone reading this wants sources or links to examples, please let me know.

Best, Djcheburashka (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read - When you reply to a post with an absurdly long reply containing personal attacks, remember that you might be throwing a returning boomerang. What the subject has proved with this reply is that he is a combative editor. I don't have an opinion on the original merits yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Your comment says a lot about you, too, actually. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I have been watching this editor since they first started editing. I have also been watching subsequent events with some dismay. The only reason I haven't taken administrative action is because I am WP:INVOLVED, having gotten into a content dispute with the editor on two articles from the get-go. I noted early, though, the obvious aggression and distortion of facts. I also believed the editor was on a crusade, although, frankly, I wasn' sure what it was. Others may have a better handle on that based on his more recent substantive edits. In the beginning, he had a problem with an Alabama regulator, Joseph Borg (regulator). Because Borg was mentioned in the Jordan Belfort article, he attacked both articles because he believed too much credit was being given to Borg. As a consequence we had a lovely exchange on the Belfort Talk page here. One of Dj's more choice comments was "I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case. Try me." His subsequent behavior has been just if not more intemperate. That said, I wouldn't move directly to a site ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The diffs above paint a picture of someone who has the rather impressive ability to repeatedly deny the obvious and extensively argue indefensible positions. If this isn't trolling, then it's essentially indistinguishable. Editors should not have to waste time arguing with someone who insists that a sourced article has no citations. The characterization of removing multiple valid votes at AfD as a "technical error" is equally perplexing. I wanted to wait until Djcheburashka had a chance to reply, but apparently, the editor in question still sees nothing wrong with these actions. A topic ban or interaction ban could work, I suppose, but the problematic behavior would probably just continue in other areas. An indef siteban seems a bit over-the-top with no evidence of blatant trolling or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know who all was responsible for Dasha Zhukova, but I removed three four completely unacceptable sections from that article. BLPlease, people. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• It looks to me like one of the sections you removed was also removed by Dj.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually all of them -- I hadn't noticed, but Calton had re-re-reverted it again. The edits by DRmies put it in approximately a similar position to what I and others had done -- actually he took out a bunch of stuff that I had wanted to take out, but I didn't want to go further than we had without more involvement from others. So I'm happy to see the edits. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. You removed one piece recently and did some other editing much earlier. Drmies removed considerably more. Regardless, this does not change my recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked. As someone said somewhere above, not all your edits have been destructive. However, many have, and equally important, your attitude is not suitable for collaborating on this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that Djetc. removed one of the things which were later restored and then removed by me. I went to that article to see what was up with this editor and saw that the blind were leading the blind, at least there. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault", EvergreenFir, you identify with the feminist school of criminology on your user page and that school has very distinct views about false rape accusations in comparision with some other criminologists (Djcheburashka apparently was pushing for another POV). Are you honestly concerned about the user conduct, not ideological differences? It would be bad if it seemed like ideological sniping. To be honest, all the "violations" here are mild except for the two AfDs. Templating regulars or hounding Roscelese to vote keep just like she did on Palestinian stone-throwing are not a reason for indef block. --Pudeo' 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pudeo: he edits on those pages are what brought this user to my attention a few days ago. After the bad faith AfDs, they've moved on to other areas... kinda. I don't mind people with other POVs discussing a page's content. But I think I've shown in the edit diffs that this was much more than that (edit warring, hounding someone related to that page and feminist topics in general, bad faith AfDs, etc.) While I understand your concern, I am perfectly capable of getting along with people that don't share my views (just ask Two kinds of pork). This user is not just someone who disagrees with me. They are disruptive to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your clarification and believe it. Although I still think those offences are rather mild given the editor apparently does not have any previous sanction log. If the editor does not engage anymore in what can be seen as hounding or POINTy behaviour, I think indef block is too harsh. --Pudeo' 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban - the evidence provided is weak. A lot of it is legitimate consensus-seeking discussion in a contentious topic area, which is very difficult, but in which the user has mostly kept civil even when other editors haven't. Indeed, Calton and BullRangifer made inappropriately angry, aggressive posts on Djcheburashka's talk (e.g. [135], [136], [137]) and the user did not respond in kind. Their comments, while much too long, show an understanding of neutrality and verifiability policies we don't normally see from newbies. I share some concern that the user is here to right great wrongs - I accept that the user did not understand how to complete the AfD process but a more serious issue is that they felt those articles should be deleted in the first place. I am similarly concerned that they may be wikilawyering our policies to push an agenda, but they have edited in several disparate topic areas and it's not clear what that agenda would be, and we are required to assume good faith unless there is strong evidence otherwise. For the procedural issues they have apologized, repeatedly. They and the other editors involved should be warned to actually discuss their issues politely rather than disruptively and repeatedly templating each other and calling each other names, and Brangifer should be cluebatted for claiming a privilege of authority based on their edit count. Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban based on the fact that this user only has an edit count within the hundreds, and Wikipedia in itself is a rather convoluted and complicated mess of policies. The afd thing is unambiguous that he removed people's comments, but when you are a new person to the topic area of afd, you're probably unsure of how things worked. I believe that he used WP:IAR approach to justify deleting the comments--as he mentioned, he was trying to evade the keeping of a problem page with overt problems. I can absolutely see why he would have that POV. I also believe that in spite of the OP removing comments, the afds were closed out of practice as 'speedy keep' and assumed bad faith on the OP, when that wasn't warranted. The other 'templating the regulars' and supposedly combative edit summaries; I've seen more established editors talk to me in a much more combative way in open view, with no repercussions at all. I see no swearing, I see no outright anger, I see maybe a misunderstanding of what a 'disruptive' editor is and what a 'SPA' is. But I don't believe the evidence waivered deserves anything but maybe a mandated tutor on exactly which policies and guidelines to follow and whether he has a skewed outlook of them. Blocking somebody indefinitely because they didn't know all the wiki syntax and etiquette is kind of harsh, however maybe a 1 month topic ban (and then a block if it continues into other areas during that time) would be warranted. At this time, however, it doesn't seem so much to warrant an indefinite block--which is the last resort in any sort of conduct issues. This is attempting to shotgun a fly instead of using a fly swatter instead. Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN with Roscelese I think there is a call for this but it would be in excess to indef them. They are a new user. Perhaps a warning could suffice and we could point out to them where they can recieve help such as the Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• The evidence of hounding provided here is extremely weak. However if Roscelese believes that an interaction ban will improve the situation, I will support it. Ivanvector (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I weigh the weak evidence against DJ with them trying to draw a user that doesn't like roscelese into this dispute. If this isn't canvassing itself it certainly seems to me to violate the spirit of the Canvassing rules. But yes I agree that would be a good idea to see what Roscelese views on this are.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't object to an IBAN if that's all we can get out of this discussion. But my first interaction with this user was a week ago and since then he's stalked me to various places in the encyclopedia, harassed me on my talk page, blanked my discussion comments, and canvassed other users against me. That's not evidence of a problem he has with me, that's a behavioral problem. Do you really think that that won't just happen to the next user who disagrees with him, and the next? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do object to an iban if the effect of it would be to confer ownership over the pages at issue, which I think is what is being sought. I have not "stalked" or "harassed" Roscelese; in fact, I think the record of our talk page diffs shows the opposite. All of this arose when R refused to abide by the consensus or POV dispute process, then (with evergreenfir) commenced an edit war over it, and so on, which are issues R has had in the past. A lot. EvergreenFir participated with her in that initial edit war. WP:INVOLVED I followed dispute resolution and consensus procedures and sought community and admin assistance when I saw the edit war brewing, and tried to freeze things so that the process could proceed. The POV dispute resolution process should have been, and still should be, allowed to play-out without interference, harassment, retaliation, canvassing, tag-teaming, abusive template-adding, bullying, threatening, retaliation, or disruption. That's it! Djcheburashka (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The power not to interfere, harass, retaliate, canvass, tag-team, abusively template, bully, threaten, retaliate (more), or disrupt, was always inside you. We all would have loved if discussions could have proceeded and consensus could have been built without any of this, but it was your own choice to behave poorly that prevented that. I recommend that you recognize what you've done, decide not to do it again, and possibly even apologize. (Although I'll note for the benefit of other readers that Dj evidently considers his own opinion, opposed by 4+ other users, a "consensus.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I tried to discuss these matters with you reasonably on your talk page, on mine, and on the POV dispute page. You reverted, deleted or ignored at least 5 of my attempts before this became an "edit war." Can you point to any diff, anywhere, where you attempted to engage me in any conversation or discussion about this, or responded to anything I said other than to declare whatever matter closed and threaten me?

By the way -- if you now agree that there is no consensus regarding the original pages (even if you're miscounting), then we're done here. Because you're then admitting that the POV template should be on the pages in question; that your conduct regarding the "edit war," the POV dispute, the "warning templates" left on my page, and so on, on your part and EvergreenFir's, were all violations; and that the conduct you claim was harassive on my part (i.e., complaining that the repeated reverts and threats were disruptive) was actually proper.

This ban proposal will be over soon, and we will then move forward. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the extreme projection in this comment is useful to note. If any constructive users are interested in talking to me about this issue, I'm reachable, but I don't see a point in continuing to coddle this person when he continues to deny and defend his misbehavior and show every intent to continue it. Hit me up if you need me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED does not apply. Evergreenfir is not acting as an admin here but as an editor, further is evergreenfir an admin? If the record shows the opposite surely you can show how the record shows the opposite. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Not admin, just reviewer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are reviewer of course of wikipedia per WP:RVW, but right now and during this dispute where you have taken part have you acted in your capacity as a reviewer or have you acted in your capacity as an editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean "involved" in a technical sense -- I just meant, she's involved in the underlying dispute. This did not, as she claims, "come to her attention" looking at pages. In fact, as I recall she fired several of the first edit-war salvos. Sorry if my use of the link was confusing as to my intent. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't mean involved by the in the wikipedia definition of the word involved that you linked to but you mean the general definition. Well that's great. The fact the they made edits or fired salvos or what ever doesn't disprove that they were looking at pages that they were looking at pages before they stumbled across your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

She didn't "stumble across it" -- she was one of the people who started the edit war. She went into the background after Roscelese got very aggressive about it. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE for many of the same reasons stated by Tutelary. Experienced editors are supposed to be patient with new editors, but that certainly isn't evident in some of the comments I've been reading. I recommend mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just point this out, Atsme is the user that Djcheburashka attempted to bring into this conflict[138].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to the editors participating in this discussion for the pointless comment made by Serialjoepsycho who has relentlessly been WP:Hounding me for nearly 8 months now. Following are the diffs showing the question asked by Djcheburashka on my Talk page regarding Roscelese's abuse of warning templates. [139] And my response to her question. [140] I suppose it's just coincidence that Serialjoepsycho supports the same POV as Roscelese, who - purely by coincidence, I'm sure - happens to be one of the certifiers in the RFC/U Serialjoepsycho initiated against me after a recent BLPN consensus determined the Islamophobia template on IPT was a BLP violation. It doesn't surprise me that he attempted to distract the focus of this discussion away from his own actions, but then, that's how he operates. At least he's consistent, right? I'm not here to pass judgement on who is right or wrong - I'm just recommending leniency toward the new editor, Djcheburashka, and suggested mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is very logical. Djcheburashka canvasses Atsme and my responding to this fact for a second time here is me hounding atsme. I supposedly support Roscelese 'POV' here and yet Atsme is not actually going to be able to point out which POV of Roscelese I support. Now if you review the above you will see that I support one of multiple POV's that Evergreenfir has brought forth. The IBAN. Atsme is not here to pass judgement, She is here to help a user that has canvassed her to go against a user that she does not like because of among other things this user had opened an RFC/U against her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your hounding and false accusations have been duly noted, Serialjoepyscho. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Atsme had left a warning on User:Roscelese's talk page. It seemed to involve some of the same stuff as I'd been concerned about, and it seemed more authoritative than most of the warnings -- I'm really still getting the hang of the way all this hierarchy and dispute resolution stuff works. Apart from the warning I saw, I had no knowledge at all of who Atsme is or any prior relationship or interaction with Roscelese, RFC/U (whatever that is) or anything else. Honestly, I really still don't.

That night, I made a series of requests to Roscelese to discuss and resolve things. I then tried to seek dispute resolution help when it became clear that she would not discuss the matter --- using the POV disputes page, and the page protection request page, etc. My post to Atsme -- which asked him/her if s/he would take a look at things, was part of my attempts to seek dispute resolution through the community process. Is that canvassing? I thought I was seeking community dispute resolution assistance. Pls compare my comment to Atsme with this: [[141]] Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Djcheburashka, asking questions is not WP:Canvassing, however, the behavior exhibited by your accuser is typical of troll behavior, but more specifically of his very skewed interpretation of policy. Ignore his rhetoric, or he will continue until it consumes you. The post by Robert McClenon at (20:23, 11 November 2014) is excellent advice. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right. Asking a question is not canvassing. For example if they asked you what color is the sky that wouldn't be canvassing. Asking a question to someone solicit their involvement in a dispute because that individual may specifically not like the editor in question is canvassing. Robert McClenon offers great advice, If you can notice it you should keep it in mind.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent examples of classic canvassing can be seen in your talk page discussion with Roscelese regarding this dispute, [142], and again in the recent past when you drug her into your obsessive attempts to get me topic banned because I corrected a BLP violation you ignored, [143], [144], and in the not so distant past when you contacted a banned user who supported your POV during a BLPN and a merge-delete discussion for IPT: [145], and again here regarding a pending edit war on another article: [146]. I consult you to stop making false accusations in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to get a new user blocked or banned for making inconsequential newbie mistakes. Your pattern of behavior is one I am quite familiar with as the target of your relentless hounding and recent attempts to get me blocked or topic banned because of your skewed interpretation of policy as you have demonstrated here. Atsme☯^Consult 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole unrelated argument is, I believe, showing exactly why it was wildly inappropriate for Dj to contact Atsme for support. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What that is a classic example of is you simply not knowing what the hell you talking about Atsme. But there are plenty examples of that. Contacting Roscelese to tell her that I wasn't going to ask any more questions to an evasive editor in the RFCU that she was involved in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II to about the discussion on the BLPN that you mentioned them multiple times in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II about an editwar they were involved in at to try to get them to discuss it on the talk page is not canvassing. Contacting Roscelese that a user is is trying to canvass you into their dispute is not canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, "wildly inappropriate" is the fact that Serialjoepsycho drug me into this ANI because he has been trolling my edits and talk page for the past 8 months, and has relentlessly posted disparaging comments about me almost everywhere I go, which equates into WP:Hounding. In the interim, I believe it is wrong to hang a canvasing tag on Djcheburashka because she is innocent, not to mention a new editor. Serialjoe clearly doesn't understand WP:Canvas or WP:Tag team if he doesn't think his call-to-arms-communication to you is acceptable behavior, as are his past canvassing activities which demonstrate WP:DONTGETIT. I suppose he doesn't see his current activities as WP:Hounding, either. Sad. I hope that, at the very least, you understand why the comment he made in his initial post is ludicrous by alleging that Dj was dragging uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese. It is a lie to suggest that I "specifically don't like Roscelese", when in fact (and evidence will prove) that it is the other way around. It is long past due the time to make peace, and stop edit warring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese I think your last comment demonstrates pretty clearly that you either haven't been reading what other people say, are assuming that we're lying, or just don't care. I think this entire ban request was bad faith from the start, and at this point the question is how to move forward.

Right now, if there was a vote on the POV discussion, it would be 4:2, which is no consensus anyway; 3 on the "4 side" are strongly affiliated with what some have called "radical feminism," and I will decline to try to name because any name will be deemed offensive by someone; and none of the four have identified any WP:RS in support of their position, or offered anything but a conclusory statement that "the literature" says something (which it plainly does not). Meanwhile, no-one has offered a defense of the current form of the David Lisak page in any respect.

User:CambridgeBayWeather suggested we take this back to the article talk pages. Are you willing to do that and to work with me in a constructive, non-warfare way to try and get the articles to simply note what is noteable, express the key points from the key sources, and not take a view on controversial matters or marginalize legitimate and widely-held views? If so, I am willing to put all the noise behind us and let's get back to work. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The question he had asked me,[147] it speaks for itself. I would consider Djcheburashka to be fairly new as he don't know how en.wiki works. It is better to give him a chance to be good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block While I was initially swayed by the arguments that this is a relatively new user, the continued disruption since this ANI was filed suggests this problem seems unlikely to resolve with time. Dj’s BLP activities are particularly alarming and are basically what convinced me a block seems reasonable here. To illustrate the BLP editing concerns regarding Dj, today Dj has been edit warring to remove the “Career” subheading from the Dasha Zhukova article [148] [149] with talk page explanation: “I removed the career subheading, since she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite.” Earlier Dj deleted the New York Times reference which described Zhukava‘s career, while doing so he also changed the lead from:

Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is a Russian philanthropist, businesswoman, fashion designer and magazine editor. She is the editor-in-chief of bi-annual art and fashion magazine GARAGE.[1]

To:

Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is the girlfriend of billionaire Roman Abramovich.

Ms. Zhukova is affiliated with a number of organizations based on which she has been described as a "philanthropist, entrepreneur, fashion designer" and magazine editor. However, with the exception of a three-month period with one magazine, none of Ms. Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence independent of her or Mr. Abramovich.

Dj added no reference for his edits criticizing the legitimacy of Zhukova’s career. [150]

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost amused... I've been trying to edit that page for some time, including with participation from other people on this thread. One of those people proposed to delete a bunch of stuff from the page that I have wanted to remove for a while, and I did so. BoboMeowCat then reverted the page without looking at or joining the talk page discussion. I reverted his edit and asked him to join the talk page discussion before editing the article.

One of the changes I had made was to remove the subheading for "Career," collapsing that content into the rest of the article, since after a series of edits there was very little left in the section and "Career" seems to have been a misnomer anyway. Neither the page nor any secondary source says that Zhukova has ever been employed in any profession or job at any time. Well, perhaps her brief three-issue stint as an editor of an arts magazine from which she was removed counts, but if so its a very short section.

BoboMeowCat's principal concern is that he does not want any mention of the incident in which a photograph of Zhukova sitting on a chair made to look like a mostly-naked, highly sexualized black woman, was published on MKL Jr's birthday. This led to something of a controversy, and twitter campaign, and articles in the Guardian and Independent UK, and Time, etc. With more than 8000 google hits it would be notable on its own. See http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/23/apology-for-black-woman-chair-photo/ BoboMeowCat, however, feels that its derogatory. My view is that whether it creates a negative impression of her or not, it happened, and it was notable -- in fact, I believe its the central thing for which Zhukova is known.

I added the "none of the organizations..." sentence after researching them and finding no indication of them anywhere except for on each others' bare websites and the wiki page. I wanted to just delete the references, but did not think deleting the organizations entirely would fly. But, that is what came out of the talk page, and so the sentence Bobo doesn't like has been taken out along with the material that it addressed.

Why is this here? Why is BoboMeowCat suddenly drive-by editing an article that doesn't intersect any subject matter in which s/he expressed any interest whatsoever in the past? Notably, shortly before s/he began to look at the Zhukova page, I took a position opposite BoboMeowCat in a POV dispute he raised, about which he apparently feels very, very, very strongly. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dj, this response in many ways actually illustrates the disruption that I've noticed to be part of your talk page style (here and elsewhere including the NPOV noticeboard discussion you referenced [151]). I notice you seem to repeatedly misrepresent occurrences. I'm not sure if by accident or what could be going on. Anyone interested in the occurrences of the Zhukova article should refer to [152] As is clear from talk:Dasha Zhukova, my principal concern has nothing to do with omitting info from the chair photo incident. I specifically said, "Huff Post is a RS, so this info might be able to be incorporated if we do so neutrally and cautiously". [153] I went on to actually add it. [154]. My principal concern involves your apparent attempts to turn this biography into an attack or smear piece. I was actually alerted to the Zhukova article via this ANI listing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions whatever against Djcheburashka. Dj has behaved just fine, for a newbie. He/she is arguing, reasonably, and occasionally boldly editing. It's what we do. Please don't hesitate to ping me if you get any more harassment like this, Dj. Carry on. (If a good case is made to support Dj's description of bullying on Talk:War on Women and other pages, I would support strong sanctions against those involved.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Ayurveda

 – NE Ent 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules

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

You cannot delete my valid talk page entries without signs of abuse. User:Ryulong has done this to me three or more times and is and has been doing it regularly to others with dozens of examples including the most recent [155][156] (this has happened several times in several places [157][158], with other forms of invalid interference with my comments [159][160]), but as regards their interaction with others, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of related diffs, to which blocks and warnings bring not even admission of wrong doing let alone any assurance that they are taking the rules of the site as meaningful.

• As a sign of context, one editor has currently dedicated themselves to quietly reporting Ryulongs continuous 3RR immunity.
• I have also seen regular interference with others comments for purposes other than to revert blatant vandalism, nonsense or other valid comment deletion. Ryulong deletes talk page comments they consider invalid. Many diffs can be provided to that.
• And there is repeated incivility, particularly with those who Ryulong considers *condemned or insignificant*.
• I myself have encountered and confronted User:Ryulong for focusing on an actual genuine contributor of long term good standing and zero apparent conduct or content issues, for having the supposed gall to admit they saw a dispute on a non-WM site, before they gave an opinion here. Try some of the commentary, she only made one or two edits to the dispute but... "contributed so much to the point that it's daunting to even try to read it all because you feel that you do not meet the definition of meatpuppet. You can complain to the audit subcom all you want..." And you can, because User:Ryulong has immunity. Needless to say, User:Leeyc0 has left the site for the longest period and blanked their userpage. This is a contributor in good standing on another site. Is there no knock on effect from this behaviour? Does User:Leeyc0 not go back to the site they came from and spread more antipathy for us on this site? And do we tolerate that? ~ R.T.G 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the below response is directed at this report

---

Could you explain why you've dismissed a big chunk of discussion like this? Personally I think it's quite relevant. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Yin: Yes Richard. This paragraph reports User Ryulong for interfering with other editors comments. The below discussion is not about that. ~ R.T.G 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG:WP:BOOMERANG, while not official policy, seems to more-or-less represent consensus, at least from what I've seen. One section reads:

There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.

I think that section in particular is important to note here. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That says "perceived" misbehaviour. I thought you were interested in why I had broken this paragraph from the other discussion. It seems you are propagating the other discussion here instead. Have you considered the veracity of the report? I thought it was rudimentary given the minascular quality of the event. It is arguably not even macroscopic. I feel like I am learning to sing a song. Why are you asking me questions, if only the same questions as the others are asking below as well, to only the same answer, with the inference that somehow responding to the perpetuation of that situation, is a kind of instigation. You open continually on an individual with a request for explanation as to why they are even apparent, and you get a load of rampant dichotomy. But the issues are not so complex. Please, stop asking me for arguments. I had to leave a reminder that there are those who Ryulong has broken the rules with. They responded with ANI threads and more monkeying around outside of the actionable protocols. If there were something so obviously amiss, I'd have been corrected to it some time before by now. So my input is complete. Do stuff or don't. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of their edits are ok, I'm failing to see what admin action is needed. Per above thread, support IBAN between the two. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest that my couple of interactions with User:Ryulong somehow implicate me in their massive list of ongoing issues. I am one of dozens of users needlessly burned by this dragons breath. I have not one single interaction with them over actual content except once that they followed me. User:Ryulong breaks the rules and cannot be stopped, and I get to say that and so does any other user so long as it is true. Bring me anything meaningful to compare to Ryulong or show some sort of unprovoked harrassment over a handful of interactions. There is no guideline to say that editors, who wish to request a rule breaker is acknowledged, should be punished and silenced. There is no way that I should be topic banned from any content that User:Ryulong has been involved in for a start. And I've posted on their talk page only on one occasion that wasn't to put an ANI notice there or to simply state in response that I was not interested in their following me around for a fight (content of which was:"Not interested" and a signature). It's my duty in a way to report wrongs of other editors isn't it? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You want to sanction me for posts like this and this, but these are not my posts... ~ R.T.G 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what happened here? You, RTG, posted a hostile but barely intelligible and incoherent rant [161] on a noticeboard, where it had no business to be. Yes, Ryulong should not have removed it himself; somebody else should have though. Posting hostile rants on administrative noticeboards is generally not a very good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not accuse me without evidence. Let's see a quote. This is ridiculous. The post has been deleted because. There was no abusive content. Any accusations were founded and about conduct. Nothing personal except the fact of the person. But I am an incoherent babbler, right? ~ R.T.G 17:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)(edit, was not deleted as told below diff)~ R.T.G 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: fut.Perf. provided a diff above. Yes, it was of the removal, but the point still stands; That was not sutable for AN3, and was borderline personal attacks. My advice would be for both of you to leave each other alone, before one or the other of you is forced to. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was reading your SPI link from a couple of months ago, regarding a banned user called "Instantnood". Are you aware that edits by banned users are subject to deletion on sight? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

fut.Perf.'s mistyped the diff, the link should be this. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, this has nothing to do with Instantnood. The only relevance there is that I went to that page to suggest that it was become a badge of honour for socks (this stuff is in the guides to watch for) to debate it with whoever, no-one in particular for genuine purpose, and there I met Ryulong and found them to be hauling editors of good standing, so I complained to which they followed me around, addressing me directly on various talk pages promtping me to check them and follow their discrepancies. Is it to be said that my report here is not even to be reviewed because it is me only that is being reviewed and that sort of seems a little bit suspicious given that Ryulong is a perennial, often daily on ANI, whereas I am not that, and so on... The diff being waved around is certainly hostile. Ryulong is fully hostile to all. I am not that, and my hostility for Ryulong is not incivil even and is about their conduct only, and their apparent longstanding immunity thereof. Show me some genuine blockable behaviour I have before any claims that I should not be given the chance to make any claims... genuine founded claims. ~ R.T.G 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is not the first time Ryulong has been caught violating Wikipedia policies. I would also like to point out that it seeming to be the same admins who keep coming to his rescue. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to provide diffs when making such comments. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Right right, I'll collect my evidence tomorrow, my laptop's charger broke, and I don't have time to find them right now. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

DSA510, you shouldn't be one to talk at all here considering you returned to editing by linking to my old website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Block OP for repeated disruption, per the diffs provided by Ryulong in that user's request for RTG to stop WP:HOUNDing them. This thread is clearly retaliatory. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, 2 diffs merits a block of somebody who just wants a review taken into another editor's behavior? Not buying it and oppose any block. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Retracted; apologies to RTG. More comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a blatantly retaliatory thread to the one I made 3 days ago. None of RTG's interactions with me have been productive of anything. There was no reason for him to have made any of these messages to me or about me [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]. This is why I want him to be indefinitely interaction banned from me. I have no problem staying away from him but he obviously has a problem staying away from me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment because I was involved in the AN3 issue. RTG's addition to the noticeboard was an aggressive, unhelpful rant. Still, Ryulong should not have reverted it. I actually restored it and then shortly after formally closed the discussion. It's an administrator's discretion what to allow at AN3, and I usually give a fair amount of latitude after my conclusion for editors to complain. As for here, I can't discern what administrative action RTG is requesting. In addition, I have only glanced at the merits of their complaints about Ryulong. That said, the style here is similar to the style at AN3, combative, aggressive, and overly dramatic. That certainly doesn't help RTG's credibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, three respondants are admins. Yeah, I've got hostility for Ryulong, but it is not raw, is instigated by them, and hostility is their MO, not mine. Most non-admins here are implicated in Ryulongs content disputes. I am not. At all. My posts here are directed at admins. I have little or nothing to debate about the content of the diffs I OPed above, because they are relatively simple and the violations are individually minor. But the site needs WP:CIVIL and 3RR and none of you have standing above that. Jimbo don't have it. Material Scientist don't have it. does Larry Sanger have it over on Compendium? No, I don't believe so.

So I am a bit craking up with the Ryulong situation, but needless to say, I can see that and have not nor will not devolve with it. There is no chance of me descending into attacking behaviour here, except attacking hostility, which is all I am trying to do. Ryulong was not getting these blocks before this time last year. Someone gave them offsite hassle. I appreciate peoples situations, but I am not the one, and Ryulong did pursue me from which I was spurred to investigate, and I found what I found, and I don't believe perpetuating it is fair either from Ryulong, or from anyone else.

The reasons for my presence are clear. I have no content interaction with Ryulong (they've questioned me once on a talk page about something which I was correct or at least went with the site). I will be just as impressed if I see this editor get a hard time at Christmas as I am to find their immunity and manner of support. I want to see some smooth. That's all it is. Everyone here has decided to focus me, or at least they have managed to destroy every other impression of this thread. He's not dumb. If he insists on being blocked out, maybe he wants to. You won't get them back into RFA like this anyway. This really isn't my area. I've made the report. It's valid. I've only come back that I could comment as the OP. I don't want to bicker. The reason I have posted here is to report bickering. ANI has returned a so far verdict of: More bickering. Now please forgive me while I go and dream of incoherent laughter (and ombudsmen) instead, cheers. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this rambling even mean? I have not had any sort of interaction with you for several months and you decided three days ago to lambaste me across my user talk page and then again at WP:AN3 on a thread that was closed for non-actionable reverts. You have gone out of your way to try to get me blocked. I want you to stay the equivalent of 300 feet away from me on this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain redundant passages of this kind. Please be bold in deleting these passages." ~ R.T.G 02:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? You and I have had zero interaction in the article space as far as I am aware. What are you trying to even say?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here are more diffs of RTG appearing out of nowhere to try to get me blocked. [167], [168], [169] (reverting my removal of the AN3 notification), [170] (warning me I'm apparently not to remove it from my user talk), [171] (complete ignorance of WP:OWNTALK), [172], [173].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a single ANI thread (the above diffs). I already mentioned it. what I didn't mention is that there are about a dozen or more diffs of evidence of User Ryulongs disregard for the site at the expense of others good feeling. Strange how they post up each diff rather than post up the thread altogether which was closed, as the 15RR was labelled as over, and my posts to the ANI, including lists of valid incidents gone without acknowledgement by the perp, were responded to wholly by the accused. Isn't that an interesting incident? Who's to blame there? Me I bet. ~ R.T.G 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I am calling for your behavior to be examined as a reason to leave me alone. You have no reason to pile on to any thread that's posted at ANI or AN3 or anywhere to get me blocked because you have shown to have absolutely no knowledge of how policies and guidelines are to be applied. You have your own personal interpretation that is contra to standard practice. I shouldn't have made that many reverts in a single day. But the article is a point of contention that is subject to extreme offsite disruption. But that thread was left alone for hours and obviously I wasn't blocked for it, unlike the multiple other times I've been blocked (often when dealing with users who are later banned from the website for the edits I was reverting) for edit warring. You have gone out of your way to get me blocked when it has nothing to do with you whatsoever. I want you to go back to your side of the project and I'll stay on mine. If it has to be a formal ban from each other I will have no problem adhering to it. You obviously cannot keep yourself from trying to get me banned for no valid reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One thread on ANI and one thread on AN3 ever, only one of which I instigated. Surely Ryulong is indundated by my persistent harassment, or, as happened over at RFC archive.is, you think that I am an idiot, and if you keep calling an idiot an idiot others will join you, and they will, but this magic breaking of the rules I have done in relation to you. it's not there. I am not perfect. You think I do not and should not confront other abusers, but I do, because I am not about abuse, and neither is this site. So, why don't you move on the the SPI. It's all you've got left. I've got your entire contribs to point out the relevance of reporting you here... Face it Ryulong, I ain't interested in your content disputes. I ain't your harasser or any of that. You do break the rules in intolerable fashion. You are not beneath the intelligence level to claim you do not understand that... Even if they ban me from interacting with you, you are building a goodbye ticket. If you can't get back to the site while you are on it, you know you'll be seeing it on the ARBCOM sooner or later and that I will not interact with you there and that no amount of pointing at me will make it seem that I have caused any of your incidents. What you think of that then? Seems legit to me. ~ R.T.G 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one here who has repeatedly gone out of his way to make sure that the other party knows what they think about them. I will have no issue if I am banned from interacting with you because you and I don't edit any of the same pages. You are the one who has the desire, or even need, to go "Ryulong is an awful person and he should be banned from Wikipedia".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hurting you, even if it seems you have done wrong. I do attack hostility that continues, but I reason about it. I mean, if I thought you should be banned I'd be saying, ban that editor now, and I'd be a lot more careful about how I presented any information. What I think they should do, should have done ages ago, is give you a short block for some stuff and a warning for others, as and when it happens. I have seen that you do respond to that stimulus, but that the reprimanders go back on their intentions, and leave you again to neglect when you need, or start supporting you for the wrong reasons, worse than neglect. You've been an admin. If you cannot produce this attitude, you don't get to be admin, so you know this attitude, and also so do the admins here. What kind of support is it they give you if they aren't trying to fold you back in as an admin and be a strength for you should you decide to be more careful again? I just want to see it fixed if it is broken. The fact that you are implicated in that for the moment is secondary. That is where my desire lays. If I was trying to slay you, you'd see a wall of diffs, not a load of text. But it's meaningless if the admins refuse to take notice. They are giving you barnstars for biting noobs. It's not fair, and I don't mean to me, I mean in general, me included, you too. Everybody here should be trying to resolve the situation to the most amicable outcome possible or its meaning is worth less. ~ R.T.G 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone understand this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to understand what I say Ryulong so long as you understand that you create hate for this site in the way you conduct your self. The site is more important than you are, and the admins are here to protect it. It doesn't matter how much poison you or passing revellers chuck on that. You are temporary. There's been worse. A true dragon would strike fear. You strike as getting cleaned up after. :0 ~ R.T.G 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You create hate for the site among ones that love it. Is that funny too? ~ R.T.G 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. RTG, this is now crossing the line into wiki-hounding, stop it or you'll be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:The tools are yours to abuse. I cannot hound someone who has followed me to a thread can I? ~ R.T.G 12:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I please have the equivalent of a restraining order now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Propose/Support IBAN - There is clearly discord between these two editors maybe it is best to keep them apart and see how things go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN, unfortunately. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as I did in the thread above. As another editor put it succinctly on the AN thread RTG opened today, whenever these two editors interact, drama is the result. There is clearly no hope for an amicable resolution here. I also think it would be a healthy decision on RTG's part to step away for a bit and get some fresh air, but that's up to them. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Pie in the sky proposal

First, we're getting a new thread nearly every three day in the intersection of Ryulong, Gamergate, and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure. While I know this will be resoundingly opposed by the hordes of SPAs and POV champions I propose the following To discourage frivilous reports, any ANI or AN report brought after November 14th with respect to Gamergate controversy that does not result in action being taken against the reported shall have the same magnitude reverse sanctions applied to the reporter. The goal of this proposal is to sweep these drama magnets off the AN boards and to encourage reporters to have a bulletproof case when they file the report. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems out of place here. This report really doesn't have anything to do with Gamergate. There is also now Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement which hopefully will cut-off Gamergate issues before they reach ANI. — Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam Since I can only surmise that you've missed the dots that connect how this report connects to Gamergate: This report was regarding an AN:EW filing, which was about edit warring on the Gamergate controversy article. As demonstrated at the ArbCom Case request the advocates bringing these frivolous cases are not interested in working inside/with the system. Their goal is a slash and burn strategy to get their way regardless how many pseudonyms they have to burn. Hasteur (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is entirely unrelated to Gamergate. After RTG disrupted an SPI case I had opened (SPI archive, SPI's talk page) where he was making claims that either policy should not be adhered to or that our interpretation was wrong or I don't know I can't understand a word he's ever saying I had found he was making other problematic contributions to the Archive.is RFC (RFC page) and involved myself. I then left him be and then two months later he goes to the AN3 report (AN3 report) and disrupts my user talk page under the false assumption that I'm forced to keep Tutelary's AN3 notification there. And then three days ago he goes insane on my user talk, adding comments to several old messages I was sent, completely unprovoked ([174]). I report him ([175]). He ignores this and two days later leaves another rambling message at another AN3 report that had been closed ([176]). I notify him of the thread again and then he opens this retaliatory thread. And when he's not getting his way in this thread seeing as he's now shot himself in the foot he forum shops over at WP:AN ([177]). RTG's behavior towards me since August 31 has been nothing but disruptive and shows evidence that he doesn't know anything about Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines and only acts on what he thinks they should be instead of actual practice. I want him banned from ever being involved with me again. And this bilateral interaction ban stuff should not be applied because there is no history of me hounding him as he has hounded me time and time again. Just because he's decided to hound me on something peripherally related to Gamergate does not make this a Gamergate issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Web_archiving_initiatives#Archive.is_is_not_notable. I am sorry, but it is User:Ryulong who follows me around disrupting my content improvements quoting the rules the wrong way around and insulting me. What exactly do you think I am here for? ~ R.T.G 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I forgot I did that. But it's not like what you've been doing for the past couple of weeks to come out of no where to pile on to closed or about to be closed discussions rather than the isolated cases that have never been repeated. I have stayed out of your way since the first week of September but you have gone out of your way to be in my face and demand I be punished for the last two weeks. Who is more in the wrong here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For example, I haven't intervened in your disruption at Talk:Goldman Sachs#GS is one of the largest Wikimedia Benefactor, since 2012 where you went against a consensus that had actually formed or whatever you're doing at WT:Ombudsman here which is the same stuff you were pulling with the Archive.is discussion and the SPI case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"...and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure". Am I to conclude that 15RR is now "standard operating procedure"? 74.12.93.242 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for this IP who has cast aspersions at the arbitration request about content not in the article to constantly harp about the fact that I was not blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So now RTG is jumping into Talk:Gamergate controversy with his usual aplomb [178] [179].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

---

I would like to report User:Volunteer Marek for disruptive editing at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The user refuses to discuss content and prefers to engage in endless bickering that doesn't lead anywhere, to the point where other editors and admins refuse to read the walls of text on the talk page. The article is only 4 months old and has 21 pages of archived talk pages, where starting on page 8 Volunteer Marek is stifling any meaningful discussion by saying "already discussed" and refusing to say anything more. When asked a specific question, I get answers like "Do you see the words "At" and "best" up there?" and nothing more. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#BRD Let's discuss Here are two examples where after lengthy bickering, attempts to discuss content were completely ignored Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Conflicting claims and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Untold Story Documentary. First argument was that the article is about the crash, and not about the investigation. My attempt to resolve this issue by taking the investigation portion into a new article, resulted in an edit war where he called me "daft" [180]. In addition, sources are being cherry picked to support whatever VM wants them to support, and even a report in Time Magazine was cherry picked to support whatever VM decided was the "truth" like in this example. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Reliable sources for this article This behavior is very disruptive, and it's not happening only in this article, there are numerous complaints, but you're probably already aware of those. USchick (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: this editor's actions are also being discussed at WP:AN3 (here) and WP:NPOVN (here). Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Which editor? USchick or Volunteer Marek? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Since it as at AN3 shouldn't they be able to handle that?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and at WP:AN3 it looks like the user who reported me (there was no 3RR violation) is going to get WP:BOOMERANGed. Likewise in the WP:NPOVN discussion, my position has pretty clear consensus, with two users engaging in a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. One of these two just got blocked for a week. The other is the one who filed the spurious 3RR report. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution have you used?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a standard "they won't let me push my POV on the article!" request. The reason I said "already discussed" is exactly because it *was* already discussed. USchick did not get their way. So they've been trying to resurrect discussions over and over and over again per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I called them "daft" because they were being daft. First they made this "cute" little personal attack [181]:

"Dear Volunteer Marek, as the owner of this article, I appeal to your Excellency for the humble permission to move the investigation section of this article to its own page. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Your most honorable servant of all time"

Then, they tried to pretend that the above comment, the obnoxious addressing me as "your Excellency" and the WP:POINT (failed) sarcasm where meant in earnest (with another personal attack of "I feel sorry for you"):

"I asked as nicely as I know how. If you consider that a personal attack, I feel sorry for you. "

Now, does anyone here seriously believe that that comment was USchick "asking as nicely as they know how" in good faith? Is anyone here that naive?

Rest of the claim is nonsense too. There's no cherry picking, USchick just doesn't agree with reliable sources. They have not engaged in good discussion, just a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In one case they misrepresented the position of another user (not me) and accused them of racism. The user rejected a source USchick wanted to use because it was based on a fringe conspiracy site. USchick pretended that the user in question was rejecting a source because of racism. This wound up at AN/I with USchick almost getting indef blocked (they backed off). Yet, couple days later USchick was back on this article's talk page claiming that the source was being rejected due to its origin and that "consensus at AN/I established the source is ok" (or something like that). Basically, very little this user says has any resemblance to reality.

I should mention that this is like the third or fourth time that USchick has tried to being me to AN/I. Nothing happened each time, because the requests were spurious. This is essentially a form of harassment. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The AN3 is about a different article. On this article, I tried an RfC where one admin said, "Keep comments as succinct as possible: no-one is obliged to, nor should we be compelled to, read a treatise." Another admin recused himself because he was worried about a threat to his children in real life as a result of this article. I would like to see some proof where I "tried" to bring VM to ANI. USchick (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)" Another admin recused himself because he was worried about a threat to his children in real life as a result of this article" - you BETTER NOT BE IMPLYING that I had anything to do with this! Holy crap, that's is one helluva dishonest bullshit low blow insinuation! I expect you strike that and apologize. Volunteer Marek  19:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate threat to an admin that has come from wikipedia it should be investigated. Are you suggesting VM did this?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They are sure as hell doing their best to insinuate I did! That is the most dishonest bullshit I've seen since... well, since USchick falsely accused another user of racism. I demand that USchick be blocked for making - or implying - such a serious accusation against myself. This is preposterous. I will not have myself lied about like that. The admin in question was talking about the controversial nature of the topic, and I'm pretty sure that they were referring to possible threats from the pro-Russian separatist side. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin was concerned about the nature of the discussions taking place. As a government employee, the admin was concerned about his children's safety. No it wasn't about VM, but it happened during the RfC in question. I'm describing what happened when I attempted dispute resolution. I will look for what he said exactly. USchick (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse. I notice there is an Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions tag on the talk page. Has USchick been alerted? Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"I notice there is an Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions tag on the talk page. Has USchick been alerted?" - Yep.  Volunteer Marek  19:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here is a link to the previous discussion where USchick accused another user of racism [182]. Here is the accusation [183]. Here is administrator's User:TParis response to USchick: "If that's your response, I'm tempted to block you right now. You literally called someone a racist. Are you actually saying that you expect someone to not accuse you of slander for that? You didn't at all say "discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist". You said "your racist friend". That's about a person, not sources. Seriously, your next reply needs to acknowledge how you escalated this issue dramatically and how you retract your accusations and in the future you will address the edits and not the editor"

This is more insane accusations along the same lines. The implication that I had anything to do with some hypothetical threats on someone's life really take the case. Can someone explain to me why a user like USchick is still allowed to edit wikipedia?  Volunteer Marek  19:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The mentioning the admin and their concerns for their safety here, when they don't involve VM, is highly inflammatory and certainly not helpful to your cause.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was answering what happened during my attempt at dispute resolution. VM was involved in those discussions, bud did not make a direct threat. I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please. USchick (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"But did not make a direct threat" WHAT. THE. FUCK. As in "made an indirect threat"??? You little shit. Stop lying about me. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

|} Sadly, the whole Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article is a disaster area at the moment. Unfortunately there is not yet a final, formal report on the incident. This has left space for a group of rather dominating editors, strongly representing Wikipedia's western systemic bias, to fill the article with all sorts of speculative and politically motivated statements about what might have happened, mostly representing a view that is anti-Putin, anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian separatist. Volunteer Marek is one of them. I would like to suggest a bold solution. A strong Administrator needs to step in and remove every speculative statement from the article, no matter who it's from. If the ONLY content about the cause was what has so far come from the official inquiry, all of these dramas would disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict with that hatting action, and I must say I have probably never seen a less helpful hatting. That won't make the problem go away. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is where my previous attempt at conflict resolution ended. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19#Aware of ARBEE where the admin said: "I'm sorry, there isn't a chance of that happening even if everyone here agreed. All I need is some wacko with a blog fully of conspiracy nuts to suddenly enter the picture and make wild threats toward my kids. Or someone in Russia prints some paper about how the US Gov't is in charge of the Wikipedia article on this and then I get in trouble for giving the appearance of government endorsement/involvement in what I do on Wikipedia. Just not interested in my hobby turning into a nightmare. Thanks anyway for the vote of confidence.--v/r - TP 22:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" USchick (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem relevant to an ANI against VM.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They're just forum shopping. They're running out of forums. So now here. Volunteer Marek  20:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where I have written "rather dominating editors" above, I had originally written "bullying editors". I changed it in the interests of peace and diplomacy. I might change it back. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with HiLo. USchick (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: I have reopened this thread because the hat was not wisely applied. The last edit before the hatting was from an editor attempting to find information he had been asked for by others. He said " I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please.". When he returned he found himself shut out. He surely has the right to provide the information and present it with the request it refers to. Moriori (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• There are a number of noticeboards. You could also consider making an RFC about content instead an RFC about a tag. The RFC about the tag leads me to believe that someone feels that there is a NPOV issue. You could take that to the NPOV noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a question about what have I done to resolve the dispute. If you review the 21+ archives, you will see that any attempt is met by VM's histrionics similar to what caused the hatting above. An admin refused to enforce ARBEE by saying: "I've changed my mind. Reading through some of these talk page comments, I see that there are accusations about western media and western governments, particularly the US government, of a conspiracy for a new world order and some other rubbish. Being that I work for the US Government during the day, I don't need to be caught in some conspiracy bullcrap and accusations of being an arm of the US Government on Wikipedia (not saying the accusations have happened, yet). So, I'm out. Some other admin can enforce WP:ARBEE.--v/r - TP 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" followed by the comment about being afraid for his children. USchick (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a disruption issue, just like outlined in my original complaint here. If the disruption stops, I believe we can negotiate content. USchick (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP lying. You are once again trying to insinuate that I had something to do with TParis statement. Rubbish. You say "If you review the 21+ archives, you will see that any attempt is met by VM's histrionics similar to what caused the hatting above.". You then follow that up with " An admin refused to enforce ARBEE by saying...". You are very clearly trying to imply that User:TParis refused to enforce ARBEE against me because they were afraid of something I might do. THIS IS UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT. I had NOTHING to do with TParis' choice or statement. You are trying to imply that they were about to enforce some ARBEE action against me, but then changed their mind. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. STOP lying. In fact it was *you*, or some of your friends on the talk page, who was about to be sanctioned - *that* is why you were given the ARBEE notice [184] - when they changed their mind. And given how deceitful you are, and how scummy you are acting right here, I can't say that I don't understand why they got afraid. Volunteer Marek  20:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be clear, Volunteer Marek had nothing to do with my decision - at all. I made it after reading some of the conspiracy nuts theories and having an impression through news stories that conspiracy nuts like to bully people online. I'm not calling anyone here a nut. I'm specifically referring to off-wikipedia sites. Wikipedia is a hobby and I don't need people who take this stuff way too seriously to decided to target me. Entirely 100% my own concern having been influenced by no one. No threats have been made against me. This was a preemptive decision.--v/r - TP 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was asked a direct question here at ANI. I answered it. My answer was blanked by VM [185] followed by a personal attack. This is the kind of disruption that led us here in the first place. USchick (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• USchick has now implicitly accused me of threatening an administrator's children three times. This. Has. Got. To. Stop. It is as bad, if not worse, than the time they falsely accused someone of racism [186]. Why is this person even allowed here? It's beyond tolerable. Volunteer Marek  20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is link to relevant discussion at this article talk page. I think this has nothing to do with VM, but with a number of POV-pushing SPA who currently edit these pages (one of then just reported VM to 3RR). My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I explicitly accused VM of disruption. For the record, there is no "implicit" accusation. USchick (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Then strike your comments and apologize. Volunteer Marek  20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I answered a direct question. Then I clarified more than once that this is not against you VM. It has also been clarified by the admin. I think it's clear. USchick (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors wanting to see Volunteer Marek's ownership of the article on grand display need look no further than here, from just a few minutes ago. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are proposing to remove reliably sourced text simply because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You've brought this up half a dozen of times if not more. Other editors - not just me, but quite a few editors - disagreed with you. Yet you keep on and on and on and on about it. After awhile it gets extremely tiresome to repeat the same thing. That's not "ownership", that's simple frustration and exhaustion with tendentious, tenacious, stubborn POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here in this thread I am proposing nothing about the article. I am encouraging others to look at your editing style (see the topic of this thread). I think you have satisfactorily reinforced my point with that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And here is another fresh example. It's either ownership, bullying, just plain rude, or a combination of any of the above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Is any sensible Administrator watching? This bad behaviour is happening right now. Easy to see Please do something. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop wasting my and other people's time? There's nothing wrong with my "behaviour". You are demanding that we remove well sourced text from the article because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm saying no, that's against Wikipedia policy. You call that "ownership" and "bullying". No. It's simply following Wikipedia policies. If you don't like Wikipedia policies then that's your problem. But will you please stop making this demand over and over and over and over again, and demanding that we discuss it over and over and over and over again? Other editors (again, not just me) disagree with you. You're wasting their time. That's where *your* behaviour crosses the line from being merely irritating to being disruptive. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• New idea I'm tired of seeing these things swirl down the sewer drain to an endless sludge of negative reinforcement and negative corrective actioning. Let's try a new strategy. Would any of you four volunteer to give your 'opponent' a sincere and thoughtful compliment? The idea is to find a common ground that you can build a foundation of cooperation on.--v/r - TP 22:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Volunteer Marek believes he is doing the right thing. There, does that work? HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's like someone else saying they suspect that you believe you are doing the right thing on Christianity articles. Would you take that well? Can you find something that you appreciate VM for? Perhaps you guys can share appreciation that you both dedicate hours and effort to a shared goal of developing a world-wide free encyclopedia?--v/r - TP 22:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate VM for his efforts on the Euromaidan article. USchick (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. It's a distraction that won't solve the problem. It's not about what I think of someone else. It's about someone else's behaviour. I have provided diffs above demonstrating that behaviour continuing even after this thread began. I have described long term problems with the article. It's terrible. A neutral Administrator with some guts needs to take action, now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, TP, I hope the editors take you up on it. Just a question - who is the fourth? This seems to be a dispute between Marek, USchick and HiLo. I'm quite fond of their relentless passion for this project. Ivanvector (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume it's Herzen. I think Herzen is acting in good faith and means well. Hey, I even stuck up for them when they got reported for something or other. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, I thought maybe he meant me. Of course you can say nice things about me anyway if you really want. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a great idea. It's a distraction that won't solve the problem with either the editor behaviour in question or the article. It's just more evidence that we lack Administrators with guts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's evidence we have some admins willing to employ creative solutions to defuse conflicts. Ivanvector (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because no Administrator has had the guts to do anything sensible about that whole article before now, it's a little too late for that sort of nonsense. The fuse has been burning for too long. Admins have the tools do something about it. It's time they used them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is I who was meant, but it is true that Volunteer Marek very kindly intervened on my behalf after Stickee aggressively referred me to AN3 on a technicality. – Herzen (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot regard behavior like this as being good for the encyclopaedia, no matter how much the editor cares and how bloody hard he works. Do we have an ethical Administrator here with any courage? I am here to make a great encyclopaedia, not for a love-in HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Look HiLo48, what you are asking is for some (naive) administrator to come into the article and help you enforce your own personal POV. Despite the fact that the consensus on the talk page is and has been against you. You are asking for some (naive) administrator to come into the article and empower you to remove some text, which is sourced to reliable sources, simply because you personally don't like it. You are asking some (naive) administrator to come into the article and help you violate one of Wikipedia's pillars, WP:NPOV. You are asking some (naive) administrator to come into the article and act as your own personal thug/enforcer so that you can do what you want.

Do I really have to explain that it is *this* kind of attitude, not anything I might have done or said, that is problematic here? Both in terms of your dedication to disregarding Wikipedia policy (in fact, a pillar) in pursuit of your POV, *and* the way you're trying to go about it. I've been critical of administrators as a group before, but even I don't think any admin would be that naive. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Long term editors all know there is not point in correcting some articles because they are owned by a click of editors that just use wikilawer excuses to to revert. Has WP now evolved to a point, that a ownership patrol is justified and warranted to encourage these current owners to follow the spirit of WP and not to just delete whatever article corrections these owners disagree with -regardless of however good the reference!? I have noticed that these clicks appear not to have proper jobs, as they are on WP 24/7. It almost appears to me that, their only outlet in life to be noticed. They may not have any deep insight to the subject but being able to own a WP article gives them a feeling that they are important – they have found a reason to justify their existence on this planet. However, they don't seem to understand that there is a difference in science, between healthy skepticism (where doubts and contradictions in evidence, is all-meal for-the-grist) and pseudo- skepticism (that they actively promote), where they demand extra ordinary evidence whist not providing their own extra ordinary evidence and so anything that feels wrong by them is deleted and supported by their other pals that stalk the same article. Finding that they don't have to walk out their front door to find friends, the birds of a feather flock to together and they support each other even when the don't understand the issues themselves. So they collectively promote blind ideology. They may disagree with my analysis but on what evidence? Come on. A lot of us here, have had to oversee employees. We value those that show good judgment. How many editors that own article would we employ? Maybe this is why they have the time to stalk WP 24/7? It is easy to cherry-pick to support one's own POV, yet many editors desire only to improve WP period. We need to bring some of these article ownership clicks back into line. I firmly believe that one of the great strengths of WP is that anyone can edit it to 'improve' WP, by bringing to it the benefit (without any personal reward) their own expertise. These clicks however appear to worship their own ultracrepidarianism. Some long term editors may record a a few essays by editors explaining why they where leaving WP. One puts in a lot of work to improve an article only to have it all reverted because the click that owns the article prefers to believe Fox News or wherever source that gave then their 'true insight'. It has left many an editor thinking why should I bother? And since these clicks can afford the time to stalk it 24/7 they can wear the productive editor down through attrition. WP, I think, now needs to address these little clicks that take over some articles and wast so much productive time.--Aspro (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultracrepidarianism, eh? I've definitely learnt a new word today. Thanks. (I'm not game to try to pronounce it yet though.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Marek's history in this topic area is poor. Here are some particularly glaring examples from a few months back: [187] [188] [189] [190]. Not surprisingly, the edits to RT similarly reveal that same POV-pushing tendency Marek exhibits: [191] [192] [193]. Marek has a long-standing history of POV-pushing on Eastern European topics as a former member of EEML (under a previous username). This editor should not be anywhere near these topics as his desire to push his POV is clearly more important to him than policy and sourcing. Note that these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the linked edits are problematic. In fact, they represent consensus. We still believe in consensus, don't we? *IF* there is some problem with my edits, please feel free to file an WP:AE report. That is the venue for these things. Why aren't you filing an WP:AE report? I would really like it if you filed WP:AE report. Please please please. The chances that you'd get blocked (per WP:BOOMERANG) by User:Sandstein or User:EdJohnston are pretty good. Unlike AN/I they don't put up with nonsense over there. Volunteer Marek  23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban for Eastern European articles will be considered? USchick (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban from Eastern European articles for USchick is LONG OVERDUE. USchick has falsely accused another editor of racism. Then they lied about the resulting AN/I discussion on the article's talk page - specifically, they claimed the AN/I discussion established consensus for the use of a conspiracy website based source, whereas in fact the whole AN/I discussion was about whether or not USchick should get indeffed for falsely accusing others of racism. Might be worth mentioning that the slandered editor, User:Geogene has left Wikipedia since. I don't blame them. THEN, USchick has repeatedly implied that I had somehow threatened an administrator's children. They offered some weaselly "clarification" - since the implication is both offensive and false - and then repeated it anyway two more times. On the article talk page USchick, as pointed out by uninvolved User:Ivanvector ("Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse.") has tediously engaged in ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Their presence in this topic area has been nothing but a complete time sink for other editors. They have also misrepresented sources and derailed discussions but that's sort of par for the course in this topic area, so never mind on that part. Volunteer Marek  23:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs (even if that IS the case here) don't make a right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are complaints about me, I would appreciate a separate thread. This one is about my complaints. Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick you are mistaken. This complaint about him by you is where his complaints about you should be discussed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, if a ban on me is to be considered, I would like to request my own section where people can praise me before I get banned. Since we already have a section for VM along with all the attention he's getting at the other notice boards. lol USchick (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I actually had a WP:AE report on you half written up, since, really, your behavior here has been nothing if not despicable. Then I saw that someone hatted this discussion and I thought "ah screw it, let it go, not worth the effort" and I didn't file it. Then somebody unhatted this discussion and we got more of this crap. And now I'm regretting I didn't file the Arbitration Enforcement request.  Volunteer Marek  00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@USchick and Volunteer Marek: Do either of you have a problem taking this to some form dispute resolution? Can you agree in principal that you would take it there this situation not withstanding?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this problem has been shuffled around at various notice boards, even though the articles in question are sanctioned, and so far nothing has been done, I would like to have more information about the proposed dispute resolution and what we can expect to happen there. In addition, since i'm not familiar with the process, can someone please explain why HiLo's proposal for admin intervention at the article is not being considered? Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle I'm not opposed. I would like some kind of show of good faith from USchick which signals that I am not going to have my time wasted. Some more. Striking the false insinuations about how I supposedly threatened some admin's children and apologizing would be a good start. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's some more bad faith editing from Volunteer Marek. Put-downs like that NEVER help build a great encyclopaedia. Come on Admins. Show some courage, please. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying that an RfC is vague is a "put-down"? Stickee (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about??? There's nothing wrong with that comment. It's more substantiated than all of your comments put together. It's not bad faith. It's criticism. Criticism, in the real world and on Wikipedia is ok. You guys seem to have coordinated an RfC so vague that you're basically asking for a carte blanche to do whatever it is you want with the article, Wikipedia policies be damned. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and that is the most vague RfC I've ever seen. Quit ban-shopping please, it's unseemly. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you're both not really that stupid, but I'll clarify for those who really need it. VM paraphrased USchick's post with "This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request." That is mocking another editor. It's very rude. It isn't making this a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see how many other outside discussions VM can drag into this discussion. Isn't there a policy against that? USchick (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick, that's kind of easy. What reasonable things would you like to see on the part of VM for you to take dispute resolution with them and for VM what reasonable things would you like to see. Just as a random example, could you two be as brief as possible when taking part in this dispute resolution. 300ish per response. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I'm here is because VM cherry picks sources to support his version of the "truth" and no amount of people being reasonable has been successful in turning this around. This is outlined very clearly in the 21 archives of the article discussion page. Just like I linked above, even Time Magazine was cherry picked to support his version of the truth. He is not the only one with this mind set, but he's the only one who is extremely disruptive. I don't mind people disagreeing, but this is ridiculous. USchick (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I already stated this above. USchick could start by striking the comments where they engage in pretty transparent insinuation that I had something to do with threatening an administrator's children. They could apologize for making such odious suggestions. Volunteer Marek  00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

VM coercing an apology likely won't accomplish anything. USchick, So are you indicating that you do not wish to seek dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but please try to think of it from my perspective. Those comments by USchick crossed a line. At best they were, as you yourself put it, "inflammatory". Look. I understand disagreeing about content. I'm fine with arguing about sources. I'm even fine with users calling each other "POV pushers" or "propagandists" or whatever. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and that kind of thing does not bother me in the least. But USchick did insinuate that I had actually threatened an administrator's children, and as a result that administrator left the article. When called on this bullshit they backed down and said I made "no direct threat" (my emphasis). Which was of course another way of insinuating that I had somehow made an indirect threat. When their comments were criticized and scrutinized by others they said "well, this wasn't about VM directly". Or something like that. And then they repeated the very same insinuation again with the comment about histrionics.

Also, I saw what USchick did to the other user, Geogene, whom they falsely accused of racism. That user has since left Wikipedia (there was an unfortunate side show where Geogene used the word "slander" to describe USchick's action - which it was - and some nit picky AN/I denizens jumped on them for supposedly "making a legal threat", because you know, they heard on some TV show that "slander" is a legal term). In other words, USchicks bullshit accusations were not an isolated incident. There's a pattern here.

I understand the importance of assuming good faith. But it gets a little hard after awhile. What is more important than assuming good faith is acting in good faith. I need to see some indication that USchick is acting in good faith. That these previous ... "incidents" were just "accidents". Bad choice of words, misreading of a situation or something like that. And if that's all they were, then an apology is both called for and easy to give. Volunteer Marek  01:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would LOVE to get real dispute resolution. Before we go there, let's find out what we can reasonably expect please? I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole. USchick (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE ADMINS? USchick has politely raised several issues. I have now posted here the diffs of several examples of bad faith editing made by Volunteer Marek SINCE this thread began. Not a word of response from an Administrator to the posting of those diffs. Now, what's the first word in the name of this nticeboard? I ask again - WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE ADMINS? And what the fuck are they doing? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Politely" my ass. What's so polite about falsely implying that someone threatened an administrator's children? What's so polite about falsely accusing others of racism? Maybe there's not a word of response from admins because they see it for what it is. Despicable behavior by a user and his buddies who want to push their POV on a controversial article so they're ban-shopping their asses off. And quit shouting. You're no more important than the rest of us and neither are you saying something more profound. Volunteer Marek  01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration that the absence of administrators causes, but I feel the need to remind you to keep this discussion civil. Administrators are volunteers too, and they can't always be around; just take a look at the admin backlogs for some proof of that. There's no need for profanity, a simple reminder that this discussion needs attention will do. demize (t · c) 01:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The Admins volunteered to be Admins. They sought the power. They need to bloody well use it WHEN it's needed. I swore to get attention. It's worked before. I've got a little attention, from you. Earlier polite attempts to get Admin attention DIDN'T work, so you're talking crap. The problems with the article in question are not new. It's fucking obvious to me that too many Admins are scared to touch it. Only the POV pushing ones are willing to get involved. Our Admin system sucks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's needed. To stop you from trying to ban-shop because you can't get your way in a discussion and the consensus of users on a talk page prevents you from POV pushing. HiLo48, it's obvious. You have a particular POV on this topic which does not happen to line up with reliable sources. It's frustrating. So you want to - and keep proposing and demanding - that reliable source be removed from the article in question. Other editors, who don't have a problem with reliable sources disagree. So you come here and TYPE IN ALL CAPS IN BIG BOLD LETTERS BECAUSE YOU THINK IT MAKES YOU SOUND MORE SERIOUS (is there a "big^2" mark up? I'd like to use that here plz) and demand that anyone who disagrees with you is banned from an article so you are left to push your POV in peace. Sorry, not how an encyclopedia works. Volunteer Marek  01:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin are chilling with their martinis and relaxing trying to break a new Guinness World Record of most admins inactive from WP:ANI in a single day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This admin is watching Cal-USC while perusing this board. Cal-USC, that's boring West Coast stuff. Neither team is ranked. I couldn't care less. If an SEC offensive linesman farts every defensive coach in the PAC 12 runs for cover. Yet it is more exciting than watching a couple of the usual suspects yelling at each other, and then at the poor schmucks "who sought the power". BTW, just to go through the motions, I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there ("fuck all", for those who speak alternative English). I don't mind blocking Marek; I don't mind blocking HiLo, I don't mind blocking USchick (I don't know them, I think, but they sound like a razor and I don't like shaving). Who else did you want me to block? I get $10 per block from the WMF, $20 for an indef, so I don't mind.

There was an admin here who tried an unorthodox tactic to stop you bitches from bitching. I doubt they'll try that tactic again; it's wasted on you all. But I do have a recipe to lessen your frustration with lack of admin interest in this here ANI thread: don't post on ANI. Get each others' Twitter handles and have it out there. Or, you just try to improve your own behavior and forgive the next person some of their behavior, and try to assume a little good faith. Or maybe you stay out of some discussion for a day or two. Or whatever. Since I haven't seen anything that yet calls for a block, and this is ANI, and you didn't accept the peace pipe passed around by TParis, someone is going to close this shortly, I don't doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to go down a rabbit hole. I'm asking to ask some reasonable things of VM during the proposed DR and I'm asking them to do the same. You agree to this and they agree to that. If either of you violate said agreement that would be bad faith negotiating. If you violate the agreement then they come back for the topic ban and if they violate it you comeback for the topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are we going? Link please? Can I see some examples of previous discussions? Who is going to enforce it? Will it be better enforced than the sanctions already placed on the article? And can someone please answer why HiLo's proposal is not being considered? Thanks. USchick (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why USchick should do this. Nobody is doing anything about VM's unreasonable and incredibly rude editing on the article's talk page SINCE this thread began. USchick has been very polite. Why doesn't anyone have the guts to do anything about VM now, based on an obvious bad attitude? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say that I have noticed a pattern in VM acting in disruptive ways when it comes to articles involving the recent fighting in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes and we've had disagreements before so you're jumping in here. Substantiate, file a WP:AE report or go away. I'm getting tired of being picked on and harassed. Volunteer Marek  01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Enough. This is previous ANI tread, and this is previous statement by USchick. @USchick, perhaps admins do not want to help because you "have a serious problem" with one of the best of them and accuse people of "tag teaming" without a shred of evidence? My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy about dragging previous arguments into a new argument? I believe you are in violation of policy. Why was this comment not made on my talk page? Please, with all respect in the world, GO FLY A KITE! USchick (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What policy are you talking about (any link?) and what kite? My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• To all participating involved parties: Please read WP:ANI Advice #'s 10, 12, and 16. The "Nuh uh's, you said blah!" aren't inviting outside participation.--v/r - TP 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick we can actually figure out in a minute where to go. Right now lets see if we can an agreement on how you to communicate when you get there. You say his behavior is the issue and he basically says the same for you. So lets see what reasonable things it will take for you and what reasonable things it will take for VM to go somewhere and talk.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My issue with VM is cherry picking sources AND disruptive editing where I attempt to discuss content, and everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown at me. Just like here. USchick (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One more time. I have neither "cherry picked sources" nor engaged in "disruptive editing". Hell, I didn't even write most of that article. I'm not the one who choose the sources that went in there. The article was written by a number of editors and it reflects general consensus. My only fault here has been that I've opposed your attempts at removing reliable sources from the article according to some POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your "attempts to discuss content" after, the fourth or fifth time got tiresome as it became obvious that you were not trying to discuss things constructively in order to reach consensus but rather resurrecting old issues which had been covered in detail previously. Again, for the sake of some POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In other words, this accusation, like the others is completely unsubstantiated and complete bullshit. It's not as serious as your other false accusations (see above), but it is still completely false. Volunteer Marek  02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem. USchick repeatedly casts aspersions about you and other editors and admins [194] here and elsewhere, but does not provide any proofs (his links above do not prove anything). He/she must either provide their proofs on a more appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:AE, or be restricted from doing such things in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See the top of this thread with my original complaint for specific examples I provided. USchick (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. The top of the thread where you're complaining that I object to the following comment by YOU: ""Dear Volunteer Marek, as the owner of this article, I appeal to your Excellency for the humble permission to move the investigation section of this article to its own page. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Your most honorable servant of all time"' and then when you tried to pretend that that was actually, really, no seriously, why don't you assume good faith, a good faithed, sincerely meant, "nice" comment I said "don't be daft". Volunteer Marek  02:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you already said that in your first comment. Would you like to rehash the entire argument again? USchick (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are links I am talking about. In my opinion, they do not prove anything at all, except a legitimate content dispute. If you disagree, file an WP:AE request, but be prepared to be sanctioned yourself if AE admins find you guilty of misconduct. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. USchick (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I will be unavailable starting now until Monday, I hope that's ok. USchick (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why not, in my view I feel this whole section has accomplished nothing but bickering between the two sides. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My attempt to get Admin action here simply led to abuse, even from Admins. That's not helpful. Today I posted Diffs of bad behaviour from VM. Nobody has said there was anything good about those diffs. (Except of course VM.) They have just been ignored. And I have been attacked for seeking intervention. I say again. Our Admin system is stuffed. What is the point of AN/I? HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You want Admin attention? Can an admin please give HiLo48 some attention?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done: "I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there. ('fuck all')" - Drmies (admin). Stickee (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's apparently not acceptable. I think they want blocks. Speaking of that message, Drmies This was actually already closed once I believe. Oh and do not feel bad about your unranked team. I think in Texas highschool football is big.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily asking for a block. What can we realistically expect here? I listed my concerns at the beginning. Is this disruptive editing or not? Is it going to continue? Is cherry picking sources to support one version of the "truth" ok on Wikipedia? I made an accusation and VM denied it. Now what? I'm simply asking people to be accountable. I will have limited access, so if I'm not back until Monday, it's not because I don't care. USchick (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What I see at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is an article on an unsolved mystery in a politically charged location that contains an awful lot of speculation. This is mainly speculation by people outside Wikipedia and reported in reliable sources, but it is a very selective set of those sources. It's a set that gives an extreme slant towards the western view of things as previously presented in propaganda that was going on over the area for long before the plane crashed. There is a dominating group of editors, of whom Volunteeer Marek is one of the major players, who insist that speculation from anywhere else is unacceptable because the sources are Russian, or biased, or almost anything else that rules them out. The suggestion that all speculation that's not part of the formal enquiry be removed is also rejected, with equally nasty argument, and with the half-baked justification that "it's sourced, so it belongs in the article". It's a crappy, unbalanced article. Volunteeer Marek's style in defending the status quo is one of considerable aggression and rudeness. It is not one involving polite discussion, and has not been for a very long time. Hence my rejection of the alleged olive branch from one of the weak Admins here. The biased shape of the article reflects Wikipedia's systemic bias. Those who are part of that bias, of course, are unlikely to recognise it. I think USchick was brave in bringing the problem here, because that same systemic bias dominates here too of course,. This is one of those sad situations for Wikipedia. Nobody should be proud of that article. Nobody should be proud of the behaviour used by some defending it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. But it's here so... let me address it. First I have *never*... ever ever ever, claimed that a particular source is not reliable because "it is Russian". This is some excuse you invented. You're projecting your own prejudices onto others or something. What I have pointed out repeatedly on the article talk page (at least a dozen times by now) is that what determines whether a source is reliable or not depends on whether it satisfies the criteria outlined at WP:RS. Specifically, whether it "has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The sources you and a few others want to use, don't. Some of these unreliable sources happen to be Russian, some of them are American, some of them are Australian, whatever. What makes them unreliable is not their "national origin" but the fact that they are a set of conspiracy websites, opinion pieces from some crazy fringe authors, personal blogs, propaganda outlets and the like. You - or was it User:Herzen, I can't remember - think that the exclusion of such crap sources constitutes "Systemic Bias". It doesn't. It constitutes adherence to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you think that these sources are a suitable basis for an encyclopedia, then Wikipedia is not the place for you (and there's nothing wrong with that). At any rate, it's height of absurdity to claim that my edits are "disruptive" because I am insisting that we actually follow Wikipedia policy, while your (and USchick's etc) edits are kosher because ... you demand the right to remove reliable sources from the article on a whim.

And USchick wasn't brave about anything. They were block-shopping under a bullshit pretext, like you are doing right now, and making extremely offensive and odious personal accusations to boot.

Oh, and the article is fine, thanks to the effort of numerous editors. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the Wikipedia process has worked reasonably well in this case, given the circumstances.

Anyway, I'm done, enough of my time wasted, can someone close this (again)? Volunteer Marek  07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You have well summarised the approach you have been taking at that article for months. I find it unsatisfactory, and unpleasant. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I read through this earlier, then voted in an RFC on MH17 page. I have to agree with HiLo48 that 'Volunteer Marek's style in defending the status quo on that RFC and earlier, is one of considerable aggression and rudeness' unbecoming of good WP editing. I believe to transform this article from strong POV to NPOV would require some VM free time, say a week, with a protected status afterwards. Thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently about as NPOV as it's going to get, given the controversial nature of the topic. That's the thing though, isn't it? You and your friends don't like that's it's fairly neutral, you want to turn it into a POV piece which adheres to your version of WP:TRUTH. You don't like the fact that there are editors (not just me) who strongly object to your agenda. That's is why you've filed a ridiculous, ill posed, vague RfC which is basically a demand for a carte blanche to remove anything you don't like from the article. That's why you want to remove reliable sources from the article under one pretext or another. That's why you want to add non-reliable sources like articles or blog pieces based on crazy conspiracy website to the article. No. Volunteer Marek  07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You overuse the 'We' thing. There is no conspiracy against you, no need to become paranoid. I dont know these other editors and have not added any refs at all. Is that your problem, why you are so anti social? You see a conspiracy against you. Marek take a break, before someone gives you one. Thats not a threat, thats reasoning as its clear you are 'over the top'. SaintAviator lets talk 07:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. The fact that, having said you were done, you came back to yet again rudely attack another editor's post perfectly demonstrates your attitude. You appear to need to have the last word. You cannot allow the possibility that others might read something sensible in another editor's post and begin to wonder. Domination with buckets of words is an interesting strategy for someone who said they were done. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"You appear to need to have the last word.": You've made 24 comments here. Only 6 less than Marek. Stickee (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok point made. I'll have the last word then. I'm new. IMHO Marek needs a block on the MH 17 article. Hes aggressive, paranoid and disruptive. I dont know why, I dont want to know why. It just is. SaintAviator lets talk 07:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Stickee - I'm quite happy to respond to your comment. I have done very little work on the article or its Talk page in the past couple of months due to time pressures off-Wikipedia. As mentioned earlier by someone else, VM and some others seem to suffer none of those inconveniences and have been lucky enough to be able to work almost full time on that article. So right now, I'm really a very long way behind and am very much in catch-up mode. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take this opportunity to thank User:Volunteer Marek for the editing at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It is really quite an effort to keep that article free of fringe theories and POV editing - and I can see how the repeated attempts (often from largely SPAs) to introduce such matter can strain the patience of an editor. After contributing elsewhere for a while, I should probably go back to MH-17 and lessen the burden of User:Volunteer Marek. Lklundin (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And there's that implication again that those of us who disagree with those whose views currently dominate the article are somehow associated with SPAs. No evidence that anything has been done about these alleged SPAs. Just shotgun allegations and more mud thrown. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The only SPA I know of who edits the MH37 article is Tlsandy, and he tag teams with user:My very best wishes, who wrote above that users fed up with the behavior of editors who act as if they own this article "accuse people of "tag teaming" without a shred of evidence", and also that "a number of POV-pushing SPA currently edit these pages", whereas, as I said, the only SPA I know of has tag teamed with My very best wishes (with these edits). So that is what is going on here: editors who want to go on owning the article falsely accuse other editors of doing what they themselves are actually doing. This behavior has gotten totally out of control. – Herzen (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• What? I made only one edit (three consequential edits) on this page during last nine days. You received a warning from admin for regular edit warring on this page [195] and continue edit war right now [196]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What I was warned about was engaging in a slow edit war (a concept I was not aware of) with your SPA tag team buddy, Tlsandy, who was also warned about engaging in a slow edit war. I have consistently engaged in sustained Talk discussions before making edits and am not a SPA, whereas Tlsandy aggressively makes changes to the article without even once justifying them on Talk. (The only posts he has made on Talk was to a thread he himself created bashing Russia.) That you have not once expressed unhappiness with an SPA's disruptive behavior, but have repatedly made personal attacks against me shows that you are so heavily invested in one side of this conflict (both in the sense of the actual conflict in Ukraine and the sense of the continual conflict in Wikipedia on the Ukraine related pages) that you could not hide your battleground attitude even if you wanted to. – Herzen (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest close - As with most AN/I discussions that involve HiLo as a party, this is just going around in circles.--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know I had that much power! HiLo48 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Disruptive editing)

I'd like to suggest a course of action here. Clearly, these three editors (I'm referring to Volunteer Marek, HiLo48, USchick) are involved in a passionate POV war with each other and are so entrenched that it's not going to be resolved without outside intervention. To move beyond this, I propose a "closed neutrality review" (which I think I've just invented). How I propose it works:

1. Full protect the article. We tag it as being under review (similar to {{Work in progress}} but with a more appropriate message). This prevents disruption while the review is in progress.
2. A panel of uninvolved volunteers will review the article as it exists now for neutrality, based on our content policies. I propose a panel of three, because small numbers are good for discussions, and odd numbers are good for "breaking ties" should the need arise.
3. The panel will discuss and suggest changes to the article on the article's talk page. This is important: no other editors may comment on or disrupt the review while it is in progress - any and all comments made by editors not part of the panel will be removed immediately without discussion. Not to be hostile, but to allow the panel to work undisturbed. Creating a /NPOVreview subpage might be a good idea to facilitate this. I think some discussion is needed on allowing {{edit protected}} requests during this time - there are pros and cons.
4. When the review is completed, say in a few days' time (because we all have IRL stuff going on, but with some hard deadline) then and only then other editors may comment on it, and changes which have consensus will be made to the article at that time.

Would this satisfy everyone? Ivanvector (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support - this seems like the best way to solve this dispute. It should be effective. demize (t · c) 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - It is not clear (to me) if the proposed 'uninvolved volunteers' are to be uninvolved in this ANI discussion or uninvolved in the editing of the article leading to this ANI. Lklundin (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Do we have any idea who the panel would consist of? --Richard Yin (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With a few exceptions, the editors commenting here are the editors working on the article. I meant to say I will nominate myself, as I am pretty sure I have not worked on that article and generally steer clear of Eastern Europe articles. I commented on some editors' conduct in this thread but I don't think I've commented on the article itself up to this point. My only concern with myself is that I don't have a lot of free time over the next few days. As for others, I think "uninvolved in the topic area" is more important than "uninvolved here", but the makeup of the panel would be subject to consensus anyway or this whole thing is doomed from the start. I especially want to hear what Marek, HiLo and USchick think about this. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - quite simply put, you, nor AN/I in general do not have the right to impose such a draconian restriction. Not even admins at WP:AE could do this. For something like this to be implemented, it'd have to be ARBCOM. Even there, it's questionable whether they have the power to do something like this. It's completely opposed to Wikipedia policies and spirit. It would set an awful precedent. It would also be completely unworkable. It would also be completely unnecessary. Volunteer Marek  16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while this is a good intended suggestion, it's simply not workable in practice. Over the years, I've seen many proposals such as this, and never has one been implemented. Here are the problems:

1. Why does the article need full protect? There's no edit warring on it. There are some occasional reverts but it's actually fairly mild and much much less than other articles of comparable level of controversy. USchick's (and couple of others) agenda here does not involve edit warring over the article - they know they'd loose that battle because both consensus and Wikipedia policy is against them - it is simply an attempt to remove people they don't like from the article, period. Not for edit warring, not for violating any Wikipedia policies but simply for ... nothing really, except they don't like'em.
2. Who are going to be on this "panel of uninvolved volunteers"? What makes you believe they will have any kind of competence in regard to the subject matter? Why should editors who've invested their time and effort in the article be shut out from the process? That seems like punishing good deeds. It's completely wrong headed.
3. It seems you're also proposing that regular editors are not even allowed to comment on the article talk page. There's no way that's gonna fly. In fact, it's completely against Wikipedia spirit, it would violate several Wikipedia policies, and AN/I simply does not have the jurisdiction to impose such an absurd and draconian restriction. Not even admins at WP:AE, working with discretionary sanctions, could do something like that. Possibly, maybe, this would be within the powers of ARBCOM, though even there that'd be a very big "MAYBE"
4. What makes you think that these "uninvolved volunteers" would come to a consensus?
5. Here is the basic truth. The situation is actually FINE RIGHT NOW. There's no need to invent insanely ridiculous restrictions which set a very dangerous precedent to solve it. There's nothing to be solved. The article is pretty close to neutral. There's not much edit warring. The article uses reliable sources. The only issue is that editors who disagree with reliable sources keep bringing up the same old issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to the talk page and demanding that these be discussed again and again and again and again and again and again (basically, since reliable sources don't support you, and Wikipedia policies don't support you, all you've got left is trying to tire and wear others out)
6. I very strongly resent the suggestion that I'm in any way "passionately involved in a POV war". All I'm doing is pointing out that it would be against Wikipedia policy to remove reliable sources from the article and replace them with fringe conspiracy crap according to somebody's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not "POV war", that's Wikipedia policy. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary (diffs, etc) I request that you strike that accusation. Thanks.
7. (Added later due to ec) We already have mechanisms which are suitable for dealing with any potential problems. These are discretionary sanctions, and enforcement at WP:AE by admins like User:Sandstein and others. If you really think that there is some kind of bad behavior going on here, file a WP:AE report. That's what that page is for. But you have to provide specific evidence of misbehavior and support it with diffs. Not some vague "so and so is being disruptive because I don't like'em" like this request.
8. (Added later due to ec) There is no restriction on other editors coming to help out on the article. Anyone can edit, right? If you feel there is a problem with content (as opposed to behavior), please, come and help out. Join the talk page discussion. Make your points. Have your say. Add reliable sources to the article. Nothing is stopping you. We don't need a "panel of uninvolved volunteers" - we already have volunteers, and anyone else can come and volunteer too. That's how Wikipedia works, right?

 Volunteer Marek  16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Well, we know what Marek thinks. I'll reply to this in a moment. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You say that the situation is fine, but this rather large, heated discussion on ANI suggests otherwise. From my observation of the situation, this solution may be the best one, since it forces both you and User:USchick to take a step back from the article and lets an uninvolved third party decide if, indeed, the situation is fine. demize (t · c) 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggested the protections and restrictions so that the panel can work free of the kind of disruption displayed in the huge thread above. Such nonsense would be very counterproductive to a neutral review, just as it's extremely counterproductive in general. I'm sorry you dislike the allegation of POV warring but I will not retract; it is quite obvious to an outside observer that this is exactly what this is - a POV war, and you're involved in it. You're defending the article against an undue POV (in your view) which is admirable, but you must see how the ongoing disruption (from everyone) is not helping the article, yes? What I'm suggesting is you step away briefly to allow an uninvolved review - if it is "fine right now" there won't be much work to do, and you can continue to review any changes before they happen. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We have WP:AE, that's the venue to take any potential problems to. Also, the proposal is extremely vague and ill-defined. Where you gonna get these uninvolved volunteers? What qualifications are going to be considered? What does "uninvolved" mean in this context? What mechanism will be in place to ensure that they actually do something and do it on time rather than just dilly-dally for months, while the article (and the talk page!) remains shut out for the rest of the community?  Volunteer Marek  16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The authority to do this comes from WP:CONSENSUS. This sounds like a great idea and if it is effective then we can codify it and implement it in other articles.--v/r - TP 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal means creating an editorial board, specifically for this article. But even in scientific reviewing, where editorial boards are a common practice, the members of editorial boards are always recognized experts and never anonymous people. We have no idea who these members/reviewers are going to be. Moreover, the requirement that other users can not comment goes far beyond and contrary to the letter and spirit of wikipedia rules and practices. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I've been following this article (actually just the Talk page, really) for months, mostly out of sheer fascination. I haven't added anything, though, since it's in a part of the world I'm not as familiar with. Having read every word on the talk page for at least 12-15 archives now, I must say I agree with Ivanvector's assessment of the situation. There's been a wide-scale POV war, with almost everyone on the talk page seeming to fall onto one side or the other (with varying degrees of passion, and with a few notable exceptions). I support the proposed solution. It's innovative and has the potential to be very beneficial and neutral (assuming the editors on the "panel" are able to sufficiently detach themselves from the politics of the subject matter). IrishCowboy (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'm not at all convinced anything in the article needs changing, and I think the protestations from some quarters that sections that appear to criticize Russia or its proxies should be removed, space given over to conspiracy theories and perspectives expanded, or both completely fly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE -- but more importantly, I know the editors who want those changes believe they must be made just as passionately as I believe they should not. And for all of the ambition and complexity of this proposal, which (lest we forget) involves rounding up three uninvolved volunteer editors with nothing better to do than to go over a Wikipedia article they ostensibly don't care about the subject of with a fine-toothed comb for several days (while hoping they are 1: a representative sample of the Wikipedia community, and 2: sufficiently knowledgeable and evenhanded about Wikipedia policy to apply it fairly and uniformly without any blind spots), I honestly don't see any scenario in which none of the major "combatants" at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 feel the need to loudly express their outrage over not getting their way after the process has concluded. (When I started writing this comment, FWIW, I was going to !vote to support. But I just can't justify it. I admire the ambition, but I think it would be a wasted effort, unfortunately.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't import the POV-pushing that goes on in the MH17 discussion into ANI. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if Time magazine and the prosecutor heading a major investigation take a theory seriously, it is not FRINGE. Yet some editors are so convinced that they know the truth that they continue to treat all theories but one as FRINGE and a "crazy conspiracy theory". – Herzen (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If TParis is for it I shouldn't be against it. However, I don't see exactly how CONSENSUS allows for such an editorial board, but I'm not opposed on principle. In contrast to what I saw elsewhere in this thread there is some edit warring going on in the article, adding to the uncomfortable atmosphere--see this one, for instance. But much of this has to do with the investigation, and I can't help but think that if editors took NOTNEWS more seriously we'd be saved a lot of trouble, since much of the fighting seems to involve day-to-day announcements and developments. We should take the long view, but how we mandate that, I'm not sure: if an admin starts ruling on those kinds of things then they'd have to rule on content. One solution would be to ban the involved parties from the article and its talk page, but that's draconian. Drmies (talk) 13:46, Today (UTC−5)
• (edit conflict) Oppose – This type of complex solution simply won't work, and will likely create an even bigger shambles. This is not a good article to conduct editorial experiments on. It needs real administrative action, and I'm starting to think that ArbCom is likely the only possible solution at this point. They are much better suited to solving this kind of problem. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  I can agree with involving ArbCom rather than the solution proposed here. I'm not opposed to this solution, but I do have to agree that ArbCom would be a better solution; especially after reading Drmies' comment, I'm not entirely convinced that the originally proposed solution is appropriate. demize (t · c) 18:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I won't retract the proposal per se but it certainly doesn't seem to have the broad support I would expect to require for success, so I think we're done here. Thanks for the insightful commentary, everyone. In the event someone would like to discuss the idea of a neutrality review in general feel free to post on my talk page. I am also thinking that since we're not able to make any headway here (and I'm thinking any admin action is going to be seen as controversial at this point) it's worth passing the buck to asking WP:ARBCOM. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been causing problems for months, administrators simply haven't been able to enforce WP:ARBEE, and various AN/I threads have been unproductive. It is about time that this disruption was reviewed by ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be the consensus now. I'd close this discussion myself, but I feel that would be out of line (as I'm not an administrator and the nature of this discussion warrants having one close it) and potentially premature, as an ArmCom case has not yet been requested. I do feel that there should not be any more discussion here though: it's been demonstrated that this discussion cannot get anywhere if it's being had on ANI. If anyone else wants to close it, then that may be a good idea. demize (t · c) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I thank and congratulate Ivanvector for this innovative suggestion. It's the kind of thinking we need to get past the reality that there is no consensus at that article right now, just a large and loud group of editors mocking, bullying and shouting down anyone who dares to think differently. The style of discussion is so far removed from consensus seeking as to make that concept nonsensical for this article. The biggest issue in Ivanvector's proposal will be defining what "uninvolved" means. The incident in question occurred well into a major propaganda war over the geographical area involved. Now, propaganda works. It influences many people without them even being aware of it. That's the goal of propaganda. Those promulgating propaganda will use any available tool, including articles like ours, to advance their cause. Another major factor, one that overlaps the propaganda issue, is Wikipedia's systemic bias. The goals of the western side of the propaganda war feed perfectly into that bias. Many of those who are part of the systemic bias also don't realise the impact it has on their thinking. That means that a lot of people, both on and off Wikipedia, come to the issue of who is responsible for the plane crash with a very strong preconceived view that Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian separatists are bad guys, and that we can, and should, blame them for the crash. My personal position is that I don't know who did it. Nobody here knows who did it. (Or, if they really do, they won't tell us.) But, because of the propaganda war and our systemic bias, a lot of people want to keep producing evidence that Putin/Ukrainian separatists did it, and rejecting evidence that they might not have. Given that very few people really do know who did it, I repeat my goal for the article - when it comes to discussing the cause of the crash, leave out all speculation from anybody, all politically motivated proclamations from anybody, so that all we include is material from those conducting the official investigation. I think that most closely matches Wikipedia's goal of presenting a neutral point of view. Of course, once the official verdict is finally presented, that should be all that our article should contain on the cause of the crash. It would be silly then to still include all the theories and the subset of claimed "evidence" it currently contains. Logically, of course, that means that all that speculative stuff should be removed now. So, returning to my earlier point, to me "uninvolved" means not part of our systemic bias and not influenced by the propaganda war. An impossible goal? Maybe. But we do need to think about those factors. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. A formal proposal seeking my input is made. I see it upon waking up (it's 7.00 am here) and spend some time composing a response discussing the problem of finding editors who are truly uninvolved, and then before I click Submit, the whole thread is closed by one of the most involved editors here. Oh the irony. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight even if the thread is closed. I do share your concerns about systemic bias, and I have no proposed solution. I don't want to comment on this article directly now since it seems we're going to ArbCom with it, but if you want to talk more about the proposal or about issues of involvement or systemic bias in general, you're welcome on my talk. I can't promise prompt replies, it's 4pm here and the Beer Store is calling. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• Support SaintAviator lets talk 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by User:Nansjsjd

(non-admin closure) Not actionable as of now; re-report only if this happens repeatedly. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Well as per this edit they appear to be too angry to want to appeal their block so am proposing that an admin block them from using their TP. Gabriel Turner (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, "fuck your balls" is such a dumb attempt at insult that I don't think there's much we need to do. Edgar181, I think it wuz your balls being talked about, so I'll leave them in your court. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me. Blanking it and otherwise ignoring it would have been fine with me. Someone can revoke talk page privileges if Nansjsjd comes back to do anything like that again, but otherwise just let it go for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Defamation per se at Luxembourg Leaks

Apparently a website exists called Luxembourg Leaks which has listed dozens of companies as having made "shady deals" according to the source: Here's A Full List Of Companies That Allegedly Have Shady Tax Deals With Luxembourg. No evidence of any criminal activity is implied against the companies, buit apparently their private tax documents are being made public. Half the companies are non-notable, which is bad enough per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but alleging bad business practices is Defamation per se and without specific documents of criminal charges, creating such a list amounts to both a violation of WP:ATTACK and a copyright vio of the attack blog itself, since it is simply a cut and paste of the blog's list with no independent verification. I have removed the list, but User:Thue has restored it, again using a copy-paste from a blog making defamatory accusations, with no independent verification of wrongdoing by any company on the list. I suggest the list be removed and the article frozen until the current AfD is completed, and a reference is provided for any individual company named. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does wikipedia list these companoes? I feel like I missed it on the page you are discussing. It seems like it says some 300 and something unnamed companies are involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The text above the list which Medeis removed said "This is the list of companies as of 6 November 2014 whose Luxembourg private tax rulings and corporation tax returns have been leaked". When Medeis says it is listed dozens of companies as having made "shady deals", Medeis' claim is false. The list is merely a factual complete list of companies whose tax paper has been leaked. Knowing which companies' have had their papers leaked is factual and central information for the leak. As for Medeis' claim of copyright infringement, databases are only protected under copyright as "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship". Since the list is a complete listing, no selection has taken place, and as such is not protected by copyright in my understanding. As quoted in [197]:

In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act."

A complete listing such as this one obviously contains no creativity. Thue (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD which Medeis unwisely started for the article as a Snow keep. As for his claim that the list violates AVOIDVICTIM because half of the companies are not notable: don't mix "doesn't have an article" with "aren't notable). Looking at the redlinks, I see many that could very easily have an article, or that should simply be a redirect (FedEx Corp? Government Of The Emirate Of Abu Dhabi? LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton? ...) At least 90% of that list are notable companies (something like Vers.Werk Der Zahnärztekammer Westf. Lippe probably isn't, so I can't claim 100%). And of course WP:AVOIDVICTIM only appleis to persons anyway, not to companies... Fram (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances BLPgroup would apply and avoid victim may apply.However looking the list and the sources it's fairly safe ro say that is doesn't apply here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As already proposed here: This conflict might be solved by relocating the list to a wikipedia-list. Whether this new list complies with wikipedia rules and standards might be discussed then separately. -- Neudabei (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a list on wikipedia on a separate page wouldn't fix Medeis claim.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody other than Medeis take that claim seriously? IMO Medeis has made a lot of extremely dubious claims in the attempt to get this article or parts of it deleted, including the claim "This page seems to be designed to promote a single website". Thue (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry about defaming major corporations - but the article also makes allegations about a specific named individual pushing the WP:BLP envelope. Additionally, the article read far more like a press release than a neutral expostion of fact. Collect (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see "defamatory accusations" by listing companies whose tax agreements with Luxembourg were disclosed to the public. Please compare with other wiki-lists: Category:Lists_of_companies (in particular: List of companies involved in the Holocaust). It's just factual. -- Neudabei (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is problematic then fix that. But that is not what this complaint was about. The section Medeis complained about was just a factual list of which companies' tax papers were leaked. If the reader concludes that just because a journalist chose to publish a company's tax forms then the company is engaged in tax avoidance then it is the readers own error, not ours. We just published a 100% factual list - it is absurd to claim that just posting a 100% factual list with an 100% unambiguous well-defined criterium for inclusion could construed as defamatory accusations in the legal sense. Thue (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, as of right now no individual names are actually listed in the article, so I assume that any WP:BLP you may have thought existed has already been fixed. I also do not think the current article reads like a press release. Thue (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I think the list is to long to be included in the article I created a wiki-list: List of multinationals with disclosed tax agreements in Luxembourg -- Neudabei (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppetery by User:Weegeerunner

Accusations of sockpuppetry assistance/meatpuppetry have been retracted, but in turn 79.79.137.119 (talk · contribs · 79.79.137.119 WHOIS) was blocked by JamesBWatson for making legal threats. De728631 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Am requesting that action is taken against this user for assisting a sockpuppeting troll (although they are not themselves the troll as has been confirmed by a CU) with their edit war here Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

open a SPI-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Done so consider this closed 79.79.137.119 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

'79.79.137.119', are you the same person that claimed to be representing the Canadian House of Commons (despite having a UK-geolocated IP) yesterday? And are you the same person that claimed to be acting "instructions from the German ambassador" yesterday too? And are you also User:Gabriel Turner? [198] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes to the first two but no to the third. I happened to search SPIs and suggest an admin close this 79.79.137.119 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be kept open until you explain why you were claiming to represent the Canadian House of Commons and the German ambassador while making legal threats on Wikipedia. [199][200] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume your point to the IP was that the OP should be asking for a close, not some IP off the wall. Usually when a user is anxious to get an investigation closed, it means the investigation is getting too near the truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an SPI for Weegeerunner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my 'point' was that the IP had been making spurious legal threats, and that we need an explanation. And quite frankly, I have to suggest that I find the assertion that the IP and Gabriel Turner are different people less than entirely convincing - it should be noted that Gabriel Turner only created the account yesterday, but has dived straight in to raising a SPI and starting multiple threads here, while also issuing at least one questionable'vandalism' warning for what appears to be a legitimate edit (removing a name which in no way matched the subject's from a BLP infobox) from a new contributor. [201][202] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The mystery is why the IP remains unblocked, despite that outrageous legal threat. (Maybe the admins are all busy working on the backlog of SPI's.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javier93h and the checkuser says that Weegeerunner is unrelated. I have blocked the IP for a week for the legal threats. -- GB fan 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1). I was not a part of any edit wars, I just reverted an edit once because I thought consensus was against them. That does not violate WP:3RR. 2). I do not know anything about legal threats. Can someone show me where legal threats popped up? 3). I am not a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet of anybody, I just make an edit.Weegeerunner (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The legal threats were by the IP who proposed this thread be closed - nothing to do with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything about the other stuff I said? In my above post? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me, and there is no reason why they should have been raised here in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't think the socking claim belongs here but anyway let's abandon this thread as it has a lesser chance than a snowball in hell. Gabriel Turner (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner, it was me that mentioned the possibility of you being linked to Javier93h and his sock farm. Sadly, the Union, Progress and Democracy article has been a long term target of his socks and therefore when a new editor appears, looking clueful and reverting to Javier's preferred version, it does raise suspicions. Happily, I was wrong in this instance and I apologise if any offence was caused to you. Valenciano (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid further incidents like this, I suggest you look over the WP:NAAC page. It's funny how 1 simple meta page can avoid tons of incidents. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to your response I completely retract any implied false allegations of sockpuppetery that may have been interpreted by you and am also sorry if I wasn't clear about my claim. Gabriel Turner (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Dayosllc

Am requesting that as per this vandalistic diff by the blocked user to their own talk page that they have their talk page withdrawn. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) If it's a vandal, then next time, go to WP:AIV to do this. This noticeboard is for general requests only that can't be solved at the other noticeboards. But I don't think this is actionable. It is only one edit. They should have TPA revoked only after a series of such edits. Epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A bot removes all blocked users Gabriel Turner (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know. But this noticeboard is less active than the other. If you do not use the {{vandal}} template when reporting the user, the bot will not remove it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

IP sockfarm with grudge against a user

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

---

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) needs page protection possibly revdel. I've already contacted emergency about the threat against a user. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that said threats are only in the edit summaries. Epicgenius (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:JarosBaumBolles and conflict of interest.

The account JarosBaumBolles (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been created for the sole purpose of promoting the company of the same name, Jaros, Baum & Bolles. The account has made an edit request to a semi protected article to include their name in the infobox at Talk:One World Trade Center (diff). The account has also attempted to directly include the company in the infobox at Two World Trade Center (diff). The company appears to have supplied the electrical and plumbing services to the building, but unless there is a need to list all the service suppliers (elevators, windows, carpetting, air conditioning etc. etc.), then their contribution is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. They were notified of the conflict of interest (diff). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A firm handling such an extremely large contract, the contract for the principal infrastructure components of a famous building, might be notable. This could be best examined by trying to write an article on it, preferably in Draft space. I think the principal subcontracters are suitable content for inclusion in the article--but certainly not in the infobox, which should be kept concise.

I point out that an account made properly for an individual to write appropriate content --or what is hoped will be appropriate content--is certainly permitted under the COI policy if disclosed. I suspect the contributor quite understandably did not know the peculiarities of our account name policy--a policy different from essentially all other WPs -- and thought that the name of the firm is sufficient disclosure. Of course an account writing only clearly promotional content for one or any number of companies will be blocked, because promotional content is inadmissible no matter who writes it. I consider this good faith editing, even if what they want to do does not have consensus. We should do a soft user name block, as usual in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Soft block applied.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Photography with copyright in the article of Christian Meier

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

---

Hi, I have a problem with a user who has uploaded a copyrighted photo. Here the photo, license that has is false. Because if they come on the page you will see that this page does not give permission to copy or use its content freely. I've left him a message in his discussion, But it has ignored it, I don't know if the message was correct. I think that the user reads summaries of issues, because he knows how to wear them, but I think that it has ignored that. I would like to know that you can do, because it was already tired of being reversed. :/.--McVeigh / talk 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The source website has a clear copyright notice on it that reads, "Copyright © 2012 ZGS Digital, Inc. Derechos reservados. All rights reserved". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find a Creative Commons release anywhere on that page, either. The image uploaded is also the exact same size as the image used in the slideshow on that page, not a higher-res image that would be available to the actual owner of the content. I've speedy deleted it as a non-free file without fair use usage. -- The Anome (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The image has been deleted by The Anome per speedy deletion criterion F6 (non-free file without a fair use rationale). De728631 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Apex Horizon

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

---

• Apex Horizon (talk · contribs)
• 3AM XXX XXX (talk · contribs)

Apex Horizon appears to be a sockpuppet account of 3AM XXX XXX, who has been indefinitely blocked for sock activity. User is adding grossly insulting posts to BLP articles like this one and attacking other users, such as with the the creation of this. This is Paul (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked by HJ Mitchell as a vandalism only account. Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues

Ruylong has offered an apology to Auerbachkeller, so there's nothing more to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Not accepted. [203]

Ryulong made a problematic BLP edit referencing me as chronicled on the Gamergate:Talk page. When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: On my own talk page and on the Gamergate talk page He is now telling Drmies to revoke my confirmed status and to tell me to stay away from him (Ryulong). Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit is only being construed as BLP because Mr. Auerbach was not pleased with how a counterpoint to his piece was presented in the article and The Devil's Advocate explicitly listed me as the offending party who originally wrote the piece. This resulted in Mr. Auerbach leaving me a message to the effect that he wishes to censor me from ever discussing him again and I refused. Mr. Auerbach has been coached by TDA as well as ChrisGualtieri, both of whom have prior content and personal disputes on this project, to punish me for an action whic weeks ago was seen as benign. This is a frivolous request, as is Mr. Auerbach's statement at the ongoing Gamergate arbitration request, as I should have never been singled out by TDA as I have and Chris should not have gone out of his way to sully my name on this project. This should be thrown out and instead TDA and ChrisGualtieri censured for using an off-wiki dispute to urge Mr. Auerbach into doing their dirty work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This account is also incorrect with regard to me. As it is undocumented I will not refute it in detail, other than to say that accusations of "censoring" and of being "coached" are serious matters. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that this should probably be moved to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. (not commenting otherwise here, either way). --MASEM (t) 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Everybody stop confusing this man because he has already been told to post something at arbitration by Drmies and then here by Strongjam. Let's just leave this here and let the community at large see it than let it stagnate in a page no one has used other than to get each other banned from the Gamergate pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have just pointed him to WP:EA to get better advice on how to deal with the dispute and left it at that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote one thing about his writings in the whole of the Gamergate article and that is not even to say that there are plenty of other editors who had directly cited him that he is not complaining about. I have been unfairly singled out by The Devil's Advocate because I am not a fucking professional writer and I wrote a shit two or three sentences about someone else being critical of one of Mr. Auerbach's articles and he linked to that pisspoor attempt at writing from weeks ago as if I'm to blame for the whole of the article's content. Just like a quote unquote journalist did to me and Tarc on some pro Gamergate news blog that everyone is lapping up. And then Tarc starts arguing with Mr. Auerbach on Twitter, Jimbo yells at Tarc, and then Mr. Auerbach comes onto Wikipedia fully believing someone that I have an agenda against him when I'm just being painted all over the Internet as the big enemy on the Gamergate Wikipedia article. No one can edit the Gamergate page for another week so what does it matter anyway? I should not have to deal with people like Russavia evading his ban on Jimbo's talk page and others who have a personal dispute with me goading someone into getting me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

All of that sucks. There's no denying that. But I feel that your anger about all of that might be clouding your judgment. Leave others to interact with User:Auerbachkeller. If you feel like he or others are acting inappropriately, post on the GG sanctions page and let uninvolved parties handle it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I will just add that Ryulong's account of my actions & motivations & influences here, in addition to being undocumented, is incorrect. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You came here and when you made your request several editors who have had personal grudges with me on this site came to your aid immediately. I am being character assassinated all over the internet by a vicious fringe movement and your misinterpretation of my intent three weeks ago is not helping you or I.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disengage voluntarily, or it will be enforced. Nick (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are alleging that Auerbachkeller has something to do with this offsite harassment, then there's no reason you can't drop this matter voluntarily and let other editors engage with Auerbachkeller. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy is fully protected for another week and all I am doing now is responding to Mr. Auerbach. What has to be disengaged from? I am saying that Mr. Auerbach is being influenced by onsite members who have prior disputes with me as well as offsite harassment. I am not alleging that he is involved with the offsite harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You've made that point. Now it is time for you to disengage, let matters cool off, and let others handle it. I understand tempers are high on this article, but if you are unwilling to moderate or disengage, I am considering imposing an WP:IBAN. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering blocking him for all of these unsubstantiated claims made in relation to Auerbachkeller. Ryulong if you would like to present evidence to confirm and back up your claims, of course, that would change the situation, but you know we do not let people make allegations without providing evidence. You are no exception. Nick (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've presented minimal diffs at Gamaliel's user talk that I had intended to post here ([204]), modified all of the statements I had initially made that Mr. Auerbach found questionable ([205], [206]), and left him an apology on his user talk for my actions over the past 12 hours ([207]).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At Drmies advice I am staying off of Ryulong's Talk page. He is not, however, staying off of mine. I will nonetheless not engage with him directly to the best of my ability from this point on. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Another fine mess. ANI being what it is, it's probably not the best place for this since as a single "incident" it probably does not warrant much admin action. Then again, it is entirely possible that an admin (in this particular case I certainly don't consider myself uninvolved; see the article talk page for my involvement with the Auerbach article) decides to act, citing the general sanctions. Now that we're here anyway, let me add that I think that Ryulong's behavior in this particular case is problematic--not that edit in the article, but the behavior afterward: the "threatening" comment. I wouldn't sanction him for this alone, but I have a feeling that if I take in the totality of Ryulong's actions and comments on the talk page I would feel differently--I have a feeling that if I take that in I will be inclined to think that Ryulong should take a break from the article, that while he has done good work he may perhaps be too enthusiastic in an already overheated situation. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has also made a somewhat dubious appeal to Jimbo Wales where he calls me a patsy. It shouldn't need to be said but I am acting on no one's behalf but my own and with no intent but to protect my reputation. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Ryulong: why does your name keep popping up here? I see there is already a discussion involving you above, just saying but when your name is being brought here multiple times this is something that should be looked into. My advice would for you to disengage per the admin or find a way somehow to avoid you being dragged here again and again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  There's only a thread above because I reported that guy first and he's very verbose and blunt about what he says. In this case, I may have overreacted to Mr. Auerbach's initial message but when I am subject to so much onsite and offsite harassment over this my current state is to be expected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  Maybe you should take a wikibreak, idk I just have noticed your name a-lot in here it seems is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong now says I "edited Wikipedia early this morning and this afternoon to get me banned at the behest of all of these other editors." I have *never* advocated for his banning nor for any particular sanction at all, nor am I acting "at the behest" of anyone. That statement is simply not true. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Can one impose an interaction ban on these two under the aegis of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate? Because I am sorely tempted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

  This was posted by Mr. Auerbach before I further modified my statement and left him a personal apology.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  @Lankiveil Yes: "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." NE Ent 00:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I also want to point out the concurrent discussion on Jimbo's talkpage: User talk:Jimbo Wales#David Auerbach. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This matter was concluded with Ryulong's apology and so there's nothing more to do here. Auerbachkeller is within his rights not to accept the apology but there is nothing actionable at this point besides hurt feelings. My closure of this section was undone by an involved editor seeking to stir up more drama. It should be closed again unless there is something productive to be done here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization but you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are more involved than I to close it and probably should wait for an uninvolved admin. Consensus is currently against the topic ban while at the same time there is a call for more DS being applied. --DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

May I ask whether Gamaliel's suggestion to Ryulong that "it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on" has been accepted? (It was, after all, my initial request.) I can't see that it was ever followed up on. Auerbachkeller (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose Topic ban

• Topic Ban Ryulong from gamergate articles (30 day?, 90 day?, indef?). It appears that his work on that topic area always ends up here. Auerbachkeller would appear to be COI at that article anyway. Ryulong has an issue with Auerbachkeller today, but earlier it was a different editor, tomorrow it will be someone else until the topic ban is eventually placed. Let's cut the drama cord now. There has been repeated calls for more DS and this is a good time to police it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't believe the apology was accepted as being too little, too late[208]. Topic ban is a remedy, though, so discussion about the incident can be closed. We can discuss the remedy here or GG DS page. I propose here for eyeballs. How many times are we going to ignore topic induced incivility and disruption? --DHeyward (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ryulong always ends up here because there is an inexhaustible supply of throw-away accounts promoting nonsense and making clueless commentary on several gamergate articles. Ryulong may well have cracked under the strain and behaved poorly in this instance (he is also being attacked offwiki), however it seems likely (21:35, 15 November 2014 and 21:37, 15 November 2014) that Ryulong has taken the advice that has strongly been offered to drop the matter raised in this report. There is a strong enforcement system so an ANI-imposed sanction is not needed. Furthermore, a topic ban would be counter productive as knocking out one of the small number of editors who are defending the encyclopedia would be most unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Johnuniq. Also DHeyward, if you are going to re-open this thread because Auerbachkeller didn't accept Ryulong's apology, I think you should try to find another reason. All the non-acceptance showed is that David seems to be too upset or too petty to accept a sincere apology. Dave Dial (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Whoa: that an apology was offered doesn't mean all harm is undone. One should not topic ban Ryulong for this one single incident, but by the same token we shouldn't not topic ban him in relation to this one single incident. Auerbach's not accepting Ryulong's apology does not negate Ryulong's earlier behavior--and let's remember that, if it hadn't been for some admin editing through protection while seeking consensus on the talk page, that stuff would still be in the article. In other words, berouw komt altijd na de zonde ("regret always follows the sin"?), but the real question here is about the actions (plural) on Ryulong's part that led to all these events: that is what we are asked to judge if a topic ban is to be granted. It's there we can differ. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not base my oppose on the apology, nor it's acceptance. So I don't understand your comment. I do agree that the inability of Ryulong to acknowledge mistakes can be problematic, I do not think that rises to a topic ban in an area that needs editors at the moment. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It was closed 5 minutes after my proposal and it doesn't appear over if one side is continuing on. I can give other reasons related to arbcom pending case but I'd rather not devolve to that level as the close was in good faith. The reopening is in good faith as well. Note that Jimbo as already called for Tarc to not edit for a similar reason [209]. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, but I still think it should be closed, and my oppose is per Johnuniq and other factors having nothing to do with David. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• He asked for a retraction. I gave a retraction. He asked for an apology. I gave an apology. Just because he does no want to accept that apology shows more of his behavior than anything I could ever do. This is ridiculous. I should not be banned for anything concerning David Auerbach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I apologize if my inability to accept Ryulong's apology makes me appear "upset" or "petty." Ryulong's immediately preceding comment, however, does not strike me as the words of a genuinely repentant editor, and consequently I am still unable to accept the apology, and I believe its sincerity should be up for debate rather than accepted as a given. Apologies in advance if this response is unwelcome on this page. Auerbachkeller (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auerbachkeller (talk • contribs) 08:15pm EST (UTC)
  • No need to apologise to me, I can understand someone being upset during these interactions. But I encourage you to find out more about Wikipedia and the policies, plus the POV driven masses sent from 8chan concerning the article in question. If not, that's fine too, just a suggestion. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for forgetting to sign the last comment. I am indeed a neophyte but I had little choice but to pick up policies as quickly as possible when I felt that I was being seriously misrepresented and had little recourse (I certainly couldn't edit the article myself). But as I implied, my inability to accept the apology is not because I'm upset, but because I cannot convince myself of its sincerity. I accepted Tarc's apology for his attacks on me because it did indeed seem sincere. I did not get that sense from reading Ryulong's apology, and his immediate reversion to criticizing me after my polite refusal has only reinforced me in that belief. I remain concerned about Ryulong's future edits as far as they may affect me. I am troubled by Ryulong's statement that "So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?" You are, of course, free to disagree with any of these points. Auerbachkeller (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I gave you a sincere apology and told you the truth about everything that has been affecting me over the past two months after you asked for an apology and you say "sorry no dice". I should be expected to be appalled by your actions here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • If so much has been happening to you there's all the more reason for you to just stay away. I don't understand in the first place why someone would be a Wikipedia editor and a Twitterer at the same time. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't use Twitter other than to follow some Japanese video game news feeds. I just get hate there because I bothered to respond. I don't go inviting this shit to me on my social media. It targetted me directly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about the occasional forgotten signature and other bureaucratic stuff. Wikipedia is a pretty loose kind of place where people are not required to offer an apology—our purpose is to build the encyclopedia and any disruption that interferes with that process is stopped (eventually!). People are not required to say they were wrong or otherwise humble themselves because it doesn't contribute much in the long run—what counts is how frequently poor behavior is repeated. The community just wants unhelpful behavior to stop. Ryulong was needlessly aggressive in his responses to you, but you might understand his poor approach if you had experienced the silliness that has been continuous ever since people started trying to use Wikipedia to excuse the harassment described in Gamergate, and to pretend that the article would exist if it really were about the concerns of gamers regarding the ethics of journalists. Ryulong should definitely disengage and not make any further commentary on this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • A gamergate is a type of sexually viable ant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Yes, what Johnuniq said. Also, I wasn't talking about your missed sig, I'm more than happy to sign it for you and let you know how to do it yourself(even though you obviously know and are adapting quickly). I was referring to such Wiki policies as citing sources and neutral point of view. A couple of basic pillars of Wikipedia. If anything, it will make it easier for you to understand some things that go on here when referring to Wikipedia in your articles. But again, just a suggestion. Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on User:Ryulong from Gamergate, because Ryulong is usually right, and in general because the community cannot deal effectively with editors who polarize the community, and Ryulong, right or wrong, is a polarizing editor on Gamergate and some other issues. This thread, as a request for a topic ban, is a waste of electrons. However, a very strong Warning is in order that Ryulong appears to be too angry to be dealing effectively with Gamergate, and if he doesn't calm down, he may need to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an involved editor stirring up more drama. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I respect your oppose. Your aspersions are without merit, however. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I retain confidence in Ryulong. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  The Devil's Advocate, none of those have anything to do with David Auerbach's writing and everything I wrote is supported by reliable sources. Stop cherrypicking things and presenting them out of context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  [217] [218] [219] [220].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  Still all entirely unrelated to Auerbach. What are you trying to prove exactly, TDA? If anything, I can show that you are clearly doing all of this because it's pro/anti rather than any actual issues with the article. [221]. Heck, you completely go off the wall here [222]. And if we're pulling unrelated diffs out of our collective hats, I can show that you were intentionally toeing the line of BLP in this comment you left on the Brianna Wu article two weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban isn't warranted in my opinion because Ryulong's edits have been balancing in the article, and ANI is a ridiculous platform to vote (indeed, vote) on topic bans. How about admins actually enforce the WP:GS/GG sanction? Clearly Ryulong's incivil behauvior has violated the "expected standards of conduct" mentioned in the sanctions, even if they do not warrant a topic ban. --Pudeo' 06:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq. MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above - 9 times outta 10 Ryulong's only brought here by newly created accounts whom have nothing better to do than cause drama. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

86.159.37.87 posting libelous edit summaries

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wharton&curid=27302490&diff=633657283&oldid=633435493 I consider this a libelous edit summary, and this IP is regularly vandalizing the James Wharton article to remove cited content. Please can you look at this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonLego (talk • contribs)

I feel like I'm missing something. Who is Andrew Duffell? How is this libelous? Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume that from your accusations that a user is being libelous that you plan on taking legal action against them? If so then please read our policy prohibiting such threats and publicly retract it. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be accusing a politician of going against his party. I wouldn't think that qualifies as "libel", but it sounds like a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Universal_remote

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

---

I propose that this user be blocked indefinitely for attempting to out someone on their user page which was then speedily deleted. This edit also doesn't fill me with confidence. Jack Stamps (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not try to out someone on my page i am sorry for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal remote (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Am letting you all know that the claim made by the user may indeed be correct as they have claimed the account is compromised here. Therefore I'll request that an administrator block it indefinitely on these grounds even if the above grounds do not warrant it. Jack Stamps (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Colorstv

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

---

See this and this edit for two examples of threats that this editor has made. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As an update they've posted on my TP here that they were explicitly threatening to inform the Police of another editors perceived illegal editing. Therefore I'll request that an administrator block the editor at once. This has also been reported to the foundation's legal department via email. Jack Stamps (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to close this, the user's been blocked. Jack Stamps (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Casting aspersions

I will notify Rotten regard in minute, but this [223] is problematic. I know all three accounts, and CU has been run without matching, so it sounds silly to me, but at a public board, to declare someone a sockpuppet without filing a report, is beyond uncivil, and is disruptive. Replying there would have only increased the disruption, so I came here instead. Showing two links of intersects isn't sufficient "evidence" to back up the claim. I'm involved, but I request an admin or the community take whatever appropriate action they deem necessary. Dennis - 2¢ 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying they defintely are socks, just that the intersections on very obscure articles are very suspicious. People should look for themselves and make their own minds up. --Rotten regard 23:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If I hadn't voted already, I would have just blocked you and redacted your vote. I still think that is the appropriate response. Dennis - 2¢ 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• +1, Dennis. Also, I must note that when someone has 255,980 edits, that situation is likely to happen. ^{(Wow, this is the first edit I've made to AN/I)} --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you'll look silly when I'm proved right. --Rotten regard 23:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS says "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence". @Dennis, I believe an editor interaction analyzer counts as evidence for the statement made. It may be wrong, but it counts as evidence. I would have opposed your block on the grounds of failing to meet the threshold of WP:ASPERSIONS.--v/r - TP 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I must say though, according to Intersect Contribs, you (TParis) have 802 results with NA1000 (an example of how the oppose rationale of RR isn't valid, IMO) because you and NA1000 have a high edit count. (TParis = 26,000, Candleabracadabra = 25,000, Northamerica1000 = 255,000) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have 55 intersections with NA1K and most of that is is on user talk pages because he used the MassMessage page to send out the same message 3 times to correct for his mistakes. Those aren't "obscure articles."--v/r - TP 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm seeing 802 here. I wonder why we got different results. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Because yours includes the 50,000 'Wikilove' messages he sent out to everyone to pump up his edit count? Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and an "intersect" tool is just that, a tool, it is NOT evidence by any stretch of the imagination. You use it as a tool to GATHER evidence, to show behavioral similarities. This is why you go to SPI to have an investigation done, you don't try to undermine faith in someone by making unsubstantiated claims. I've worked plenty of SPI cases to know. I can not for the life of me believe you have ever blocked someone just because they had intersects. Dennis - 2¢ 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

:With enough edits the Birthday problem easily shows how collisions between any two people is all but certain. I saw that ~vote, and that was my first assumption. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent example. Next we ask, "is this intentional disruption"? I maintain it is, as part of a pattern. Just look at prior RFAs. Dennis - 2¢ 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  If prior RfAs have the same type of claim based on the same type of evidence, that could be Rotten simply not understanding the statistics. On the other hand if they appear to be oppose votes based largely on (what to us) appears weak evidence, that could be Rotten simply finding what he looks for, in other words a form of confirmation bias. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• I don't plan on getting involved in the drama here, but I just wanted to say that I find the socking concern to be legitimate. Now, if the edit intersection tool had only turned up common articles and noticeboards, I wouldn't be concerned. However, the tool shows that the accounts in question have edited the same obscure articles and AfD nominations, which makes me a bit suspicious. Concerning Dennis Brown's statement above that he would have just struck the !vote and blocked the user, I personally think that doing such a thing would be illegitimate. You don't block people just because they raise a concern that you happen to disagree with. In any case, I've always been a very skeptical person and will look into the matter myself. --Biblioworm 01:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Biblio, you need to actually read above. It isn't about agreeing, and if that is all you got out of the above, you missed the point. Those intersects are not evidence. Making a claim without filing at SPI can get you blocked here at ANI, no less at RFA. It boils down to "put up or shut up". This RFA isn't exempt. Even here, we would tell you to either file an SPI, or drop the claim. My disagreeing isn't because I think NA is a swell guy, it is because I knew ChildofMidnight back in 2008, AND I knew Candelabra, and was involved when the SPI case came around. But that doesn't even matter. You don't make a radical claim in the middle of a RFA then refuse to file at SPI, unless you asking to get blocked, it is disruptive to just fly by, make a claim, disrupt a process and feign ignorance yet maintain the extraordinary claim. Like I said, you either put up, or you shut up, when it comes to making sock claims, anywhere at Wikipedia. Dennis - 2¢ 01:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand what you're saying, and as I said, I am not by any means completely convinced; I just feel that there is sufficient concern to justify myself looking into the matter a bit more. In any case, filing a SPI would be futile, because CU data is not retained for such a long period of time. --Biblioworm 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't care if you are convinced he is a sock or not. You don't investigate socks at RFA or ANI, you take it to SPI, but you better have more evidence than intersects, because that isn't evidence. I just showed where DGG and I have over 800 intersects, someone should rush off and block us..... Dennis - 2¢ 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis. The aspersions are just another manifestation of how RFA has become a snakepit and witch trial. Making such accusations without filing a SPI is disruptive and blockworthy. The accuser should put up or shut up. Edison (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

*stuffs face with popcorn* This is getting interesting... I think Dennis is right. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Be careful. Candleabracadabra and Northamerica1000 have both edited popcorn. --NE2 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has got to be one of the most baseless implied accusations ever made at RfA. A quick review of the two edit intersections shows three editors interested in food-related articles (oh, yeah, lots of controversial editing there, full of sock puppets, eh?). As I noted in my snarky RfA comment, NA1000 has almost 1600 edits in common with administrator Anna Frodesiak (!), and unsurprisingly, many of them are food-related. When an editor has 250,000 edits, high numbers of overlapping edits are to be expected in areas of common interest with other editors. In the absence of obvious patterns of disruptive editing, vote stacking, vandalism, etc., all it means is that two editors share areas of interest. In the absence of providing such evidence and analysis, I strongly suggest that Rotten Regard should strike his RfA comment and withdraw his implied accusations of sock-puppeteering against NA1000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm about to look a little closer at Rotten regard, closer than I did after their crappy oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT. For the record, I know NA1000, and I know ChildofMidnight, and I know Candleabracadabra. It's possible that they're all the same, but not in this universe. What Rotten regard (and perhaps others) seem to miss is that the overlap is on the same foods, hot dog stands, bacon trivia, other nonsense articles that NA1000 is so fond of saving and that Candle/Child (and their currently active sock) were so fond of writing. I'll mention only in passing that I only edit high-falutin' articles, and anyone is welcome to match my edits to NA1000's.

  But all that's beside the point. You don't bring something like this up in the middle of an RfA--I hope someone has removed that comment already. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• OMG! Dr. Mies is a sock puppet! He and NA1000 have almost 2300 pages in common! Burn him! He's a witch! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• :) I also have a thousand edits in common with CoM. And a few hundred with Candle. I really need to start editing better articles. I wonder how much Kelapstick and I have in common... Drmies (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, of course--only a few days ago I reverted dozens of their edits, where they had tagged a whole bunch of notable Czech films and were edit-warring to restore the tags. They offered no comment when asked, except for "Please stop creating a bunch of crap stub articles about non-notable films." (Yes, it involved Der Blofeld, and User:Kudpung knows about this too.) In other words, this really has NOTHERE written all over it. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies and I have 1055 in common, which I find surprising since I don't remember working in tandem on more than a handful. But again, either this was stupidity or malice. Based on Rotten's previous votes at RFA, I still think it is malice, a willful attempt to cause problems, something he has been accused of more than once at RFA. Dennis - 2¢ 02:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Witches! [224] Burn them! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, does anyone have the courage to strike the offending RfA comment and move the distracting thread to the RfA talk page? I think it's time . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would, but I've supported the RfA. What about you? You haven't !voted. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't support, but I removed it nonetheless. I do not wish to see NA1000's RfA tanked because of this. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• You removed the !vote rationale, but the oppose is still technically being counted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Another admin can still remove that if they like; Rome wasn't built in a day. If this here discussion leads to greater concerns or a block or whatever, someone will remove it. In the meantime, you have to have faith in the crats who do the actual counting: for now, their oppose is a placeholder, and the crats will know what's on the talk page. (So it's only "technically" being counted by the mechanical counter--but what that counter counts doesn't really count.) In other words, it's less than nothing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rotten supported 5 RFAs in 2012 and opposed 3 in 2014. the opposes were the last 3 RfA's I believe, I JethroBT, Northamercia1000 and Jackmcbarn. The oppose diffs from this year are:
  1. Jackmcbarn oppose
  2. I JethroBT oppose
  3. I JethroBT comment on reaction to oppose
  4. Northamercia1000 oppose

Not great to see opposes in all these three cases, it smacks of opposing on principle. But probably not actionable at this stage.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

This kind of stuff is what scares away potential candidates. Maybe it would be wise to make a statement that this will not be tolerated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I regularly edit new articles that are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Showcase/NA, performing edits such as cleanup, layout, formatting, WikiProject tagging, adding sources, etc., and have done so for a significant period of time. I'm certainly not going to abandon my membership in WikiProject Food and Drink and avoid food- and drink-related articles and XfD discussions because a person on the internet was blocked for using two accounts. I welcome anyone to please go ahead and open an SPI immediately and get a check user to start comparing IP addresses right away. It's injust and rather sickening to be vilified for my work to improve the encyclopedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, that would explain a great deal, NA1000. Now, get off the ANI page during your RfA, and let the rest of us handle it. Believe me when I say that that this is the wrong place to ask for fair treatment during your RfA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, I knew CoM and Candelabra, and like Drmies, I know there is no way, but file if someone thinks that is the case. And I respectfully disagree Rich, although I understand your perspective. Last time, his disruptiveness was just under the wire, and I supported just leaving it alone, there on that talk page. This is different. He keeps pushing the envelope and even now is probably laughing his ass off that we are even debating this. As I said when I came here, had I not voted, I would have struck the vote and blocked him and my opinion hasn't changed. Good faith isn't a suicide pact, and once the pattern is clear, preventing it from continuing is an obligation. Dennis - 2¢ 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Above, Rich has provided links to Rotten regard's recent RfA disruption. On one ongoing RfA, he has opposed without giving a reason. On another one, he makes a irresponsible allegation of sockpuppetry. In both cases, his brief responses have indicated that he is not willing to consider that he may be wrong. This may be somewhat harsh, but I am proposing an indefinite topic ban of Rotten regard from all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/". I feel that it is important for the community to make a statement to prospective candidates that we are trying to clean up the process and that disruption will not be tolerated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as nom. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated at RfA if we expect candidates to be brave enough to run. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This prevents disruption, and that is good enough for me. A reasonable compromise. Dennis - 2¢ 03:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Secret ^account 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support There are other locations such as ANI that they can use and meaningfully demonstrate that their behavior has indeed changed and they can seek to overturn this in the future. This will end the disruption and it does seem reasonable considering the topic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – RfA clearly is not the appropriate forum to make serious allegations without cold hard evidence. A user's talk page, AN/I or SPI would make a great start. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Please excuse my flagrantly biased participation here, but I think Mellowed Fillmore has it spot on. Tolerance of this kind of behavior during RfA is frankly embarrassing, particularly when it involves very serious allegations and arguments pretty much devoid of substance. Rotten regard is entitled to their opinion on any candidate, but failure to advance a believable case reeks of intent to disrupt rather than constructively participate in the RfA process. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support t-ban on RfA. Although WP:RFA2011 didn't bring about any physical changes to the process, it sent a clear message to the community and over the following years RfA has slowly but surely somewhat cleaned up its act. There are some who maintain that such !votes should be left to 'crat discretion be discounted and that such detractors will go away if we ignore them. The latter obviously does not work and we've been passive about this kind of thing for far too long. It's time therefore to reinforce that message to the community and the only way to do it is to start taking positive action and show that silliness on RfA will not be tolerated. Perhaps we'll then start to see an increase in the number of candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's clearly obvious he's only opposing everyone to simply disrupt, Comments like "No thank you" without fully explaining why is disruptive & sure as hell doesn't help the RFA. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support While the first oppose may be understandable, the second is disruptive. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gurfan - unacceptable comments

Please take action against user:Gurfan for the completely unacceptable comments posted on his talk page and at User talk:David Sher.

Diffs:[225], [226], [227] and [228]. User previously warned and informed of this report. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action.--ukexpat (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad

Hi, at Bashar al-Assad, I added information with sources such as BBC, Huffington Post, ABC news, UN.org, The Telegraph and maybe also some unreliable sources, but all of these have been reverted possibly by the same User using multiple IPs and accounts. I removed the uncited claim that Bashar was brought back as heir apparent, and replaced it with what he said to Barbara Walters at an interview that he nor his brother had anyone role in politics while their dad was alive+ Bashar and his dad never supported dynasty in Syria. Bashar al-Assad's article is full of POV, synthesis ans BLP issues. I also probably unintentionally corrupted the article a bit. It needs attention and fixture. More importantly, it needs protection from Syrian opposition trolls. Feel free to remove everything I added. Thanks--Makerbuck1 (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of my edits, like huge part of the article, are not neutral and require definite removal. --Makerbuck1 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Makerbuck1, you are adding poorly sourced material (i.e. random bloggers with WordPress sites) exclusively to the lead of the article, while deleting WP:RELIABLE sources regarding Assad war crimes and other details. If you carry on like this you are just going to get yourself blocked—you are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS (your edits have been reverted by multiple editors), WP:NEUTRAL, as well as WP:RELIABLE. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by Widefox

User widefox is harassing me by reverting all my edit or adding harassment tags to my activity everywhere on wikipedia. He has not proved his claim of conflict of interest and still he is stalking my activity and adding tags to my editing to discredit me. I ask him to go to administrator and he does not because he does not have any proof.

I was reported by user Rahat that I made conflict of interest edit at a topic. I gave my evidence that I was not making conflict of interest edit so Rahat has withdrawn his report. This user widefox added me to his list of sockfarm without proof then tried to stop me from clarifying that Rahat has withdrawn his report. Rahat posted his clarification again on notice board only then widefox left that report alone. But he did not remove my name from his list of sockfarm. Then he came to this notice board and an admin told him to be careful who he calls sockpuppet. After this he added conflict of interest tag on talkpage 2 times but I left him alone. Widefox was trying to hinder discussion on talkpage as well. Then I started discussing with one user every single reference which is on going discussion. I even made controversy section longer. If I was ERA worker why will I make controversy long. I made its conclusion as reference said. But widefox wants to revise it to incorrect data. Now he is also saying I am also working for Jason Minter. He thinks I am working for everyone and he is deluded about this. If I was working for other people why am I discussing every single reference in so much detail. Please stop this user from disrupting all my debates and please stop him from discrediting me everywhere on wikipedia. Please see proof of my discussion on talk page. Widefox is still stalking me and harassing me. I created a new topic separate from ERA. Widefox also followed me to that topic and prejudiced a neutral user AuthorAuthor who was voting keep on deletion debate. There is no concern with notability of topic and he is only discrediting me so that he can delete all my edits. Widefox has started same behavior on this topic now he is adding harassment tag on talkpage with my name on it and he is bombing the subject page with tags as well. He has reported me on another notice board without concern to discredit me but I have only removed his harassment tag I even corrected his one edit back when he requested [229].

Widefox has not made even one proven report against me and he is obsessed with conflict of interest. One admin has told him to be careful and still he is stalking me and harassing me. I move that widefox should be blocked from wikipedia until my debates of reference discussion and article deletion are over. Widefox has not proven it on conflict of interest noticeboard or here. And he is telling me to "take it up to COIN" where there is no proof. So he should take it up to admin or stop following. If he does not stop following please block him. Thank you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) TheSawTooth has edit warred Electronic Recycling Association (I was uninvolved) until it was locked, and is now repeating at Jason Minter (afDed by Adamfinmo, where am I involved editing - mainly BLP source checking/maintenance templates). TheSawTooth has been reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheSawTooth_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 to prevent article being locked like ERA. Overwhelming behavioural evidence - articles/timing/ TheSawTooth account did 10 minor edits plus created Jason Minter draft then started promo editing ERA. Links with disclosed Fiverr editors at WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez, SPIs are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amyxcell/Archive . Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Pinging other editors who've commented Logical Cowboy, DGG. Comment about "careful" is from Dennis Brown about filing an SPI (see 2x SPIs above which weren't linked when he made that comment). Note I'm reworking the SPI as requested. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Update. Widefox is editing archive to manipulate my outcome of this investigation so that it appears that he has reported me for sockpuppet investigation. But it is clear that he has not reported me in this investigation which he is claiming by editing archive and he is only harassing me without case. Next I think he will add my name to investigation and lie about it too. So I am asking admins to keep check on this kind of manipulation it may be intentional. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith report: I noticed the SPI links weren't there for Dennis (which was his comment), but didn't notice it has just been archived. I've undone already realising the error. TheSawTooth is not on the SPI yet, it is already too big and the majority appear to be meats - I've already said I'm reworking it, which will take time. The behavioural evidence is at the SPIs, COIN, and ANI. Widefox; talk 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you file. Dennis - 2¢ 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. deletedhistory permission is a growing issue for me - an admin is needed to see deleted article edit histories. Widefox; talk 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The links you are looking for are [230], [231] and [232], where he just requested a speedy delete on an existing article for A7 (claim of importance). It was soon after deleted for G12 (copyvio). Dennis - 2¢ 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that Widefox is making a tremendous good faith effort to root out a big complicated mess of COI editing while following WP policies himself. I don't see any evidence he is getting "personal"--the only personal aspect seems to be TheSawTooth calling this "harassment" in this forum. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my impression as well. After poking around a bit, I can see why he would want someone to look closer. Dennis - 2¢ 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Extortion of money for page i have COI on

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

---

I would like to report what i consider to be extortion by the editor Logical Cowboy. He added an advertising flag on the page Khalilah Rose which i have COI on then proceeded to ask me to give him money. To support this i reference a conversation i had with him asking for his advice in how to improve the article. While he has been blocking the page, he also has been Asking me to split the money i have been paid with him. Please refer to this screenshot of the conversation as well

Conversation with Wikipedia Editor

. Even after i have edited the page, Logical Cowboy still has not removed the flags that he placed on this page and has made no effort whatsoever to tell me what is "advertising" about it. I first reported this activity on the COI notice board but got no response about this. Now he has taken to hindering my efforts on the other page Carmine Miranda that i am working on claiming that "Carmine Miranda is now apparently instructing another account to remove unfavorable information from the article". This is untrue and unproven because i am the one who has been engaged to edit this page and any other edits from Wikipedia are not related to me or my client. I may be new to Wikipedia editing but it seems to me that this user holding the article i have COI on hostage so he can extort money from me. I have ignored the request from Logical Cowboy to split the money i was paid for a Wikipedia article however he has proceeded to follow other pages i am involved in to make counterproductive comments that i suppose are designed to force me to agree to pay him. I hope something can be done about this user and thank you Lilianarice (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

References

A ludicrous accusation. Offering to split the money, publicly, at his talk page? He was obviously being facetious. I have worked with him on many matters regarding catching and blocking undeclared paid editors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Anna is completely correct here. He was being a bit snarky about the fact that you are getting paid to edit an article and you are asking for help. Frankly, I find his comment amusing and apropo. Coming here and twisting his humor into an accusation of extortion (which is not only against policy, but a crime in the state where Wikipedia hosts its servers) is offensive, as I refuse to believe you are really dumb enough to think that is extortion. My guess is that you thought you could win some points by bringing it here. You were wrong. If you have a COI, fine. If you are paid, fine. I really don't care, nor am I against getting paid as long as you are honest, and in that respect, you seem to be, so good for you. But some people don't like it, nor being asked to help someone collecting a check when they do it for free. That is a reasonable position, as is putting up the COI tags. So, suck it up, that is what you get paid for. Dennis - 2¢ 14:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Please review these blocks on IP addresses

Please see these blocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.249.93.185#Unblock_request also 66.249.93.188 As far as I can tell these IP addresses have previously made a single bad-faith edit each. For that they were given a year long block **with account creation disabled**. That IP address is used by GIFFGAFF (a mobile service provider in the UK, using the O2 network) and has jot as far as I know have been used as an open proxy. These vigorous blocks are **too harsh** - the vandals will have moved to a new IP Address long ago, and other editors are hit by the fallout. The normal response ("create an account" misses the point that most productive edits come from IP editors and that account creation was also blocked. My question: are these blocks normal? If they are the block notice (that appears when the editor tries to edit a page) needs to link to the IP talk apge so the editor can edit and add the template unblock request. I am not mentioning the blocking editor because this is not about him / her. I genuinely do not know how to add a comment to that editor's talk page -- I can't see the link to edit or add a new section to the talk page of their page. Here's an imgur link showing lack of edit / add new section link http://imgur.com/6850WZ9 Gustavail (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. Whois tells me that 66.249.64.0/19 (66.249.64.0 - 66.249.95.255) is assigned to Google Inc.[233], not to GiffGaff. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'd be quite surprised if GiffGaff/O2 traffic was coming from Google-registered IP address space. A traceroute from my location to that IP shows the traceroute going into a Google edge router directly peered to my ISP. -- The Anome (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't see any open ports. Not to say there wasn't 10 days ago, but currently looks clean. And yes, that is a google owned IP, reverses to google-proxy-66-249-93-185.google.com (66.249.93.185), which someone might mistakenly think is a "proxy" because that is in the name, but it isn't an open proxy, at least not now. Dennis - 2¢ 15:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

At a guess, this is a data compression proxy for the Chrome browser: https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/data-compression . If these proxies are not on the X-forwarded-for whitelist, they are definitely a problem, and should be treated as open proxies. -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I love learning new things. If you are correct that this is a compression proxy, then yes, that is the same as an open proxy, only worse since it doesn't look like one. Not sure if this needs to get bumped over to WP:OPP, where they can find the full range and block, but I would agree that we don't want any IPs with that feature unblocked here. Dennis - 2¢ 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We need to get a list of all of the ranges for these, whitelist them for X-forwarded-for, and then permablock the entire set of proxy IP addresses. Since it's only a /19, I could easily scan the PTR records for whole range of addresses from this particular range, but it would be better to get an official list from Google, since it would seem likely that Google operates separate proxy farms for different regions. -- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gustavail, have you notified the blocking admin, Gilliam?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THE LAST SENTENCE OF MY POST. Gustavail (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gustavail stomped on my last post, but I went and notified the blocking admin. Dennis - 2¢ 15:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you - apologies for yelling but this has been considerably frustrating. This experience is definitely why WP is losing editors. Gustavail (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be Google's FAQ about this proxy farm, but unfortunately it's not that useful for our purposes. I think the right answer is to punt this to the WP:OPP team, who have a lot more experience with this sort of thing (and also know about things like not trusting either PTR records or HTTP headers by themselves). If this is a standard Chrome feature, it may apply to a lot of potential editors. -- The Anome (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Gustavail, you only have a few edits, all to this ANI, I'm not sure what the basis is for declaring "this is what loses editors" is. Dennis - 2¢ 15:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

of course *this account* only has a few edits. I am an IP editor - and proudly so. This account was specifically created to get attention to the (what I originally thought) incorrect blocks of the underlying IP address. Here's a timeline: I use Chrome on iOS and visit the "collard greens" page. That page is blank -I've provided imgur screenshot links elsewhere- so I decide to let people know on the collard green talk page. I can't -- that IP was blocked. There's a notice about the block which tells me to put a template on my talkpage. There are no links to an IP editors talkpage anywhere, so I have to open a user's talk page, then replace that user name by copying and pasting the IP address from the warning page into the addressbar. That get's me my IP address talk page; I then copy and paste the unblock request template. I still haven't managed to tell anyone about the bug, so I try to create an account. This requires renewing my IP -more than once- and entering hard to read captures. So, now I have my account. I post this ANI request. I see that I am supposed to tell the relevant admin, so even though this is not about them and I don't want it to be I visit their page to try to tell them. There is no "edit" or "add new section" link on their page when I visit -- I make sure that I am signed in to my account. I take a screenshot and mention that I know I hae to informthe admin and say that I am unable to do so. An editor asks me if I've informed the blocking admin. So far I've spent about two hours and I have achieved absolutely NOTHING. The bug where some wikipedia content does not appear to users not-logged-into-an-account and using Chrome on ios seems to have been ignored; rather than having that IP address unblocked it seesm as though the block is going to be extended (there is currently a single bad faith edit from that IP address - and any good faith attempts to edit (such as mine) hae been blocked. OF COURSE NEW EDITORS ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE THIS FUCKING KAFKESQUE NIGHTMARE. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" used to mean something. the disincentive to making simple gnome edits - the vast majority of Wikipedia's good faith edits come from IP editors- is so strong that I'm not surprised when I read that editor numbers are dropping. It's impossible for many people to edit. Gustavail (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quacking loud, now you are a recipient of an indefinite vacation. Secret ^account 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)