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

WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner

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

---

This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

On the article Organic food, The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:

• That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
• In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
• Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".

This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Wikipedia, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which

• States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
• Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF, [[WP:CIVIL}, WP:CONSENSUS and that he be required to remove material stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS from his user page. With respect to my own behavior in this incident, I'll stipulate that it was not by any means perfect, and that I undertook 3 reversions in 24 hours for what I believe to be the first time in my career as an editor here. I'll do better in the future. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article Organic food. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of WP:MEDRS, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).

The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.

In fact, in this case it is Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Banner talk 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:

• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif

It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Formerly just asked Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of "whitewashing" which Banner blew off, writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, I suggest a topic ban for him. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. The Banner talk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at Organic food, who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? The Banner talk 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. The Banner talk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food due to the messiness of reality. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?

I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why WP:MEDRS is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable due to the messiness of reality.

It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. The Banner talk 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it [3]. The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:

1. Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."[4]
2. Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."[5]
3. "Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here." [6]

So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The Banner has already blown off all requests to revert or remove personal attacks, and seems unable to operate per WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. I no longer think a warning will suffice. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. 23.27.252.213 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks] that you got yourself blocked, mr. IP. The Banner talk 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban As constant violation of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS is unacceptable.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning this user completely This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Wikipedia. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least WP:CIVIL, the least collegial individual I have met in my 7 years on Wikipedia. He is a mass editor, primarily interested in inserting his WP:POV, his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete (what he below calls following him around). I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in. And ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.

The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.

The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this narrow topic ban would help. See his mass deletion of relevant content in nearly all topics you can think about. Also how fast he is given warnings and blames others of an edit war etc. I support Trackinfo s opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything from "Support banning this user completely" to the signature was added by Trackinfo; it's not that the siteban advocate failed to sign. Trackinfo, go to Special:Contributions/The Banner and underneath "User contributions" you'll see a section For The Banner (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log), or something like that; that's the easiest way to reach https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: [7] and here [8]. The Banner talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called Psychological projection. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. Everybody else is not crazy. You are. Trackinfo (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. This editor has been persistently disrupted the organic food article with their disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. Yobol (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing WP:CIVIL really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. Tutelary (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tutelary thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
  • reverts removal of OR with no edit note
  • adding biased sourced (http://www.organicitsworthit.org)
  • edit warring to keep biased source
  • jumping in in order to edit war with edit note "no need for censorship of positive things"
  • again jumping in to edit war and again on same content
  • again jumping in to edit war with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
  • there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. The Banner talk 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. The Banner talk 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true? Difs.

1) you again make personal attacks about whitewashing in edit notes and on Talk

2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly a first time and again a second time

3) you write "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"

very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your bad faith statement You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. And why are you not commenting about the part of research that is unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". Did you corner yourself with that statement? Come on, Jytdog, the only thing you want is to shut down a critical voice. Not because I am disruptive but because I am inconvenient. The Banner talk 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are there to see and I am describing your pattern of behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lack of self reflection on their behavior is more evidence that this topic ban needs to be placed. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And do you really think a topic ban will improve the article? Or is it just step one to scare away all other critical voices? Jytdog stated above that most scientific research is unreliable, still only scientific research more or less positive is shot down, not the scientific research that is more or less negative. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not the article's content. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is the content and the use of different systems to measure notability of new info. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Support a narrow (article specific) topic ban. Those advocating community bans here are among the first to resort to personal attacks, confess to collating "sh*t-sheets" and have atrocious AFD contribution records as immovable inclusionists. But the attitude here with regard to specific topic areas is problematic and Jytdog has made a reasonable case for a topic ban, limited to those articles where there have been problems. But anything broader than that seems unwarranted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've amended my position (reversed it, if you would). The ongoing discussions here have been enlightening and I'm quite glad they've remained open. What we've seen since my first contribution (2 weeks ago) is further and further refinement of the "issues". They still include The Banner's behaviour (in part) but watching those pushing for his topic ban interact without his active involvement in the area suggests there are other major problems here and many of them relate to content, not conduct. Those that do relate to conduct apply equally to some of those of both "sides". A plague on both your houses, if you like. There are many who seem to jump to personal attacks before WP:BRD and The Banner has been one of them in only a handful of related instances. I no longer think that applying a topic ban to him alone would resolve any of the substantive issues here, and so doing to would be contrary to our policies. This needs broader and more broadly applied restrictions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would define the topic as "organic food". Concretely that would be Organic farming, Organic food, and Organic milk. Those are currently the articles about organic food where Banner has been acting disruptively. I would also include Organic farming as the same kinds of disputes have broken out there and that would be a place where Banner could easily carry on this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (amended per below Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for supplying evidence that this is just a case of silencing. In regards to Organic farming, I have never edited there so I don't know why you think I was disruptive there. My last two edits on Organic milk were in July 2014, reverted by one Jytdog. Before that I have an edit in December 2013 and a few older, nearly all reverted. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, that you have not edited the Organic food article. I amended the statement above. My apologies.Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we institute topic-bans to prevent disruption so including an article in a topic ban because someone "could easily" be disruptive there is unlikely to be supported. It's not something I would support anyway. Organic milk looks similar - he has edited there, but not disruptively and not extensively. The problematic article would seem to be Organic food. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some comments by The Banner mentioned here indicate the editor is trying to "defend" the topic in general, so I don't think discussing a topic ban outside of just the article is entirely out of the question. Considering the editor has had problems with similar behavior in the past based on their block logs and those comments they've made, someone could make a decent case that the behavior is likely to keep occurring in closely related topics. That's also partly because there are a few different organic related articles out there. I'd personally just look for broad topic ban on organic food, but if the narrow approach is pursued, a short leash approach should be taken through a very direct warning that more bans will follow if problem behaviors pop up in other related articles as part of the remedy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And other articles/topics can always be added later if Jytdog's predictions prove accurate. If The Banner wants to prove him right and so migrates the same behaviour to other articles, he would only have himself to blame. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd just like to stress my main point there was that there's a history of this behavior not improving despite blocks already. A topic ban helps, but is a band-aid for a more widespread problem. Because of that, an admin warning would seem like a good minimum action besides a narrow topic ban in case the behavior isn't changed for the nth time. The behavior appears to be relatively widespread in addition to the very pointed examples for this article, so it seems like some ratcheting up is needed if these cycles of block/bans and going right back to the behavior issues afterwords continue. No one has really made a great case for wider community bans like you mentioned (nor do I think they are called for right now), but it does seem like there's enough to keep a short leash if this behavior keeps coming up in the future elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is in WP's interest to ban him from the organic food topic, but even just a ban from Organic food would be an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A neutral article is in the interest of Wikipedia, not silencing a critical voice. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way: this edit, in which you removed a POV-tag, is rather symptomatic for what is happing on this article. I am definitively not the only one critical about the neutrality of the article. The Banner talk 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If reliable sources say that organic foods are healthier than we should include that in the article. And I'm sure that there are probably many. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why ANI can be difficult. Mr. Guye reliable sources say that we cannot say that organic food is healthier. That is exactly the point here. Your "probably sure" is not how we do things in WP. Please actually read the article and the sources cited there, and please see the discussion on the talk page about sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember that this conversation is based on editor behavior. If it were just a content dispute, this conversation wouldn't be at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, only because you refuse to admit that it is in basic just a content dispute. Talk:Organic_food#Neutrality is again evidence how MEDRS is misused, in this case to brush away a POV-tag. The Banner talk 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is how you behave in content disputes as outlined above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, so permanently saying NO in a content dispute is allowed, as that is what happening here. See for example this one: You can't place a POV flag if the basis of the POV challenge is a challenge to WP:MEDRS. Its wikipedia policy. {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_food&diff=642669126&oldid=642668116] In my opinion, that is misusing a guideline (as MEDRS is not a policy as claimed but "just" a guideline) The Banner talk 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. If The Banner has long-term civility and edit warring issues across the encyclopedia, then first of all a topic ban from natural foods is not going to address that. Second, I would question (but have not checked) how many of those editors favoring a topic ban are the ones who are having a content disagreement on this article, or who have had run-ins with The Banner in the past. That certainly entitles them to an opinion, but inasmuch as they are involved and there is clearly a heated content dispute afoot, that kind of !vote is not an appropriate way to apply behavioral sanctions. At a very minimum, anyone deciding the issue should discount the vote and look at their actual edits and comments. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  My brief experience wading into this article suggests there is a serious problem with POV editors camping out to establish a scientific rather than encyclopedic approach. As such, I have re-added a POV tag. This is all a legitimate matter of content discussion, but not a good place to allow a science cabal to assert ownership of an article about a subject largely outside the scope of science. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I have been further warned not to add a POV tag. My attempt to describe the science there as science, etc., have been reverted. It's clear that there's a weird ownership issue on this particular article of smarmy science types who believe that the supremacy of peer-reviewed journal articles extends to food and taste. It's bizarre. Whatever civility problems The Banner may have, they've hit a dysfunctional editing environment here at this particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  And going against that is what is called "disruptive behaviour" here... The Banner talk 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Wikidemon the proposed topic ban is focused on the problem I am aware of. I interact little with Banner and have no comment at all on Banner's behavior elsewhere. That is a distraction from the issues at hand. Further, long-term disruption by an editor cannot be boiled down to a "content dispute". That is a mischaracterization - this is about behavior, not content. My sense is that you have not spent time investigating the history of the article and the discussions on Talk and the way that Banner has behaved, nor looked at the diffs we have provided. I encourage you to do that before you make the kind of judgement you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I would be frustrated too if an article was hijacked in this way on my watch, and I am indeed somewhat irritated by my brief exposure to the dysfunctional editing environment there — I just have the good sense to recognize lost battles rather than WP:BATTLE them. So, again, if TheBanner has a long term editing problem with how they react to reasonably perceived unencyclopedic editing practices, in this case a misplaced scientific focus of an article about food, then that ought to be addressed dispassionately by uninvolved editors, not used by the editors in question to enforce their point of view. Possibly this is no more than a dispute over the subject of the article, with neither side blinking but one side having a local consensus by numbers. The page is just fine as an article about the scientific evaluation of foods certified as organic, it would make a fine subsection or child article. It could be that the broader topic including the history, economics, production methods, politics, culinary evaluation, social perception, and so on, is a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to actual content, you're butting heads with very similar issues that editors have when first entering topics such as climate change, evolution, etc. Working in scientific topics is tough, especially when it's a new area for an editor. Folks at the talk page have discussed how you can start into the topic if you want, but being an encyclopedia means we reflect the science as our focus, and that has been upheld time and again. [9] Those are all things that if you want to discuss, that's better left at policy pages or the actual talk page. Here though we are discussing the behavior of The Banner. Whether a content dispute is "valid" or not is irrelevant when we're discussing when an editor acts inappropriately. Inappropriate actions are so whether someone thinks they are justified or not. There are dispute resolution options when someone wants to approach things civilly, but the whole case being brought here is that the user does not approach things civilly and users are tired of that specific disruption. If it was a content issues, we wouldn't be at this noticeboard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon I have looked over your contribs and I see you like to write about gastronomy, and were probably expecting a more "foodie" article on organic food. The essence of organic farming and organic food is its "purity" - that food produced organically is better (for the land, for the workers, for the consumer) because of how it is was made. In my view, people who want to learn about organic, want to understand how it is different from conventionally produced food. Much of that is handled in the organic farming article but things specific to food are addressed in the organic food article. Whether there are differences between organic and conventinally produced food, and what they might be, are questions that can be investigated with science. Now there may well be a "foodie" orientation that could add value to the article - I am not sure what that would be, but maybe content about organic restaurants, content bringing in overlaps with the Locavore movement (it appears that what differences in taste with regard to organic may be attributed to those overlaps)... stuff like that. There are ways your perspective could add value to the article. But that stuff is quite separate from what Banner has been doing, which has been disrupting the article because he has wanted content to be included that organic food is more healthy and that eating it makes people more healthy, and those claims have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and Banner has turned to disruptive behavior in protest. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are making things up, Jytdog. It is not a protest, it is plain concern about how a few people can keep an article POV and overly negative by applying a guideline (not a policy as is often claimed) that should not be applied at all. And what you do is just trying to silence a critical voice. The Banner talk 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• My point on the topic ban proposal is exactly as I say, that: (i) if The Banner's run-ins with other editors are broader than this one topic (which they may be if you do an archive search , then shooing them away on an article-by-article basis isn't useful; and (ii) complaints and !votes coming from one side of a POV dispute should be weighed carefully. The whole question of science and food comes in only inasmuch as this is a bona fide POV dispute, not one editor pushing fringe content. Being an encyclopedia means applying a scientific POV to claims about science, not to all of human knowledge. Whereas the "essence" of the organic food movement may be about meeting consumer desires for health, and environmental and social responsibility, the realization of those desires is an industry, a certification, distribution and retail channels, and a genre of food, which means that any intersection with science is only partial. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What I have been saying all along is we should look at this user's overall pattern of negativity. I have zero involvement with this topic. A small topic ban will not solve The Banner's general hostility to the opinions of other, well meaning editors (essentially forcing his POV); his constant incivility; and his mass deletion of relevant content. I fear this is about to fall off the ANI list into the archives with no resolution and he'll continue to get away with this pattern of activity . . . that is at least until he is back here again--as the above notation demonstrates he's apparently been in ANI 48 times already. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And what is the relevance of that? Are you so desperate to get me blocked that you start using every form of harassment to get what you want? While you have been warned by an admin to stop harassing me multiple times? Want to keep gambling with that? The Banner talk 12:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this narrow topic ban would help at the article in question at least. Problems in other topics just establish the editor has been made aware of the problem behavior many times for the purpose of this ANI. If someone wants to pursue issues in a wider range, probably better to take a similar approach to WP:ROPE and see what happens after action on this specific topic. This has been open for 11 days now with one oppose actually asking about behavior with some good conversation following that, so maybe it would be helpful if an admin would give their assessment of consensus at this point unless more folks have comments on The Banner's behavior? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree WP:ROPE would give everybody a chance to either see a correction in his behavior or to finally rid ourselves of him. What it takes is follow up. Like I said, he's been in ANI 48 times, this has been here you say for 11 days and yet nobody has taken the action to look at his record. Yes, its massive. He is on the cusp of being a top 1,000 editor and there are literally thousands of edits he's made that are protested by other editors; in hostile retorts to those protests; or defending his actions here and elsewhere. So let him hang himself, but it takes serious follow up, essentially a full time job. I tried to follow him for just a short period of time and it is too much labor to fight every hostile thing he does. And he bites. Of course, I'm not an admin. I did it the right way for an editor. For each erroneous deletion, I came back with multiple sources. That takes the defender much more work than his snap delete policy. So the investigation could be exhausting. He is great spouting off policy excuses, he will wikilawyer you on every point, repeatedly, but its all Bullshit. When do you say, enough is enough? He has already used up more than enough rope for me. Trackinfo (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo, how many times are you warned to stop harassing me? I guess you did not get that message at all. The Banner talk 12:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So folks, my appeal to get an Administrator to seriously look at this guy will get you this: " This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Banner talk 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" Trackinfo (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell that admin Drmies has already told you twice to stop harassing me. Trackinfo! The Banner talk 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note - Banner's disruptive behavior of making personal attacks has been continuing, even as we are discussing his behavior here:
  • dif not getting it, saying this ANI is about content. "I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. "
  • dif just today: continuing the personal attacks, "Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause". He doesn't even understand the problem. WP:IDHT Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrefutable proof of...something.

• • Jytdog, are you serious? You call those statements "personal attacks"? The Banner does, it is true, use strong language every now and then, but I see nothing here that is even worth discussing, and I get the feeling that some (who aren't editors of that article, for instance) are just looking for an excuse to get Banner in trouble. Now, if the aggravating circumstances are to be found in some words and a picture on Banner's user page, I suggest that Formerly 98 removed the image from their talk page that proves without a shadow of a doubt that they are a troll. I'm kidding. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit, I'm a good-looking guy....:>) Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, I was pleased to be able to copy something fun and immediately appropriate here. Thanks for making my argument for me! Seriously, I don't think you'll gain much traction here from Banner's user page, which is probably why no one who isn't involved with the organic bit seems to have commented here... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its just me Drmies, but I'd say there is a difference between posting a tongue-in-cheek self portrait on one's userpage, and declaring one's intent to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and edit war on the other. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been stressed multiple times above and elsewhere to The Banner that a content dispute is not an excuse for behavior like this, but they keep going back to saying this is just a content dispute. Attempts to direct them towards the issue of their behavior in a helpful and good faith are met with hostility as can be seen in the responses throughout this poist. In the example diffs I gave above, I also left The Banner a warning on their talk page after constantly refusing to come to the article talk page, followed by The Banner leaving a warning on my talk page about edit warring for trying to get them to start discussing [10]. I tried to stress that the reason their reverts were being reverted was because they were ignoring repeated requests to come to the talk page [11], but it seems by that exchange that this user is more interested in going after those who point out their problem behavior. As Jytdog mentioned, definite IDHT behavior than acknowledging a problem, so it doesn't seem any amount of discussion will alleviate the issue, hence why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kingofaces43, what I see is three diffs from August of last year where you revert the addition of apparently verified content with a somewhat lame reference to STATUS QUO--one man's status quo is another man's impeding progress. If those reverts are the extent of Banner's disruption (a half a year ago), well...and have you noted that, if Banner is edit warring there, then you are too? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I wouldn't call it blatant edit warring on my part (at least in comparison). How else are we supposed to respond when an editor ignores a current ongoing discussion? Remember that each time I had to ask for the talk page discussion to continue or for The Banner to rejoin the conversation rather than edit war contrary to the current discussion. The whole problem was that The Banner was trying to circumvent the discussion. The spirit of WP:EW is that we try to engage in discussion when there is a disagreement on content (as I was doing). I was trying to re-engage The Banner in discussion to bring them back to the conversation each time rather than trying to fight for content. Perspective matters here, so it's helpful to remember there was already discussion going on before the linked reverts.

Basically, another editor added the content unsourced, discussion ensued. They brought some sources they thought would work, but the sources didn't' support the content as there was some orignial research going on to make the statement. There was quite a bit of discussion about this under the Perceptions heading I linked you to. The Banner had been involved in that conversation too, so he knew about it. At that point there was no consensus for a source that worked for the content and we were in the process of finding sources that would work. That's why I removed the unsourced content (the status quo comment) citing the ongoing work at the talk page since we were actively trying to rework the content and find sources. That's pretty standard practice for challenged new content, especially if unsourced while its being discussed and reworked. Keep in mind this was all before the reverts by The Banner, so there was plenty of talk page discussion. Then he tried to reinsert the content with the source that had been challenged already. I reverted pointing him back to the ongoing talk page discussion that he had already been involved in, but the reverts continued. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Also just to be clear, I never claimed this was the only incident of disruption at the article. I just gave it as a single example of the problematic behavior that I've experienced to keep things concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmies thanks for commenting, and for injecting some fun into the discussion. {i love that self-portrait :) } As I wrote above, I've been ignoring Banner's constant focus on contributors not content on Talk and the nasty remarks he keeps making, and his edit warring to retain any piece of crap content that is added as long as it is "positive" about organic food, and have asked him to contribute constructively. But when he threw down the gauntlet I felt he crossed the line. He has thrown AGF completely out the window and has not used any DR processes and has just degenerated into disrupting the article. It's time for him to go. At any point in this discussion he could have said, "hey, ok, i've been acting like a dick because i'm frustrated. sorry, I will use DR processes and chill out on Talk." he has come nowhere even near that - instead he is now making martyr-ish remarks. really it's time for him to be topic banned. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, I just don't see it. We've topic-banned plenty of people on this very board, but I don't see how Banner's behavior is a matter of reproach in the first place. I have skimmed the talk page and I may have missed a note or two, but what I expected to find there was some serious hardcore discussion of sources, and I don't see it. And the other thing I expected was maybe an RfC or two about the specific wording of this change or that, and I don't see that either. One could easily flip the tables and say that one editor is here being gang-tackled by a group of editors who also (note Kingofaces's linked edits) removed sourced content--and, one should add, this is supposed to be a two-way street: did you all seek dispute resolution? Finally, I don't see the personal attacks or the persistent focus on contributors, not content, that Banner is accused of. Can we not use our time more productively on the talk page? Have you considered 3O, or soliciting the opinion of some MEDRS experts? Later, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking questions here Drmies (I'd rather see that than just support/opposes). I won't have time to respond to much else than this until later, but if you're referring to my three diffs up at my support post, you might have misread the situation. The content was originally unsourced by another user, and some discussion was already ongoing with multiple editors at the time before The Banner even added it, but there wasn't consensus that it was appropriate for the content well before my links. We basically were discussing a lot, but The Banner seemed to decide to just go ahead and add/revert the sources and content in. It's a little ways back (and a bit of read), but the conversation was here [12]. I'll comment on the other things later tonight when I'm back if no one else addresses them by then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Drmies, we have been putting up with this for two years now:

• in November 2012 Banner first edited the article, leaping into an edit war (see the history here, around November 2012 to include sources like http://www.factorfizzle.com to support content on the safety and nutrient value of organic vs conventional food.
• Banner's first comment on the article Talk page was also back in November 2012, and he asked, "why MEDRS"
• his first response to the first answer went right to "Blatant nonsense" [13]
• Actually I was wrong about no DR. Zad68 opened a mediation that failed back in December 2012 over all the ruckus and edit warring Banner caused then.
• there were efforts to frame an RfC (here and here that failed - and if you read those, you can see why.
• I got involved in late December and suggested a compromise - namely to handle "chemical" differences (of which some can actually be identified) separately from "health differences" from eating organic (none have been identified) (see here). That compromise has endured since then.
• but Banner has been railing against the use of MEDRS for health claims about organic food for two years now. Please walk in our shoes. And you are ignoring his dare when asked to strike yet another charge of whitewashing: "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". So what will the community do? How do we live with this guy who cannot hear that we need to use MEDRS for health claims? (a two year case of IDHT) Those are not rhetorical questions - I am really asking for your advice. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Why don't you tell that I initiated a possible RfC twice but that "you guys" (to give a short summery of the different people involved) could not accept my proposal? And why is there constant trouble at Organic food about stuff being removed? Quite often it were others adding stuff and seeing it removed on grounds of "failing MEDRS" or the polular "WP:OR". Is it not possible that something is wrong with the tight application of MEDRS when so many people have trouble with it? Only this year (just 19 days old) it happened to three other users to see their edits reverted by mr. Jytdog. We are talking about food, but sources from agricultural colleges and universities are often rejected as unreliable of failing MEDRS. And scientific research was, according to you, unreliable due to the "messiness of reality" but still you accept some scientific research, especially when it is vague or negative about organic food. You should apply the same rules for all scientific research, not cherrypicking the best ones for your goal. The Banner talk 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is policy. If you don't like it, the appropriate response is to work to change the policy, not to ignore it and and attack the characters of those who apply it. That's pretty much the way it works here and at any other organization for that matter. If you decide the rules don't apply to you because you don't agree with them, sanctions usually follow. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(MEDRS is a guideline, Formerly!) There is so much more to Banner's bad behavior. I guess I am going to have to catalog the whole ugly history. That will take some time. But here is another example - a totally WP:POINT-y nomination for deletion back in November 2012. Sheesh. And it hasn't gotten much better. I will bring a whole slew of diffs on Talk and the article later. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you really that desperate to get me topic banned that you have to go back more then two years to find excuses? Sheesh. The Banner talk 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's called "establishing a pattern". If it goes back two years, then the time period is not the deal-killer you're making it out to be; quite the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You can also look at it from the other side: they claim that the article is neutral and the use of MEDRS is valid. But there is a pattern of other people who also claim that the article is not neutral and that the application of MEDRS is at least heavy handed. The Banner talk 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Questions?. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any action yet after this long considering we've had pretty clear personal attacks/civility issues and edit warring The Banner resorts to, especially when consensus is against them due to reliable sources, due weight, etc. Considering that, are there any questions about something that isn't clear about the specific behavior issues for other folks reading here? What exactly are people looking for to make a decisions one way or another?

The Banner just can't accept that their behavior in attempting to deal with content they disagree with is problematic and tries to claim they are being attacked instead in some fashion instead of trying to avoid the behavior problems. [14] Past history (apparently 48 ANIs) shows this behavior is a persistent problem, so I'd like to see if we can get some kind of resolution so those of us at the article don't need to keep putting up with continued personal attacks and aspersions whenever we do something The Banner doesn't agree with. It seems we have more than enough for the proposed warning by Formerly 98 at a minimum, and a topic ban seems like a no-brainer for anyone who's had to deal with the behavior first hand at least, but what kind of information are uninvolved editors looking for? Hopefully answering that can bring this to a close if something is unclear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - A topic ban is drastic and excessive for this incident on organic foods. The inserted statement at that article, while true, is vague in meaning, so it says little. I've also seen problems around MEDRS, as I have a history with it, and have seen other editors have a history with it. There were times where I believed there was false consensus, and eventually seen those articles grow more neutral. I've seen editors come and go, and had this belief there was NPOV, when they inserted something reliable, but it was removed because it wasn't a review, or they didn't have access to the review. The whitewashing remark looked like the perceived actions, and not necessarily a personal attack. I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, this has been an ongoing issue, not an isolated incident just to make sure that is clear. From your response, it seems like you might have taken just a glance at a few things (completely understandable given the length of this). The reason The Banner is being discussed is because of their behavior, not a content dispute. Voicing a concern of whitewashing is one thing on a talk page (variable in appropriateness), but edit warring citing white washing by users rather than specific reliable source or weight concerns is a problem because it contributes to the history attacking editors. The snipes are very directed at editors and not content if you follow the diffs and the talk page discussions linked above, and below by Jytdog. What do you think is the best way to prevent the behavior issue regardless of dispute with that in mind? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm just an outside observer here but I've been on the receiving end in the past of what felt like a tag-team effort by Jytdog, Formerly98 and KingofAces43. Spending a few days studying their edit histories is very informative. They, plus some other editors like Yobol(and a few others), seem to work as a team. That's my impression. And their edits tend to be beneficial to the big end of town, never the other way around. It could be coincidental, but thought it worth mentioning. Under these circumstances, Banner should receive the benefit of the doubt. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note for anyone trying to determine consensus, but it would seem like MLPainless has a separate ax to grind here as they aren't commenting on The Banner's behavior in their opposition. They've run into frustration in tackling WP:FRINGE topics at Talk:Vani Hari and Talk:Sunset Yellow FCF somewhat recently, which is what their above comments are based on. The editors that have interacted with MLPainless are largely from over at WP:MED (e.g. [15]) when problems at those articles were discussed there, and those editors came to check things out.

As a science editor, I for one get very tired of people passionate about a topic casting aspersions like above (shills, white-washing, etc. from some other editors) whenever they don't agree. It's a distraction at best, which is why we're hoping for some kind of action in the case of The Banner to get them to stop the behavior. If they actually want to discuss content instead of lashing out, then that's what we're looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean: within 3 hours of my comment above, user "Formerly 98" went through my edit history and deleted/modified edits I made at Atrazine, edits that tended to raise some flags of concern about a hugely profitable pesticide. If you look at that article's history, you'll see him and Jytdog (and Kingfaces43) removing all possible comments that cast a negative light on Atrazine. Their editing is almost entirely exonerating of the chemical, despite numerous primary studies showing problems. Those studies, even when there are several, by different researchers, all pointing to a similar conclusion, are tagteam deleted on the grounds of "not a secondary or review study". And even when I included a review study, it was deleted on the grounds that the review study was "polemic".

Now I don't care that Wikipedia is being expunged of any trace of doubt about profitable chemicals, and that all evidence for organic food is being deleted under the guise of MEDRS, but I'm not going to resile from commenting that it is happening, and that it's a shame. I've also looked at Banner's history and I really cannot see what the fuss is about. He can be a bit gruff, but not to the point of topic banning. This seems like yet another content dispute in which the corporate view is being rammed through. MLPainless (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sure The Banner has an obnoxious personal style, but that is not a crime on Wikipedia. I am more concerned about the allegations of corporate tage-team spamming. It takes two teams to edit war. IMHO it is the proposer who needs a good spanking for wasting our time here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner's history on the article and Talk

This is quite a wall of text. but it seems that folks aren't getting the history here. So here it is.

• article Banner came in hard and edit-warring, pretty much vanished, and has come back since the fall getting more and more nasty.

• 18 November 2012 adding content about nutrition based on primary source
• 22 November 2012 edit warring to retain content added by him and another editor
• 23 November 2012 continues edit warring
• 24 November 2012 continues edit warring
• 24 November 2012 edited out PSCI content on homeopathy and placed POV tag
• 25 Nov 2012 edit warred to keep tag in
• 29 Nov more of same
• 30 Nov nominated for deletion
• 30 Nov POINTy deletion of sources
• 2 Dec after bunch of crap content based on crap sources was reverted, Banner edit warred it back in this is the first of a pattern of doing this, as you will see
• 4 Dec more edit warring
• 4 Dec article protected due to EW
• 22 Dec taking out good source
• 23 Dec edit warring over that source
• 24 Dec edit warring over same source
• 24 Dec edit warring over same source
• 24 Dec article protected again
• 20 Jan 2013 my first slew of edits, after Talk discussion, that mostly resolved the issues that had been edit warred over
• 22 Mach constructive edit reverts vandalism/test edit
• 29 June constructive edit reverts addition of dubious content
• 3 Dec 2013 constructive edit reverted addition of dubious content
• 21 July 2014 back to edit warring over MEDRS
• (note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
• 20 AUg 2014 Banner edit wars to keep OR/unsourced content in article after it was reverted
• 25 Aug more of same
• 25 Aug 2014 more of same
• 28 Aug edits by me that resolved the issues until another editor validly challenged some it
• 18 Sept Banner edit wars over that, calling "censorship"
• 6 Jan 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_food&diff=641172464&oldid=641160886 banner returns to edit warring to revert removal of badly sourced content, with edit note: "The permanent habit of removing things is quite annoying..."
• 6 Jan edit warring to keep that content in, again (but with nice edit note)
• 6 Jan edit warring again now with nasty note again: to counter the whitewash and POV"

• talk page

Am just giving sections for the hell that broke loose when Banner 1st entered the article, with much vitriol on his part.

• 24 Nov 2012 Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Removal_of_.22Health_and_Safety.22_section Banner proposes just removing Health and Safety section.
• 26 Nov, Zad opens section to discuss Banner's tagging edit warring Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Details_of_specific_POV_issues.3F
• 4 Dec Montanabw opened discussion after article was locked for edit warring Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Article_protection
• All of archive 3 is just ugliness, all around Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3
• series of constructive comments when I entered and started moderating the dispute
• 30 Dec 2012 16:33 reasonable
• 31 Dec reasonable, helpful
• 1 Jan reasonable and reasonable
• 1 Jan back to "I have strong the impression that two editors due to their personal believes, misused WP:MEDRS to prevent anything positive in the article. Exactly the same is happening at Organic milk (and is locked too)."
• 2 Jan reasonable
• 2 Jan turning back to broadside against MEDRS, oy and more of same and more and more
• 2 Jan 22:25 very reasonable
• 2 Jan 22:13 sharp but reasonable and again
• 3 sliding back into unconstructive - conspiracies
• 3 Jan constructive and again
• 4 Jan - I proposed a compromise here
• 6 Jan 2013 2:19 nice comment on Talk after my sandboxed proposal
• 6 Jan 18:14 nice comment on proposal
• 7 Jan bitterness about past war
• 8 Jan in discussion about independent sources, attacks MEDRS again and brings up dread "citations on google scholar" argument
• 9 Jan 1:58 now saying MEDRS sources are corporate/corrupt
• 9 Jan 2013 series of reasonably constructive edits here
• 22 Jan 2013 03:37 constructive contribution on merge discussion here
• 22 Jan 3:55 constructive contribution' keeping wacky content out
• (note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
• 20 Aug 2014 20:26 makes cynical comment about MEDRS, interrupting efforts to teach new editor about sourcing and OR
• 20 Aug 20:38 more of same
• 20 Aug 20:57 more of same, arguing about OR to keep "positive" content in article
• 20 Aug 21:10 in response to my frustrated comment, accuses me of "strangling" the article
• 27 Aug 14:41 justifies his edit warring on the basis that "It is quite annoying to see everything positive removed in this article with every time other rather poor excuses."
• 27 Aug 15:10 just more personal attack in the midst of edit warring
• 28 Aug calls article "an anti-organic blog.... The agricultural viewpoint is nowhere in the article. And it are farmers and growers who produce organic food, not medical scientists."
• 29 Aug Bizarre rant: "To the point that even chemical comparisons have been removed as being health claims. Sometimes it gives me the eerie feeling that when Monsanto claims that Agent Orange is perfectly safe, it is believed straight away. But a claim that Agents Orange is dangerous, should be backed up with thousands of sources but 95% is rejected immediately as unreliable, for instance because the sources are Vietnamese."
• 29 Aug explains why he is talking about Agent Orange, finally
• 4 Nov complains again about MEDRS being "misued to keep valuable information out of the articles"
• 1 Dec claims we have a "keep it out of the article" policy
• 6 Jan 2015 admits he is edit-warring in unsourced content; accuses other of "silencing" and whitewashing"
• 6 Jan in respond to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organic_food&diff=next&oldid=641176345 request to talk in a civil way, asks question about NPOV (which was wasn't mentioned before as reason for deletion]
• 6 Jan arguing over MEDRS
• 6 Jan discussing edit war after the fact, claiming other editor reverted "not with explanation" (there was here and here)
• 7 Jan the throwing down of the gauntlet
• 15 Jan trying to use my statement about "messiness" to fight the application of MEDRS, oy
• 16 Jan asked a semi-real, albeit POINTy question about something I said
• 17 Jan playing the martyr over ANI
• 19 Jan 2015 sarcasm & personal attack

There you go. You can see the whole thing there. Like I said - came in ugly. got frustrated, and now comes back mostly in WP:POINT-y ways, making personal attacks and disrupting discussion. Please topic ban him. I will settle for a strong warning to 1) stop discussing contributors and discuss content, with a topic ban the next time he does so; and 2) to use WP:DR tools to deal with his concerns instead of venting on the rest of us and edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a nice list of my edits. I guess each and everyone was reverted...

And it is interesting to see that Jytdog gets irritated when I used his own words "due to the messiness of reality" to question the content of the article. I am willing to believe the "due to the messiness of reality"-statement but than it has to be applied on all content, not just the inconvenient content. The Banner talk 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I note an interesting gap between end of August 2014 and beginning of November (after almost daily attention in August) in his attention to the article that corresponds to my issues with him. Starting September 1, he nominated a slew of articles for deletion, documented by @Tomwsulcer: here that I suggested were, as a package, in bad faith. I explained my concern on his talk page. Tomwsulcer also commented and was deleted. @Milowent: also tried to talk sense to him to deaf ears here. I laid it on thick here and his response was to delete it within 5 minutes. He went through the four stages of warning me in 6 minutes here to here, which is certainly not the way the system is intended but got to the point that by the technicality he could use the stop or get blocked threat (which he used repeatedly, see above). So I had an active, conscious vandal, deliberately trying to force his POV through AfD nominations. I challenged all his bad faith AfD nominations the proper way, by adding sources he deliberately failed to find from the first pages of Google when attacking these articles. I won every case, which clearly shows he is the one out of line. Originally I tried to show how each individual bad faith nomination was not a singular event but part of a package. Apparently according to user:Drmies, disclosing these facts, suggesting the offender should be stopped, are personal attacks. So I had to back off. I gave a few key notations in this summation for brevity, there's plenty more.

The general point is, he didn't calm down and stop being obnoxious, he only diverted his efforts toward me for a couple of months. When I backed off, he turned his attention back to the article in question. There is an obvious pattern of behavior here. He's a moving target causing trouble to multiple users wherever he goes and as I have said above, is in need of serious disciplinary action (or psychological help) beyond this one complaint. Somebody please go through his history (contact me and I'll be glad to guide you to the dirt I have, both my interactions and his conflicts with more than 30 other users) and make a reasonable determination if we want this person constantly making hostile edits and interactions as a representative, as a member of our team. Do we want him to take ownership of any article he chooses to get involved with? Do we want more 3RR violations, more civility disputes, more wikilawyering to force POV and points into articles of his choosing? It is obvious even from his comments here, he will use any tactic and tool possible to bully his "opponents" to get his way. If you just topic ban him on this one topic, it will not solve the problem, he will just take his show elsewhere. After he has assaulted another editor with his barrage of tactics, they might get to the point that they find their way back to ANI with him and we do this dance again. Trackinfo (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to find the AfDs I was referring to in my warning--what was problematic was the personal attacks you made in those AfDs. "Personal attack" is a matter of tone, and I think you have a problem finding the right tone every now and then. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact I was trying to ignore your silly quest to get me blocked. I tried to ignore your personal attacks and harassment. But yu won't give up. And accusing me of a bias against articles related to pageants is not true. There is clearly a problem but you seem to ignore it. And the problem there is, amongst others, this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. And yes, I have send your attack page to MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner). How long do you want to go on and on and on? The Banner talk 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to note above that I made a good faith effort to discuss this issue headon with Banner and with the new editor I mentioned above, Redddbaron (a farmer who is new to WP and its sourcing guidelines). That discussion is here: here] It sadly devolved into personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It would have been better when you offered this link: Talk:Organic food/Archive 5#concerns about bias...., an interesting story of not listening to the real content problem. You are willing to listen to everything, except anything that questions the application of MEDRS and flawed neutrality of the article due to the strict application of MEDRS. You talk about everything here, except the content problems. The Banner talk 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the focus of this ANI is your behavior. There are many ways to resolve content disputes which you have not attempted to use for over two years now - you have reduced yourself to making disruptive, heckling, SOAPBOX comments like this and disruptive reverts in the article like this. Your contributions have not been constructive for a long time now. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are bluntly ignoring the fact that the talk page of Organic food is now filled with accusations of the article being POV. The behaviour that you dislike so much, is nothing more than me keeping pointing at how POV the article is. Instead of doing something about the POV, an opinion shared by many others, you just try to silence somebody you never managed to silence before. The fact that you even try to close the talk page of organic food for discussion is quite serious: see here. The Banner talk 16:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

requesting close

This has gone on long enough and we have crept to the top of this page. Can an admin please review and close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I just requested a close at the "request close" board here. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Winkelvi

User page

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) is using his User page to criticize, without naming him, User:Coretheapple, with whom he is an edit-war over on Bess Myerson, currently discussed on WP:AN3. Winkelvi has used his user page to criticize other (unnamed) editors, in violation of WP:POLEMIC, one month ago over an incident reported here, and was told, here, this was a violation, and an admin reverted his User page. Seeing the new attack, I reverted it twice, making sure the edit history was clear as to the reason. Winkelvi insists on keeping the attack. At this point, I leave it to admins. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. My comments in my user space are not now and never have been directed toward any one editor. Choor monster is, in my opinion, using the AN3 report to attack me there and here as well as harass me at my User Page by editing it not once, but twice (the second time after I told him to stop). This report and his edit warring at my User Page is about retaliation and trying to create drama in my direction, nothing more. Choor Monster wants to see me blocked and punished, plain and simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

POLEMIC applies regardless if it is directed at one editor or a group. -- Calidum 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter whether the criticism was introduced with specific others in mind or not. Quoting from WP:POLEMIC as to what's not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Diff added: [16], note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the WP:AN3 dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw the "ping" of my user name. As I understand it, the language in question is [17]. Yes this is obviously a guarded reference to my report at AN3, but given his past record at that board, and his being blocked based on a "list of diffs" at that board in the past, I'm not sure how anyone other than Winkelvi is harmed by drawing attention to it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of harm, whether to others being attacked or to Winkelvi embarrassing himself: it's simply not allowed. His restoring the polemics is explicitly considered a form of disruptive editing. See link above to last month, when similar "anonymous" childish polemics on his user page were noticed and deleted by an admin. Also note Winkelvi's edit summaries: massive hypocrisy as he claims WP:OWNership. Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I never did get why the original POLEMIC complaint here did not rate compared to the previous POLEMIC referred to above that was removed. At least his newest criticism of editors comes with a soothing nature illustration. Perhaps it's a defense against trouts? Choor monster (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

He is using his userspace to criticize, without naming, me now. [18] This revision was added after he was warned for edit warring again just yesterday and asked to stop editing All About That Bass for a week at User talk:Winkelvi. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The user has just confirmed to the WP:WIKIHOUNDing accusations by reverting me here. Note that they never edited this page before that one and out of nowhere reached to revert my contribution. MaRAno ^FAN 08:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary says that he is removing content not contained in the cited source. This is not wikihounding. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a good or bad edit is irrelevant in the definition of wikihounding. In fact, part of the reason WV shows up in ANI a lot is because of his atrocious habit of prolonging conflicts with specific editors. He'll be in some conflict, repeatedly Template an opponent (usually unaware of any hypocrisy on his part), asked to stay off the opponent's Talk page, respond by saying it's his right and duty (again, pure hypocrisy), and then find (or even bait) some borderline infraction of the opponent so he gets to Template the opponent's Talk page again. Not officially wikihounding, no, but his inability to rise above "nyeah nyeah nyeah" behavior has become endlessly tiresome. On his Talk page right now, his left hand is promising to never edit war again because he really really gets the message, while his right hand is defending his (for-now-blocked) aggressive, incompetent, and ultimately pointless reversion of a minor addition to Sally Field. Choor monster (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course it's wikihounding. If I did that I'd be roasted over a slow fire. Re your Sally Field reference, I think you're referring to this revert. He is correct that it is unsourced. On his user talk page, he defended that by paraphrasing WP:BLPSOURCES. However, by so doing, he shows that he does not understand BLPSOURCES. Policy requires removal of material "challenged or likely to be challenged." But the passage in question says that Sally Field was going to host TCM! It is not at all controversial or likely to be challenged. He should have tagged it (or better still, taken a few seconds to find a source, such as [19]) and not hit the revert button. This kind of thing keeps on happening again and again, and Winkelvi reacts by apologizing profusely to administrators, pledging on a stack of bibles not to do it again, and then doing it again. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding is defined as introducing conflict on more than one page beyond any initial interaction, pages that could only reasonably be found by scanning an editor's history. I haven't see that: WV is careful to stick to one new page per opponent.

(I replaced my "reversions" with "reversion".) Note that his previous reversion on the Sally Field article cited WP:CRYSTAL incompetently: forward-looking announcements are allowed. That's right, he edit wars without knowing policy. A few weeks ago, he edit-warred deleting references because he was unaware that foreign language sources are acceptable.

I think nothing less than a 1RR restriction on WV will work when the block is finished. And he has to permanently agree to stop misusing the word "vandalism" and "harassment". And probably respect every last request to stay off User Talk pages. Otherwise, these time-wasting absolutely repetitive reports are just going to keep on coming and coming and coming. Bleah. Choor monster (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the wikihounding rule is quite that narrow. If I check out the contribs of a user I'm in conflict with and then pop up to revert him, I'm at least violating the spirit of the rule and gaming the system. MaranoFan is no angel but he's not a serial vandal who needs to be followed around to revert misconduct. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "hound" you mean this little guy, well sure. Choor monster (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's about right. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Oso mudslide

I am not involved in any of the pages mentioned here, but I have encountered Winkelvi (aka WV) at 2014 Oso mudslide, where he was notably aggressive with contentious edits, several times amounting to edit warring. This is a persistent behavior; the comment by Bbb23 (below) that "Winkelvi can be difficult at times" is an understatement. I think you will find Choor Monster's comment prophetic: without action beyond temporary blocks (which WV admittedly just waits out) these reports will "keep on coming and coming and coming". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide more detail on my previous comment. Winkelvi's behavior at 2014 Oso mudslide shows a pattern of aggressively deleting other editors' work that falls just short of edit warring. E.g.:

• here (13:08 25 Mar and subsequent) with Mongo;
• here (02:19 26 Mar and subsequent) with Lattetown;
• here (11:26 01 Apr) and subsequent with Mongo;
• here (01:29 10 Apr and subsequent) on material I had added;
• here (02:50, 11 Apr and subseqent) (massive deletions);
• here (23:31, 19 Apr and subsequent) with Forestrystudent (many edits on 19 April, some of which are questionable, but I didn't wade through them);
• and again (15:41, 26 Apr and subsequent).

I point out that the problem is not the edits themselve (some of which I aggreed with), but in the aggresiveness in pursuing them, which discourages other editors from participating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can verify I experienced bullying from Winkelvi when contributing to 2014 Oso mudslide...

• Winkelvi's first post to make me aware of editing dispute policy (after he reversed my edits) was combative and threatening. [20]
• After becoming more familiar with the edit conflict policies I pointed out that he made disruptive edits and went back and forth with him about how they were disruptive.[21]
• When I referenced "Jimmy's Rules" to describe disputes and the relative prominence of opposing views from Neutral POV Winkelvi's reply was disrespectful: "Jimmy's rules"? Thanks for my morning laugh."
• Ironically he further engaged in Wikilawyering while accusing the other editors who disagreed with him of doing the same. — Lattetown (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's about par for the course. Winkelvi tends to be very sensitive in regard of taking offense, and accusing others of rudeness, "insults and personal attacks", edit-warring, battleground mentality, etc., while he engages in the same behavior.

• Example: when deleted a comment of mine, which Gorthian restored with an innocuous edit summary of "Please do not delete talk page comment". Winkelvi then chided Gorthian for "assuming the worst", that the edit summary was "wrong, not AGF", thus violating AGF himself.

• Example: his disparate take on WP:BRD. Regarding other editors' work he says on the talk page (03:07/03:11, 11 Apr): "In the spirit of WP:BRD, I removed the section on scientific speculation, hypothesis, and other cruft that was some of the worst example of WP:UNDUE I've ever seen in an article." Regarding removal of his edits he says (22:42 19 Apr): "Let's discuss while the edits are still in place. And leave the insults and personal attacks out while you're at it."

Other examples can be found at Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. I suspect that he is not aware of the asymmetry of his sensitivities, and so might escape a charge of intentional bullying, but the effect is pretty much the same. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bess Myerson

• • • OK. Putting aside this matter, I'd appreciate it if administrators could monitor Talk:Bess Myerson. The article has been protected but there are still issues. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt administrators have been monitoring it and the article for a couple of days now, Coretheapple. Yes, there are "issues". Not the least of which is your refusal to work cooperatively with and cease being uncivil toward me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, then it is a good thing they are there. Peace. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify: when I said there are "issues," I was referring to the copyright violations that you have said are present in the article. You said in a talk page post a few hours ago: Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh? You have not substantiated this very serious claim, by providing the name of the webpage and the text that was you say was duplicated, so that it can be fixed. Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. I raised the issue a few hours ago and you have yet to address this issue. But yes, there are editor behavior issues, that is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson[22] and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days,[23] six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why Viriditas believes his unsolicited opinion on my editing is relevant or why he thinks he knows what he's talking about in regard to any of the things he mentioned above, but he's getting so much wrong, it's nearly comical. Out of the blue (never having edited the Myerson article, that I can tell), he came to my talk page not once, not twice, but three times with claims that I was harassing Coretheapple. Which is totally incorrect. His edits to my talk page (where he admitted in the first comment, "I don't know what's going on between you and Coretheapple...") are found here [24]; [25]; [26]. His comments were totally inappropriate and became harassment, in my opinion (as are his comments above, the more I think about them). As far as the RfC he referenced where I was asking for advice at an administrator's talk page, the RfC was to be about a content dispute, not Coretheapple. Lastly, his suggestion I am a sock is ridiculous and I'd really appreciate him striking the accusation above. What he's doing is, in my view, surreal drama. If there was truly an issue with my edits or alleged disruption at the Myerson article, I would have been blocked for it days ago. For whatever reason, it appears Viriditas is interested in seeing me sanctioned for something, anything he can come up with. And I have no idea why. Like I said, this is all out of the blue. And weird, if you ask me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking more closely at Viriditas' Wikipedia history raises more questions for me than gives answers. I was looking to see if he and I had ever really crossed paths in the past (possibly explaining his need to see me sanctioned). In so doing, I couldn't find anything where we had actually edited articles together previously, but I did find a VERY extensive block log that ranges from 2007 until September 2014. His longest block was three months for edit warring and disruptive editing. A one week block was for "feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing" (sounds not much different from what he's doing to me). Of the 12 blocks he's received in 7 1/2 years, the majority are for edit warring (what he's accusing me of), most are that coupled with disruptive editing, several are for behavior toward other editors. Considering this record and the drama that goes with it, I should not be surprised that he is coming at me in the fashion he is. Although I still don't know why he's decided to target me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned to winkelvi directly on his talk page (although Im sure he will delete it ) An IP account does not indicate vandalism, nor should it. This is discrimination. If you feel that ever user of wikipedia should have a registered account then lobby wikipedia to change the rules and block all IP users. You shouldnt take it into your own hands to revert all changes by IP's because they are IP's . or fail to check their sources because they are IP's. Or generally mistreat users because they are IP's .You should treat IP's the same as registered users until there is an offcial wikipedia statement that says IP's should be treated in a different way to registered users. You shouldnt unilaterally impose your own predujiced policies. WInkelvi (see his contrib history / diffs) repeatedly picks on noob IP users and scares them away from wikipedia by his bullying / edit warring tactics. I find this unfair and disproportionate.181.64.192.86 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from new drive-by: I was alerted to this discussion by a respectful and non-canvassing message left on my talk by WV, who I don't think I have met previously. I took a look at the Myerson article, and it seems to me that the resolution of this issue is pretty much what is happening: full protection of article, with all edits subject to broad consensus (not necessarily unanimity) until everyone has settled down and learns to work together. Seems that is the solution. I find that topic bans are not terribly useful or helpful, they just provide more fodder for drama. A grownup to monitor the dispute should settle this. I don't see much more than the usual spat between two editors who are both convinced that they are correct and are getting pissed off at each other. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Two editors? You should look closer at that page and this discussion.I am an uninvolved editor, as is Viriditas, and the talk page shows WV at loggerheads with various editors. Since you were explicitly canvassed by Winkelvi your comments should not be considered even if they reflected reality. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am discussing the original dispute between Coretheapple and WV. I've never met either of them before. The fact that one of them asked me to swing by does not negate my views. AGF. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Bess Myerson and in the article, it has been Winkelvi versus myself, User:Bus stop, User:Alanscottwalker, User:7157.118.25a, User:NE Ent, and User:Classicfilms. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As I was named here, I guess I should respond. Mountanbw's, opposing of article bans on principle is not responsive to the issues at hand (and I hope will not be taken into account), if you oppose them on principle then get such bans stricken from policy. In the meantime, the User:WV's behavior will more than likely continue dragging the editing environment down and it is small limited actions such as this that can turn it around before it is too late. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I can respond as well. I dropped by the page a few days ago and made a lone post about the substance of the debate. From my perspective CoretheApple does appear correct that Bess Myerson hosted Miss America contests, and there is good sourcing supporting that.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] I don't plan on getting involved other than to briefly share my take on the evidence though, evidence that hopefully helped resolve the contention. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WV "versus" NE Ent? Who knew? Certainly not me. I started discussing the edit after seeing this here thread (see Talk:Bess_Myerson#Break) and it didn't seem terribly difficult to come to a resolution. If "You've persuaded me with logic. Thanks for taking so much of your time to help work this out. I appreciate your patience, kindness, and efforts." is what "versus" looks like I should find more "enemies." NE Ent 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's that it took AN/I involvement to get to that minor edit, that demonstrates the disruptive problem with the WV approach. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your opposing his plagiarism claim via this comment. Was I mistaken? Do you think there was plagiarism? That's the most important thing to come up on the talk page and, as far as I can see, not a single editor supported him in that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WV falsely accused me of being an SPA when I made some edits to the Mike Huckabee page that he didn't like, right after I started an account. That's why I dropped by the Bess Myerson page when seeing him involved in a controversy on it, I was curious to see if he treats everyone like he did me. Given my past history with him I don't think I should be voting on this. I'll admit I am not thrilled with his approach however, and that is putting it mildly. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Looking at the link NE Ent provided above, I found one exchange that makes me question WV's competence to edit -- or simply a willingness to be a rules-wanker: Classicfilms points out that Myerson is dead, & thus WP:BLP no longer applies, to which WV states "BLP articles remain BLPs and BLP policies and guidelines stay in place in regard to the article for up to two years". Uh, BLP means "Biography of a Living Person", & the exception WV quotes is for contentious content. Stating that a Jewish person encountered anti-Semitism in the 1940s is not contentious -- & was a very common occurrence. (BTW, it is generally accepted that African-Americans encountered prejudice in the 1940s, too.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. As noted by the diff's WV turns the uncontentious into the contentious - thus they need to reform or they will be regularly seen as incompetent or disruptive - the pedia does not need such contention over nothing - we have enough of the other kind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

... which I would suggest is unlikely to happen if warnings of edit warring are followed by still more warnings when he edit wars and violates 3RR. Or as happened today, something a little less than a warning. I've lost count as to how many warnings he's received for edit warring. Two in the last month I believe, before this latest episode? Coretheapple (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bess Myerson topic ban

Winkelvi's obsession with Bess Myerson has led to him making hundreds of disruptive edits to the article and talk page in only a 48 hour period. This obsession has disrupted the topic area, created animosity among users, and led to him making numerous false allegations and accusations, including edit warring. Winkelvil's obsessive behavior, lack of good faith, and inability to recognize the views of others requires some time away from this topic to allow editors to work harmoniously again. Therefore, I propose a three month topic ban for this purpose. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support as proposer. The disruption of Talk:Bess Myerson is the worst I've seen in a while. Winkelvil lacks the core competency needed to edit and discuss in this topic area. He has wasted the valuable time of many editors and has taken zero responsibility for his role. A topic ban is the best solution at this time. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Obesession"? What obsession? I was editing the article just as much as Coretheapple. Less, I'm pretty certain. Further, his claim that I have made 100s of disruptive edits at the article is absurd. Look at the Bess Myerson article history, look at my edits there. 117 edits at the article, and very good edits to boot. Coretheapple has 152 edits at the same article Viriditas claims I'm "obsessed" with. The surreal nature of Viriditas' proposal and accusations against me boggles my mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your disruption was recently substantiated on the 3RR noticeboard, and the current talk page features it in spades. Further, several editors have repeatedly asked you to modify your behavior, including myself and Cullen, and your response in both cases was to tell us to fuck off, metaphorically speaking. Neither my behavior nor Coretheapple's, or anyone else's for that matter, is the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support The false plagiarism claim, discussed on the talk page here, is just the latest indication that this editor is disruptive to an extent that can no longer be tolerated. His attacks on Viriditas' character are par for the course. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh God. I just reviewed the talk page, as I wanted to edit the article and it is fully protected. The discussion here is pinged. Normal discussion on that page has completely broken down, and this editor's utter absence of clue is appalling. Support topic ban, a permanent one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see anything here that needs to be handled at ANI. This topic went from alleged user page probblems and POLEMIC to "false" claims of plagiarism on the Myerson page. I see several editors here who don't like the way Winkelvi conducts themselves. Mind you, Winkelvi can be difficult at times, but this report is not even constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes? It was a false report. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was never really sure about that "polemic" claim, but the points that Viriditas makes are well-taken. He is not an editor of the article, does not claim previous interaction, and evidently became concerned after seeing the activity on the talk page. Ditto Figureofnine. I'm also wondering why you don't feel the plagiarism and copyvio claims were groundless, as they clearly were, and were disruptive and above all were total wastes of time. At the most there is one phrase in the article that might need tweaking. But his claiming, in an highly inflammatory manner, that "the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article" and that there were "copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources" was jut plain false. If the false plagiarism/copyvio claims were the only problem I don't think we'd be here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Talk:Bess Myerson indicates that WV does not get the WP:RS thing and is unwilling to learn because they "know" the sources are wrong. I suggest they drop the WP:STICK. NE Ent 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Distracting material. Please return to Bess Myerson issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I "get" WP:RS just fine. As someone on the Autism Spectrum who sees the world differently than neurotypicals (such as those in this thread), I'm just seeing RS from a slightly different angle. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I am an old goat with bad eyes who sees the world even differently than you do. But I am bound by site policies and so are you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I am an old goat with bad eyes as well. And I never said nor implied I'm not bound by policy. In fact, as someone on the Spectrum, I'm likely much more aware of the "rules" in relation to my behavior in Wikipedia as well as in life. That's a hallmark of those of us with ASD. We are honest, we are straightforward in our behavior, and we are rule followers who have a hard time fathoming why anyone wouldn't be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I have a hard time fathoming why you are giving us a self-serving description of your character. The only thing that matters is your behavior on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)Because the only thing that makes sense to me regarding the treatment (behavior) I've been receiving and the accusations I've been subject of since I came to the Myerson article is that my motives and edits at the article as well as my comments on the article talk page have been completely misunderstood. If that's the case (and I believe it is), then explaining and asking for some understanding is warranted. Wikipedia editors aren't expected to androids that respond and behave in a canned manner, every one of us is a human being with a life story. It stands to reason that our life stories will color our editing as well as our interactions with other editors from time to time (or even more often than from time to time). The editors that don't fall into the typical category... are they to be dismissed and tossed aside and topic banned or should they be accepted and worked with in spite of their differences and the misunderstandings that may surround them? Sometimes I think Wikipedia editors get so wrapped up in editing and the various peripheral things surrounding their efforts that we forget everyone here is a real human being. What's more important, editors or edits? Remember, without editors there would be no edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Winkelvil, you are not medically qualified to assess the mental states of other users, and even if you were, you would not be able to do it in this thread. Your comments about neurotypicals in this thread is so far over the line, that I think you should be indefinitely blocked until you are able to understand and recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) "Neurotypical" is not a reference to "mental states", it's a common term used that references those not on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently, from your comments, it's obvious you know nothing about Autism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Your medical claims couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. I am sure that there is a neurological explanation for much misconduct on Wikipedia. So what? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) It most certainly is a reference to a mental state, and you have no business assessing, diagnosing, or commenting on who is or who isn't neurotypical in this thread. The only business you have here is responding directly to the concerns about your behavior, which, as far as I can tell, you have ignored, denied, distracted from, and brushed off. Do not make any further comments about autism or neurotypicals in this thread. You seem to do so only to denigrate others and justify your bad behavior. It's not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) All I'm seeing is more ignorance on what Autism is ("medical claims" is one example). I'm also seeing yet another misunderstanding regarding what I've said. Editors on the Spectrum are in Wikipedia, and it's time the neurotypical editors get used to it and start to understand what it means. Just like in the real world (which Wikipedia isn't). I will not be dictated to by a non-administrator regarding comments about ASDs in this thread or any other. It's not a verboten subject. Such demands are discriminatory and I hope someone with an influential Wikipedia voice takes notice. I will NOT be quiet about discrimination. Ever. I suggest all of you read User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact as well as Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors and [35]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) But Viriditas is correct. You gave made no substantive reply. You HAVE brushed off, ignored, denied and distracted from the issues evident to NE Ent, Viriditas and myself, as well as to involved editor Core. Your invoking a medical condition is in extremely poor taste, and Viriditas is correct that you are in no position to diagnose the medical state of other editors, who may well be struggling more than you claim to be but are not advertising it quite as flamboyantly as you do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(@NE Ent). It's a bit more than that. The user does not appear to be reading sources, or has been reading them and not understanding them, and generally ignoring/disregarding/not grasping what is said to him. I had never previously encountered this person until he appeared on my user talk page a few days ago concerning my edit summary here[36]. Ms. Myerson had suffered a bout of ovarian cancer, and someone had tagged it "When?" I looked at the reference at the end of the sentence, added when she had cancer, and said in my edit summary "Rather than tagging "when," more constructive to look at the footnoted article, which gives the date." Winkelvi went on my page to say as follows

Re: this edit and edit summary [7], it's actually more appropriate to put the content in the article than in a footnote. Casual readers or readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia goings-on-in-editing are unlikely to look at a footnote and will wonder the same as I: when? where?. We're here to inform readers not force them to look deeper for content that can just as easily be inserted in the body of the article.[37]

As you can see, I very clearly and explicitly did not call for text to be put in a footnote, and I did not do so. I simply said that the answer to the "when" question is in the footnoted source. There were two other replies, both misunderstandings on his part.[38] At no time did he acknowledge error or misunderstanding, he just charged on, and as far as I know he believes to this day that he was in the right. What happened on my talk page is no big deal, but having this person hammer away on the article talk page and in the article itself and not getting the point is disruptive. He blames this problem on everything and everybody except himself. Lamentably this editor's position seems to be that "that's the way he is," and I guess it's just our tough luck if he's disruptive. He is just a burden that we have to bear, and if we don't like it we can lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking harder I see there's an actual conflict between sources, which is I believe was the point WV was making. Obviously not a discussion for here. NE Ent 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, the problem was that WV treated the situation as a zero-sum game, that he was "right" and the various obits describing her as host were wrong, and said on the page[39] that "Myerson was never the show host" in the face of all the sources that were offered up. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I've worked on hundreds of articles. Sources tend to conflict everywhere, and I expect to find that problem in every article. It's not a real problem, because there are tried and true methods to determine how to best represent conflicting sources. For the most recent example of how User:Tryptofish and myself handled conflicting sources, see Talk:David_Rioch#Two_conflicting_sources. The point is that one does not need to disrupt a topic area and engage in edit wars to deal with this. The exchange between Tryptofish and myself consisted of only several comments, with collaborative editing continuing unimpeded. The problem under discussion in this thread, is not concerned with such easy issues. We are discussing the behavioral problems of a user who lacks the competency to deal with conflicting sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support The editor, WV, has shown incompetence - and is an edit-warrior,[40] and they should be embarrassed for the way they have handled themselves beginning with their attempt to censor the word "antisemitism" from the article,[41] and the statement in their first talk-page comment: "I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers" Here's good advice, don't edit, if you have not looked into the sources. Then their flat-out contradicting the sources that use the term "host" in a way the editor personally disagrees with and their false claims of plagiarism against other editors p[42] [43], but most of all their utter inability to work with others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe we're reaching We have reached consensus on the "host" issue on the article talk page. NE Ent 02:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC) NE Ent 03:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What? 100's of words and days of arguing, for that? And the "host" thing is only the latest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One down and how much to go? We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious.[44] Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support Repeated edit warring from user:winkelvi and a complete disregard for other users. He does not appear to read sources, or revisions and just cares anout "winning". He does not understand the colaborative nature of wikipedia and is unwilling to concede academic points. I would ban him from the site for 10 days. 186.9.81.168 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Bbb23's analysis of Winkelvi and the scope of this topic ban is probably correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What analysis? And what does it have to do with scope? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I've unhatted the portion of this discussion in which Winkelvi gives essentially a "medical defense" for his conduct in the article. I agree that it is a distraction, but he really has nothing else to say, apart from attacking Viriditas. This discussion was hatted after Winkelvi made an appeal to BBB23, who is a participant in this discussion. Participants in discussions should not be moderating those very discussions to remove or hide material put there by the subject of the discussion. Winkelvi's response is very much relevant and that is his only response. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant. Whether it should be hatted or not is sort of a separate issue. Hatting does tend to "hide" material, and yes, it is used to hide irrelevant material. But when the irrelevant material is, essentially, the "case of the defense," then why hide it? It's a distraction, but that in itself is relevant, as it indicates how he behaves in talk page discussions. Winkelvi's response to this ANI report has been to smear Viritidas, who has never been in conflict with him so far as I know, and to bring this discussion to the attention of an editor he apparently is on good terms with.[45] The hatted discussion, which was commenced by Winkelvi raising his medical condition, was in sum and substance an appeal for sympathy on the grounds that he has a medical situation of some kind. But what I find a bit illogical is that he claims to have done nothing wrong. If he has done nothing wrong, then what is the pertinence of his autism or whatever it is he claims to have? He wants to have it both ways. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Figureofnine, Coretheapple, I have reinstated Bbb23's hatting. There is no "hiding"--if something can be shown by clicking, then it is not hidden. The material is distracting and not to the point. You may claim that Bbb is involved because he commented, but I disagree: that does not meet the burden of WP:INVOLVED. Besides, you would then have to argue that the hatted material reflects poorly on Winkelvi and that hatting it somehow helps his case, and that Bbb is actively working to help his case--you will find that this is impossible to do. Finally, this is the Administrators' noticeboard, and if an administrator decides that it is a good idea to hat something, then you are just going to have to accept that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions do not work as a rule, and where the reasoning does not remotely support a Draconian solution, I invariably oppose such. Bbb23 is correct here. Collect (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you been to the the Myerson talk page? An editor like this can exhaust other editors. This one reminds me of User:Wondering55. Users like that need to clean up their act immediately or they can be immensely damaging to the project. Ultimately he had to be sitebanned. What's proposed here is mild, not Draconian. He claims to have a form of Autism and maybe he's telling the truth. But we're not neurological professionals and it's not fair to ask us to carry that kind of burden. I wouldn't even attempt to edit that page with Winkelvi active there. Life is too short. Bbb23 says Winkelvi is "difficult." That's easy for him to say. How about a little empathy for editors who have to cope with the Wondering55s and the Winkelvis? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What's draconian about it? Calling it "draconian" does not make it so, and is not reasoning. The purpose of some time away from this topic, is so editor/and the Pedia may not wind up in more disruption. WV, edit warred, does not read sources or misrepresents sources; disputes that undoubted RS that contain the same things as other reliable sources should be followed, accuses other editors of plagiarism that is unsubstantiated, causes days of talk page back and forth over inserting an "a" before "host", when no one was opposed to an "a". Collect, it is your !vote that has provided no reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm separating this subsection from the one above it, as it was brought by a different user and is totally unrelated. As for the topic ban, I didn't originate this ANI (and to be frank I am not sure I would have come here in the first place, as this is really cut out more for the old "RfC/U," now terminated, than for a drama board.) Anyway, once Viritidas, an uninvolved editor, started this, I had thought that the Bess Myerson talk page spoke for itself. But it's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through mountains of text. If we need diffs of disruption and edit warring, we can start with this user's revert-warring. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Now I raised this previously at WP:AN3,(see [56]) and the result was page protection. Winkelvi viewed that as a vindication of his "good editing," to use his words. I can provide further examples of his "good editing," and I guess it's necessary because I can see Winkelvi only worsening if his behavior is not curbed. He has absolutely no understanding of the disruption that he has caused, as borne out by the exchange here with User:Cullen328 on Drmies' talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Topic bans generally don't solve the problem and usually are just fodder for others to keep baiting and attacking the person so restricted. Full protection of the article, applying the principles of WP:BLP to it due to being about a person recently deceased, applying WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, and supervision by a highly respected admin who has the authority to institute immediate 24-48 hour blocks for bad behavior should do the trick. Most of the time, people's tempers simmer down and they figure out how to work in an appropriate way. If not, WP:ROPE applies to escalating behavior. See my additional comments above. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This is fairly common behavior for Winkelvi, aggressive edit-warring based on misreading of sources, picking-and-choosing what can be used for sources, and so on. So a TBAN here is just a silly band-aid. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a fairly narrow topic-ban; hopefully it will motivate Winkelvi to reign in some of the issues that have been charitably described as "difficult." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. As if this couldn't get any stranger, Winkelvi has decided to take this puppy to 11 by claiming that the supporters of his topic ban are actually the problem because we're all supposedly autistic like himself, but we're hiding in the closet. According to Winkelvi, the problems he's encountering here are due to his detractors engaging in autistic-related behaviors.[57] Can we get an indefinite block now, please? It's one thing to obsessively identify with your own personal neurodevelopmental disorder as the total measure of who you are, but it's quite another to start diagnosing other editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And then there is his claim here that "there is still a less than AGF attitude toward us" in this discussion. "Us" being people with autism.

That is outrageous on a number of levels. First, he raised the issue of his autism here as a defense for his bad behavior[58]. Basically his position here has been "I haven't done anything wrong, but if I did it's not my fault." Second, the reaction to his statements about his autism, even among his supporters, is that they are diversionary and irrelevant - clearly far short of "not showing AGF" to autism sufferers, whatever that means. After finding his play for sympathy here didn't work, and started to backfire, he has "taken it on the road," canvassing all the editors who signed some kind of autism declaration, and attacking editors here for discriminating against him based on his self-identified medical condition (which nobody here knew about until he raised the issue, and view as a diversion). Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Totally uninvolved editor. A topic ban is the last thing that should happen. Reading the talk page of the article and the edit history shows that there is a problem, not working together. This isnt all on Winkelvi, and some of the comments towards him show there is a war mentality tone on the talk page. Not enough to bring here, but its there. His edits dont appear to be that much of a problem, and he conducts himself well in a discussion. The page protection, forcing the editors to talk and agree, is probably enough. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi recently posted this on the talk page of a user he has canvassed, making reference to this discussion. Since he is posting on user talk pages in lieu of participating in this duscussion, I think this might be of interest:

. . . Even more egregious is one of those editors stating I am "self-identified" as having Asperger's -- in other words, I really don't have it and am lying to gain sympathy. That comment really hurt when I first read it, but then I had to chuckle, because editing in Wikipedia could never be important enough to tell such a story. But, truth be told, to say something like that is just a slap in the face of everyone on the Spectrum, everyone with special needs whose disability or "different-ability" isn't immediately obvious. That kind of thinking, plus the general feeling expressed among a number of those in the thread that being on the Spectrum = incompetence and editing with them is a "burden" and "waste of time", is truly bigoted against those with special needs. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

--Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, hopefully WV is actually listening - several see WV individually as incompetent because of how they have acted, and would say the same about any editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the question is what to do. If he is topic banned, that's fine for Bess Myerson but then the problem gets shifted to another article or articles. There is a new report below on his behavior in Meghan Trainor, totally unrelated to Myerson or anything else. A review of the noticeboards show his name popping up again and again. There is this, for instance, on the Administrators Noticeboard in April titled, "Disruptive, Authoritarian Editor," brought by yet another editor involving yet another article and also seeking a topic ban. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite being reported on here, this user is continuing to do the very same thing that several users are finding problematic right now on All About That Bass. Meghan Trainor articles are a mess as a result of this user. The user insists on content disputes every time he is reverted and then remains completely ignorant during the disputes itself. That and his constant "playing the victim" act and picking on and harassing other editors is essentially Winkelvi's problem, as well as his inability to admit when he is at fault. It really is time that an admin intervenes properly, if this issue has not only being brought up now but by several other editors on this very same noticeboard and others in the past - this user's disruptive editing is clearly a continuous pattern and should not receive lenience because he is a "Veteran editor" who plays the victim with his medical condition. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars, as I have never heard of this Trainor or her work in my life, but I do see a slo mo edit war at All About That Bass, the merits of which are beyond me. Realistically, editors are granted great leeway, and this one knows how to work the system so that, with one exception, his edit warring comes under the 3RR threshold and/or don't attract blocks. It is up to uninvolved administrators to determine if his serial "issues" need to be dealt with, or will just be shrugged off for another day. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm now watching your page, having posted a note there, I noticed that he left you a canvassing warning[59] that warned you against posting inappropriately on user talk pages. In his notice he refers to this note by you on the WikiProject Songs talk page and this note by you on the talk page of a "list" article. Winkelvi just doesn't "get" WP:CANVASS, and putting that unwarranted notice on a user talk page in the midst of an edit war just inflames things. The fact that Winkelvi did this just after he himself was warned for canvassing[60] is discouraging. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the drama from both article pages, since it's clear this user is just being plain attention-seeking, throwing unwarranted warnings and accusations around and playing the victim. WP:CANVASS refers to user talk pages and bias, which these articles are clearly not. Winkelvi has even gone on to harass another user User:MaranoFan on his talk page and accuse him of tag-teaming. I honestly don't know in what aspect a user can be more disruptive and harassing than this one. Even with his "veteran editor" status which he has thrown around yet again on User talk:Winkelvi, talking down on other editors, the user persistently violates Wikipedia policies and contradicts them as evident in this new WP:CANVASS chapter of this user's drama. The user has made 13 reverts in the last 24 hours.- Lips ^{are movin} 06:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

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

---

I happen to watchlist Buster7, with whom I have interacted many times, and what do I see but this post] from WV, citing their shared signing of some kind of autism declaration, seeking "advice" and linking to the "topic ban" discussion. It is not, of course, canvassing, he points out. Perish the thought.

In checking his contributions I see a slew of similarly worded posts seeking "advice" from other persons he has identified as sharing his alleged autism affliction. See also [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

Note this follow up note[70]. No, not canvassing!

Note that he completely misrepresents the character of the topic ban discussion. "Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit." It is a discussion of his behavior on one talk page, with a topic ban, not a block, proposed and discussed in the preceding section. The autism element was one that he introduced, and which I think is widely viewed, even by his supporters here, as totally diversionary and irrelevant. He is now exploiting that self-serving alleged medical issue in a sordid play for sympathy.

I haven't much experience with WP:CANVASS, but if we're going to allow this kind of notice to other editors I'd like to cherry-pick some editors I think might agree with me, ask them for "advice," and coincidentally alert them to this discussion with a skewed rendition of events (and a caveat that it is not canvassing, perish the thought). If it is not allowed, I think a block is in order. Either way I'd like to know if this is allowable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Explicit violation. Winkelvi violated the canvassing guideline with the sole intent of influencing the outcome of the discussion in his favor. He performed a mass posting consisting of a biased message against the participants in this discussion. Favoring one side, he contacted a partisan audience of people who he felt would be sympathetic to a decision favoring his desired outcome. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, I have warned Winkelvi here. If he does it again after receiving this warning, he could be subject to a block depending on admin discretion. I think the major problem that many of us have with Winkelvi isn't his personal struggles or mistakes, but the fact that he doesn't seem to learn from past errors and continues to repeat them. Wikipedia:Competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's Winkelvi's response to your canvassing warning:he deleted it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, Coretheapple, whatever the merits of this complaint (I haven't read that far down yet), this is nonsense. You're suggesting--what? what are you suggesting? If Winkelvi deletes the warning, that means they read it, and that is all there is to it. You can draw any conclusion you like, but this kind of rhetoric seems to be doing nothing but poisoning the well, and it's really not helping your case. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

His referring to canvassing in his posts indicates that he is familiar with the rule already. So while this notice is appreciated I don't feel that it is necessary. Besides you can't "unring the bell," and his effort to skew this discussion through canvassing has already begun to work in his favor.[71][72][73][74][75]. His canvassing has already gotten him participation in his favor in two parts of one active partisan weighing in on these discussions, and more on the way I'm sure. The only question, as I said previously, is whether this is a violation of the canvassing policy, in which case what are the consequences for Winkelvi, or whether our lying eyes deceive us on that point. If they do, I'm off on a trek for "advice." Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I swung by here due to WV's post. If that was canvassing, it's not the worst I've seen. I'd give it a 3 on a 1-10 scale. (minnow slap) I know we are supposed to just post a link with a simple FYI, but WP:CANVASS is really a flawed policy that tends to be used as a bludgeon more than a shield. Here, I see a frightened editor without a lot of friends who is digging a hole and having trouble not digging. I'm looking at the situation neutrally, and IMHO, it's time to just get back to the page in question and if there was a problem on this user's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by serving as Exhibit A for how effective his blatant canvassing has been. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF here, buddy, I'm not your enemy. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That may very well be, but Montanabw is an experienced editor and someone I greatly respect. We may disagree with her, but her points are worth considering. However, at least two editors have tried to approach Winkelvi in a friendly manner to help work this out (myself and Cullen), and we were both given the cold shoulder. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And that is a concern, as both Viriditas and Cullen are experienced and reasonable editors. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I could recruit a half dozen respected editors with the opposite position. That's why we have canvassing policy. Its purpose is to prevent consensus from being skewed just as Winkelvi is doing here. At best he is gaming the system. Canvassed input should be struck out and Winkelvi should be given an appropriate block. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS doesn't preclude alerting interested editors of a relevant discussion, the ideal is to notify people on both sides and without stating a position at the notification. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, you can't be serious. WP:CANVASS calls for neutral notifications to "concerned" editors, defined as follows: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics); Editors known for expertise in the field; Editors who have asked to be kept informed." None of the editors that Winkelvi notified in lengthy, utterly non-neutral polemics were even remotely "concerned" with Bess Myerson. None of them had edited the page or participated in any of the discussions on the page. They were selected because each of them, including yourself, had placed their names at User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact, in a completely inappropriate (and in your case, effective) play for sympathy from editors he overtly wanted to intervene on his behalf. To dispute that he wasn't canvassing, and that your posts on his behalf here haven't been the result of canvassing, is just plain silly. Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the Wondering55 analogy that Figure made earlier is valid, as there are clear differences, but still I could go to the talk pages of all the editors who supported me on that editor and say, "Look at this ANI discussion.[link] Does this remind you of the lengthy dispute we had with Wondering55 over the Fort Lee lane closure scandal? Mind you, I'm not canvassing, not asking you to go over to the ANI discussion, and I am not contacting you because you are administrator. I am just wondering how to deal with this particular situation. Thanks in advance." (WV threw in the "administrator" language in his post on an administrator's talk page.) If that wording is OK, I'd like to know and I will act accordingly. I think it's canvassing, but maybe I'm wrong. However, if it is OK to "advertise" in this manner then I will do it too. But if it is canvassing, even a "three on a scale of 10" as one of the canvassed editors says, it needs to be dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User name

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

---

In addition to the above problems, there is also an issue with the chosen user name, "Winkelvi", and the policy of WP:IMPERSONATE. The name "Winkelvi" refers to the Winklevoss twins, and is only used to refer to them. It is therefore curious that the user has chosen this name in violation of the user name policies. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit late in the day to be complaining about them after they've used this account name for two years? Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no statute of limitations on Wikipedia. I just found four-year old vandalism in an article; should I just leave it? How about a sock puppet who's been getting away with it for three years? Should we just let them keep doing it? Your argument proposes a time limit on bad behavior, but there isn't one. I find it strange that the user is editing as "Winkelvi", when that name is used exclusively to refer to two BLPs. Why is the user allowed to use this name? Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked this and the second thing that comes up for theis username is his Wikipedia userpage. The twins are Winklevii with two ii's. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, check again, making sure you eliminate wikipedia.org in your search results. "Winkelvi" with one "i" is just as common and is used quite often by media sources. More importantly, such a search result establishes that the name "Winkelvi" was in use to refer to the twins before the user created his account here. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikievi shows About 3,930 results (0.41 seconds) Did you mean: Winklevii. Wikievii shows About 36,200 results (0.24 seconds) Including results for Winklevoss. So Google thinks the ii verson means the Winklevoss twins, but that the single i version to be a mistake or this not famous user. So I think the accusation is a stretch. If you really want to fight it, there is a special board for that. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, actually Google thinks "Winkelvi" refers to the "winklevoss twins", as that terms shows up when you type "Winkelvi" and points to Winklevii. Clearly, the search results show that the term "Winkelvi" is widely used as a synonym. Further when you eliminate wikipedia.org from the search results, you find that "Winkelvi" was in wide usage before the account was created on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't need to use different "boards" to discuss this problem. The Wikipedia account name "Winkelvi" was created in April 2012, many years after the above sources had already used it and the term was in wide circulation as a synonym for "Winklevii" and "Winklevii" for obvious reasons (these alternate spellings are extremely common in English, for example, compare "Winkle-" and "Winkel-") Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Google makes clear that "Winkelvi" refers to the twins, and has been used in that sense thousands of times. I wasn't clear on that until I saw the Google search results. Of course he turns up high in the rankings. Wikipedia always does. I don't have enough experience with user names to know if it's permissable, but let's be clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• The WP:IMPERSONATE link says, "you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." I'd say if WV adds that disclaimer, end of problem. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by misquoting policy as if that would help the discussion. The above clause only applies if "Winkelvi" is his name in real life. Choor monster (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, and your tone is also not helpful to your own position, but this discussion is a side issue to the one above, I'm sure there is a better noticeboard for that concern than here. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My question is as it states, how it relates to your straw men is irrelevant. This extra section is classic ANI. One issue starts and is discussed then something else is pulled into the mix, then another and another until it gets to the point that everyone just gives up. Is their username related to the discussion about their behaviour? Somehow I don't think so, if you have a problem with Winklevi's username, raise it on WP:UAA. Blackmane (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Meghan Trainor

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

---

This editor began making my Wikipedia experience very unpleasant, starting with trying to dictate a consensus discussion against me on Talk:Meghan Trainor with some very snide remarks. He then went on badmouth behind my back, accusing me of sockpuppetry on User talk:SNUGGUMS and then on his own talk page which he later deleted. The user makes very insulting edit summaries, and seems to want to derail every article I edit, of which he has shown no previous interest in before. It is all very suspicious and coincidental. Meghan Trainor has now failed GA and is locked, and it seems Winkelvi has now shifted his attention to All About That Bass which is also conincidently now a GAN where he has again invoked in insulting edit summaries and snide nitpicking. Any unbiased editor will add all the above together and comes across this editor is going out of his way to look for drama with me or chase me away from editing and undermine my editing as much as possible. He has no interest in music or Meghan Trainor as visible in his previous contributions, yet now all of a sudden he does. The user continously warns me on my talk page every time I revert twice without breaking WP:3RR, ironically when he is doing the exact same on the exact same article, such as on All About That Bass. He is going out of his way to depict me as a "fanboy" who can't edit objectively which I am not and I am so sick and tired of this! His excuse on his talk page of Asperges should not allow him to obsessively single out and pick on other editors and insult them! Can an admin PLEASE intervene because one can only take so much! - Lips ^{are movin} 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A few things in response:

• I've never referred to this editor as "a fanboy who can't edit objectively".
• Whomever looks into this editor's comments, please look at the talk page for the article All About That Bass here: [76] and see the interaction between him and me. You'll find none of what he's claiming. In fact, I go out of my way to explain to him in two separate replies that my comments and edit summaries are not directed and him at all.
• This editor's frustration has been days in the making due to a number of talk page discussions where he has been using personal attacks against editors who don't agree with his edits and edit wars that he has been taking part in. Because he's new, several editors (including me) have been quite patient in trying to work with him and reason with him regarding his editing, edit warring, peacock wording, bloating articles, and the scathing talk page comments he directs at others. One look at the edit history of his talk page shows that he's received several warnings over the same articles, all related in one way or another to the singer, Meghan Trainor. (talk page history here: [77]).
• I'd like to point out, as well, that the reporting editor who brought this here never informed me on my talk page (as is required) that he created this report. Weirdly, another editor moved this report from Lips to merge with this week old discussion. A report that (as another editor pointed out) is classic ANI: something gets reported, others keep adding to it with new and different accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here he deleted his comment "Wow, Lips. You've only been here three weeks and you already have a fancy username signature three barnstars and duded up user page, you're nominating articles for GA status, and now you're going to DRN? That's quite a lot of Wiki-activity for such a newbie" after I replied and used the edit summary "removing drama" when he aggravated the drama in the first place with his comment.
• On User talk:SNUGGUMS he wrote "Anyone think it's weird and a little suspect that someone who has been here less than a month is expertly decorating their user space and nominating articles for GA? Just saying."
• On Talk:Meghan Trainor he made snide remarks to me "Please familiarize yourself with how to communicate appropriately and politely in talk page discussions. So much all bold lettering is basically the same as shouting." Yet editors on the same page called my editing "bullshit" and also used bold wording to highlight a point. He also went on to reply with remarks like "Obviously, she doesn't write all of her own music as you claim", "I have no idea. I thought we were talking about the Meghan Trainor article." and "An hour ago your proof that she qualified to be called a singer-songwriter was that she writes all of the songs she performs. That was quickly proven to be untrue. Now you're changing the criteria. Not too convincing."—all of which are snide remarks and ignorance to the fact of Trainor co-writing all her music.
• He speaks of I've been warned "several times" yet I've only been unfairly warned by him twice and one other user once. Ironically, he himself is also edit warring on the same article, as well as number of editors who revert him, yet they received no warnings whatsoever.
• He says I never notified him of my report of him on here, however, he responded before I could even do so. See the time difference between my report (06:14) and his response (06:27). Even more manifestation that this user tries to play the victim when he is at fault.
• After I nominated All About That Bass for GA which I worked very hard on editing and am the primary contributor much like I was on Meghan Trainor, he decided to post the following on the article's talk page: Two topics "Long quotations" and "Very overwritten" and went on to deem it "basically one of the most bloated articles I've ever come across", and even went on to make this comment " I'm here to help expand and improve an online encyclopedia. Hopefully, that's your purpose for being here, too." He then claims his responses are not aimed at me and plays the victim when he very well knows I nominated both articles for GA and am by the far the biggest contributor to both articles as per each article's stats.
• In his nitpicking of the article he used edit summaries such "remove peacocking" when that what he removed was in fact the precise wording of the source used and not WP:PEACOCK at all. He also goes on to say "This is an encyclopedia not a fansite" - a direct dig at me when I am by far the article's biggest contributor. He also insists that I am posting false information as to whether "All About That Bass" is one of the List of best-selling singles when it is in fact listed in the 6-6.9 million section itself. He also per his POV accused me of WP:OWN on Talk:All About That Bass and WP:OR on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and reverts edits I make on "All About That Bass" where unsourced content is added and then accuses me of edit warring afterward with a warning on my talk page when he infact has been reverted by another user as well.
• Again, like I said, all these occurrences are all very coincidental. I am all for constructive criticism and improving of Wiki articles but the way this user goes about doing it is very suspicious especially since I edit mainly Meghan Trainor articles of which he has all of a sudden decided to "improve". This user has a habit of talking down on editors and throwing his "Veteran Editor" title around as done on another editor on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and generally is involved solely in his own provoked disputes and acts of "playing the victim". I see this user is also mentioned as a problem on this very same noticeboard, so he must obviously be doing something wrong. I also per accident stumbled upon this comment by another editor on User talk:Viriditas - " user:winkelvi is a bully and harasses everyone view Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:213.7.149.151 (Result: Semi) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:Coretheapple (Result: Protected) or just look at his contrib history its full of edit warring disputes." which I also completely agree with.- Lips ^{are movin} 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Moved to preexisting section, with agreement of initiator of this report[78] Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This user is still partaking in an unnecessary edit war on All About That Bass and derailing the topic which is a WP:GAN, and insists on reverting unsourced content, factual errors, vague wording and non-song article MOS back into the article, and insists the formentioned be discussed on the article's talk page, but the user remains completely ignorant to these faults pointed out on the talk page, removes warnings from his talk page, and has already been reverted by 3 different users within the last 24 hours. See [79] and Talk:All About That Bass. A quick scan through This also reveals that I am not the only one experiencing these problems with Winkelvi, but several others are as well. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see Winkelvi's observations as constructive at the song article "All About That Bass". Anybody interested in Meghan Trainor would certainly be interested in her ginormous smash hit song, so it's not much of a case of hounding. My advice to Lips Are Movin is to accept the talk page advice at its face value, and try to see the article more objectively. It certainly was a patchwork quilt of awkward fan prose before you got to it, but you added long quotes[80][81] which were seen by Winkelvi (and myself) as undue or peacock or redundant, and when they were removed, you were able to work with that;[82] I suggest you continue to do so. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I do agree with some of the improvements Winkelvi has made such as the long quotations which you pointed out and I have stated so on Talk:Meghan Trainor, but his latest re-adding of unsourced content and unexplained removal of important content such as that is among the list of best-selling singles and the years of the album and EP's release, and adding of WP:WORDS and WP:VAGUE are against Wikipedia policies and can't be viewed objectively. This has not only been reverted by me but two other editors as well. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Lips Are Movin: I move that we immediately put a topic ban on Winkelvi for Meghan Trainor. The editor is currently disrupting Title (Meghan Trainor album) and we need to place the topic ban before he gets to work on derailing my GA Lips Are Movin. Marano ^fan 07:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor is now edit warring and disrupting Title (Meghan Trainor album), Talk:List of best-selling singles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Clarifying that what Winkelvi is essentially doing here is defined as WP:WIKIHOUNDING. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic is not wikihounding. Given Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are Meghan Trainor WP:SPAs [83] [84], more neutral editor eyes on the articles would be beneficial. NE Ent 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: The point is that I don't think that Winkelvi's eyes are neutral either. He in fact seems to hold a grudge against editors of Meghan Trainor's articles. Also, I am not a WP:SPA, A quick look through my contribs will reveal significant contribution to Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, Jonas Brothers and many other topics. Marano ^fan

@NE Ent: If you perceive us as WP:SPAs, why don't you take your concern to the SPA investigators. You will find out that we are in fact not. I'm not surprised at your accusation either seeing you are one of the users Winkelvi WP:CANVASSED as stated in this section. Winkelvi has been anything but neutral to Trainor articles, persistently edit wars without consensus, and adds unsourced content, removes sourced content, adding WP:WORDS, WP:VAGUE, and is WP:HOUNDING editors involved on Trainor articles, especially me. O/T: Her articles are hardly non-neutral either. - Lips ^{are movin} 12:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

After dealing with tag-team edit warring from both MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin yesterday, I filed a 3RR report [85]. Today, I offered a good faith proposal to both accounts. No response as of yet. My hope is things will resolve as far as the edit warring and other editors being kept from editing the Meghan Trainor-related articles due to the ownership taking place there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

...with the result that you and another editor were warned for edit warring. Coretheapple (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Binksternet, and Lips Are Movin:Winkelvi is back to making bogus rewording to a GA Lips Are Movin. We need to get an immediate TOPIC BAN please. The article is just on the verge of getting reassessed. Marano ^fan 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is very time-consuming and frustrating to "co-operate" with an editor like Winkelvi, who is a persistent WP:WIKIHOUND evident in his latest dramas with myself, User:MaranoFan and other editors in Meghan Trainor-related articles. He is an edit warrior who has just been warned in his own report at WP:3RR. He insists on being ignorant and playing dumb regarding every single bickering dispute he begins which waste's everyone's time. The user has an inability of communicating with editors in a way that's polite and civil, and is blind beyond his own arguments in his self-created disputes. He needs to begin owning up to his behavior, stop playing the victim, contradicting and abusing Wikipedia policies such as WP:CANVASS like he did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. He continously throws warnings around unwarranted on the talk pages of users, but when he gets a warning he denies it, deletes it and uses a WP:PERSONAL edit summary when doing so. He continuously accuses users of WP:SPA, WP:OWN and WP:OR etc and needs to stop with his snide, WP:PERSONAL edit summaries and accusations, and arguing and singling out of editor's wrong-doings (and then later playing dumb to it) in a way that quite frankly rude and insulting - all the above is evident in the talk pages and revision histories of Meghan Trainor, Talk:List of best-selling singles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, All About That Bass and Title (Meghan Trainor album). I am very willing to cooperate with editors and have never had an issue with one before until this user. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi is now edit warring with another editor and derailing Meghan Trainor again, despite a consensus being reached on Talk:Meghan Trainor, this after the article was unlocked last night. He has also decided to derail a GA-class Meghan article "Lips Are Movin", and has decided to add himself to every Meghan related talk page as a user who can help with verification when he himself has never added any sources and positive content to any Meghan-related article, except for derailing and causing animosity in every single one - even more evidence to his WP:WIKIHOUND behavior. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if he is, the way he is being baited, such as by giving him a taunting "barnstar," and this kind of thing, and bringing a case against him for 3RR on his own page (which is exempt from 3RR) makes it hard to identify what is happening. It muddies the waters and obscures his behavior in pages where he is the only bad actor. What is inescapable is that he keeps getting enmeshed in noticeboard squabbles over and over and over again, involving different pages and different sets of editors, such that it might at some point be necessary to to have an WP:Administrators Noticeboard/Winkelvi. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi's WP:WIKIHOUNDING of MaranoFan is essentially what's resulting in MaranoFan acting this way though. All he has done is create animosity and time-consuming drama across Meghan Trainor articles and for their contributing editors. - Lips ^{are movin} 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually consider what happened as WP:EXPLODE. Please forgive me for a brief panic attack. MaRAno ^FAN 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. You guys have got to get a grip. At this point, regardless of the merits, this entire topic has become radioactive and I don't see any administrator wading through these discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor topic ban

The article has been page protected for the second time. Since no action has been taken, I am moving into an immediate discussion, which I have been asked to move here. @Lips Are Movin, IPadPerson, Joseph Prasad, 11JORN, and Btljs:

• Support a topic ban. Marano ^fan 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support: See also the sub-section above. The user is a WP:WIKIHOUND[86][87][88][89][90][91] and edit warrior.[92][93][94][95] - Lips ^{are movin} 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion above is pretty ridiculous. What I see here is a case of rapid edit-warring, little discussion, OWN complexes, and editors who are taking disagreements a little too personally. If the article has been fully-protected twice within a month, perhaps that's a sign that all editors of this article – MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin included – need to do a better job of cooperating. I see no reason why anyone should be banned from Trainor-related articles at this time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: I would just ask if you have completely summarized yourself with his edits. A lot of editors have had issues with him. His autism causes him to make repetitive edits of a similar fashion. A topic ban would probably help him recover from his obsessions and repetitions. He thinks of Wikipedia as his dictatorship when it is clearly not. MaRAno ^FAN 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support - His autism doesn't really give him any excuse for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. I left him a polite message on his talk page earlier, but he ignored it and harrased me on my talk page saying that I am not welcome on his talk page. User:MaranoFan then reverted the message, but then Winkelvi restored it, harrasing me again. I don't think he is WP:HERE to contribute to this encyclopedia in a orderly manner, so of course a topic ban would help. IPadPerson (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar with the Meghan Trainor situation. This ANI report originated when one user reported an issue with Winkelvi's user page. Viritidas then raised the issue of Winkelvi's conduct at Bess Myerson, for which I had previoussly and inconclusively reported him at AN3. The edit-warring, disruption, tendentious posts and various nonsense (such as a phony plagiarism complaint) that Winkelvi caused there seem to have dissipated at Myerson and Talk:Myerson for the moment at least. Meanwhile, other complainants have popped up on completely different articles but very similar complaints. If you search the noticeboards, there's a pattern of Winkelvi drawing complaints for various kinds of very similar-sounding problems, such as in this complaint here from a user named Vuzor in April entitled "Disruptive, authoritarian editor." That involved yet another set of problems in yet another article. There are multiple edit warring complaints, both by him and against him, including one in which he was warned just today.[96] But another editor was warned as well. There is a pattern here of Winkelvi inflaming situations and generally showing poor judgment. He shows absolutely no understanding of the animosity he causes and the degree to which it results in repeated and time-consuming disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am uninvolved with the pages. I Oppose this ban because its a content dispute. The AN/I page appears to now be the latest battleground for this dispute. No party in this dispute is blameless. The wikihounding is baseless as the articles are all on one artist. One of the editors calling for a bloc/ban are overly involved in the topic "Lips Are Movin" is the name of a Meghan Trainor song, taking that name clearly shows they are a fan. Their edits all revolve around Meghan Trainor, her songs, her page, location on charts. This sounds to me like a clear showing of WP:Advocacy. Its clear that MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin have a shared outcome in mind by filing bogus 3RR reports linklink2 and commenting here. If anything a boomerang should hit them. AlbinoFerret 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: The fact me and MaranoFan are fans of the artist have nothing to do with issue here. Meghan Trainor articles are anything but fan prose and we have hardly disputed or edit warred with any other editors until this user came and wrecked havoc everywhere. WP:WIKIHOUNDING states Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. - which is precisely what this user has done to me and MaranoFan over the past few days. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• • I favor the boomerang. Lips and Fan are taking a bad situation and spreading the badness everywhere with their own brand of childness and logomania. Renaming headers here is just plain rude, and the refactoring was thoughtless. Filing completely spurious 3RR reports is time-wasting. And bringing up WV's A+ and remotely "diagnosing" his edits is absolutely beyond the pale. No exceptions. Accurate or not, it is 100% irrelevant: report on good edits or bad edits, good behavior or bad behavior. Choor monster (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • • That's not entirely fair, because Winkelvi raised the "autism defense" himself in the topic ban discussion. Had he not done that, no one would have known or cared. Most people now know and still don't care. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Exactly. And I speak as someone WV once tried it on me, and it flopped. WV tried it here and it flopped. An admin hatted it off. It is absolutely not relevant. Choor monster (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The renaming of sections is to avoid confusion. Also, this cements Winkelvi as UNCONSTRUCTIVE, thus confirming the problem is with him and not with Me or Lips or others. Also, the user has been reverting WP:UNANIMOUS consensus on Meghan Trainor. MaRAno ^FAN 19:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bottom line: I (or Meghan Trainor-related article editors) don't hold any grudge against Winkelvi. But if he hadn't interfered, Meghan Trainor would be a GA today (instead of being fully protected for a month). I commend him for editing despite his medical condition and would greatly be interested if there was any solution without the Topic ban. MaRAno ^FAN 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • • This section renaming was totally unnecessary and did not "avoid confusion" since there wasn't any. It was just childish venting. To be honest, if WV's "interference" prevented the article from being GA, nobody cares whatsoever, and nobody wants to hear about it. You're only convincing people you Trainor fans are ridiculously out of touch with how WP works.
      • In short, the grown-ups in the room were discussing WV, and then you and friends came in here and set a remarkably lower standard. Choor monster (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil. I have renamed the section. Also, you are no one to judge a person's maturity based on their musical interests. MaRAno ^FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am judging peoples' maturity here based on what they post here. Let me guess, Trainor fans are considered immature everywhere, and I'm just echoing that judgment? I wouldn't know, and frankly, I wouldn't care. Choor monster (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As an example of what's going on, consider Lips_Are_Movin#Reception_2 which is POV all positive comments; WV attempted to insert a balancing critical opinion from a RS and gets reverted [97]. NE Ent 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would point out here that this person is completely ignoring my edit summary:"All the ...s and WP:PARAPHRASE needs to be worked out before this review sees the light of GA criteria." I did not blind revert anyone. [98] Also to point out, Winkelvi has been sucking up to this user for support. MaRAno ^FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One example where he has constructively edited does not make him innocent to where he has persistently disruptively, and unconstructively edited and harassed users.[99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] - Lips ^{are movin} 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm involved here, having reverted Winkelvi on the Meghan Trainor page. But I can't support a topic ban. Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan have done nothing other than bait Winkelvi. I also have concerns those two editors are either the same person or (more likely) know each other offsite and are coordinating their efforts. -- Calidum 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence to these claims and accusations though? - Lips ^{are movin} 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:XS, WP:IDART, WP:EWS, and WP:ALWAYS. -- Calidum 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As an outside observer, the user interaction data regarding Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are interesting. only (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Lips Are Movin's first edits were significant expansions to All About That Bass, and that s/he has edited Trainor articles almost exclusively – the lone exception appears to be Pretty Hurts (song). –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of the 800 or so edits only 20 or so are not on Trainor articles. This leads to the possibility of a WP:SPA. AlbinoFerret 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi about whom this discussion is has disappeared. I plan on doing the same thing. Good luck to all of you. All the authority remains with administrators. MaRAno ^FAN 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems as if Winkelvi is being wikihounded by editors, who are baiting and biting him to outburst; there also seems to be a lot of talking behind editor's back, and discussion of editors rather than editor's editing (which I find to be hypocritical of some who complained of said-behaviour being done onto them). And to those mentioning his clearly advertised Asperger's syndrome is quite disturbing. If you knew anything about said-syndrome, you'd know it affects how a person interacts in both social and non-verbal communications. The user's talk page has become a complete attack on the user, and baiting for him to react in a certain way. Per this, and what I've witnessed happening on Winkelvi's talk page, I oppose this block. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Apologies for the blanking. Mobile Opera Mini tends to do that often during edit conflict. Anyway, I've said enough here. It's clear that Winkelvi has friends in high places and sucks up to them everytime he is reported at a noticeboard. I've wasted enough time on this WP:WIKIHOUND. - Lips ^{are movin} 21:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUND is based on following another editor. Most of the time this is provable because editors edit diverse topics. But all the articles cited have to do with one musical artist, Meghan Trainor. Its just as likely that Winkelvi is interested in that artist, and not following you. I think the accusation is a solution in search of a problem. AlbinoFerret 01:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Different proposal – how about an interaction ban for Marano/Lips and WV? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• But what's the point of doing that? It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to see that Winkelvi will be back before this or some other noticeboard, on the above articles or others, as surely as God makes little green apples. Last week he was warned for edit warring. Today he was warned for edit warring. He was warned previously. When do the warnings stop and the blocks begin? Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an example of the people on one side of a content dispute trying to get rid of legitimate opposition. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean by "legitimate opposition"? This thread discusses just one editor in particular. IPadPerson (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean both Lips and Marano in a content dispute with Winkelvi, who voices legitimate concerns about the articles in question. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Duh. We have two fans here who are stifling the work of someone who (at least in that Title article) was actively trying to improve an article. See my note on Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album): I didn't realize, when I was making a few minor edits, that I was really repeating some of what Winkelvi had been doing--in other words, good job, Winkelvi! I didn't know you had it in you! The baiting of Winkelvi and the ridiculous edit-warring on their talk page is just so much harassment (and bringing up the autism thing in this discussion is just a red herring). I have no opinion on whether the two fans are each other's socks or not, and that they're SPAs is of little concern (there is no "SPA investigator"), except that they know more about this bubblegum pop artist than they do of Wikipedia's guidelines.

  I've had my share of difficulties interacting with Winkelvi. They can be short-fused and a bit too tenacious, at least they have been like that in the past; I think they have improved a lot in the last year or so. And here, I think Winkelvi is just being harassed, that the thread is seen as a convenient hook to hang a content dispute on. It's shameful, and I want Lips Are Moving and MaranoFan to know that I have no problem blocking either one of them if they continue this campaign and this tag-teaming--and it seems that they have found a third editor, if the edit-warring on Winkelvi's talk page is in indication. Winkelvi, do not respond here or elsewhere to accusations about behavior; keep playing the ball, not the man. It's all about the bass--the rest is just so much treble. Some admin will come by and close this, and perhaps the rest of the thread. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• And IPadPerson, I understand you're not interested in my commentary, but you'll have to live with it anyway: your behavior there was inexcusable. At least MaranoFan can claim a certain amount of ignorance with regard to talk page guidelines; I don't believe you can make such a claim. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Winkelvi, Lips Are Movin, MaranoFan all blocked 48 hours

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

---

Related to the above sections, I have blocked the 3 parties for 48 hours for their continuous edit warring related to multiple pages over the course of the last week. As always, I welcome administrator review of my actions; though, I think this time some sort of consensus should be reached to undo the action as it has been the source of numerous discussions in the last few days. I won't be as avail in the next 12-15 hours, so decisions can be made without my input, if needed. only (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

MaranoFan is protesting his block on his talk page, but I would encourage people to look at his role in edit warring over the last two days and the multiple warnings editors gave him, asking him to stop. He ignored all of them. More recently, MaranoFan was reverting Winkelvi's user page in an attempt to harass him. It was my impression that unlike MaranoFan, who has become increasingly abusive, Lips Are Movin was making some progress in the right direction, but that editor didn't stop reverting when asked to take a break either. Winkelvi filed a false vandalism report against Lips Are Movin today, and then engaged in a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it was explained to him that Lips Are Movin was trying to redirect a page, not vandalize it. In any case, good blocks all around. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

All 3 are protesting; MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin officially through unblock templates, Winkelvi just through discussion at the moment. Again, I'll leave this up to consensus here as I will be sparse from here out for the rest of the day. only (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And, FWIW, the "blanking" by Lips Are Movin was a mistake, as the user neglected to add the redirect target, which was fixed in the subsequent diff by MaranoFan. This was explained to Winkelvi several times, but I'm surprised to see he's still calling it vandalism. MaranoFan should serve out the block; his/her behavior has been atrocious, ranging from edit warring to harrassment, to outright abuse. I won't comment on Winkelvi's block, but like I said above, Lips Are Movin has shown interest in improving his/her behavior. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this revert was one of the edits that resulted in this block, but if not, it is an example of the hair-trigger reverting and WP:COMPETENCE issue that was a problem at Bess Myerson. An editor added a sentence to an article, appropriately sourced and formatted: "As on January 2015, it has sold 171,000 copies in the US." OK, he made a mistake ("on" instead of "of"). Instead of fixing it, Winkelvi hit the revert button, with the edit summary, No rationale for content addition given, as written, difficult to understand. Since when does one need a "rationale" to add routine information to an article? The reverted editor responded with puzzlement on Winkelvi's talk page, and Winkelvi responded "You gave no explanation in an edit summary and what you wrote wasn't gramatically correct, making it difficult to understand. Please see WP:EDITSUMMARY and WP:COMPETENCE for more of an explanation." Did Winkelvi truly not understand this sentence and truly feel that it required a rationale? Does he really feel that such routine material needs to be justified in an edit summary, and that failure to do so warrants removal of the material? Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He also has an incompetent trigger-finger regarding Vandalism. See [113] where he reported an IP for snarking on WV's Talk page about an instance of blatant hypocrisy. To WV, that counted as harassment in addition to vandalism. To the AIV admins, it was all just a waste of time. As for the supposedly bright line that 3RR crosses, by repeatedly going soft on him on something that definite, admins have taught WV the wrong lesson: he sincerely believes that the block is all about the bad reversion. Choor monster (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi has agreed on his user talk page to EdJohnston's suggestion, and after his block expires will have a voluntary self-ban from all articles in which he has had disputes since June 23, 2014.[114] That would include Bess Myerson and all the other articles discussed here.Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi has withdrawn his promise to stay out of articles where he has had disputes[115], and it is being argued out now on his user talk page. If I follow his argument correctly, he is upset that his promise did not result in an immediate unblock. He says, inter alia, I just feel duped, taken advantage of, and like a complete fool for doing what was asked. I believed it to be an actual agreement that would lead to being unblocked sooner. I don't like being made a fool of nor do I like being lied to. Because the other side of the agreement never materialized (and looks like it probably was never going to), I no longer feel obligated to follow through with my side of the agreement. Coretheapple (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• While it's tempting to do color commentary, there's enough eyes on the problem now. As the blocks expire, it might be better for everyone to give these users a wide berth and let WP:ROPE take precedent. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well yes of course, but if Winkelvi agrees to the very topic bans we've been discussing ad infinitum, then it surely needs to be noted in this thread. Ditto any changes in that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Clarification: Was There a Topic-Ban?

I am trying to see if the moderated dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor can be resumed now that the three editors are off block. My understanding is that Winklevi, Lips Are Movin, and MaranoFan were all blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring. There have been repeated statements about a formal or informal topic-ban on Winklevi, but I see no evidence that any topic-ban was ever formally imposed or informally accepted. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban was informally accepted yesterday, during his block. Winkelvi promised to abide by a voluntary topic ban from all of the articles in which he'd been involved in disputes[116], but then reneged after a few hours[117]. Coretheapple (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Then there is no topic-ban, so he may participate in moderated dispute resolution. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But I would suggest reading all of the foregoing before diving into this pool. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As the substitute volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did a general close of the dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor. The article is still currently protected. Discussion at the talk page can continue, as can an RFC either at the talk page or at a project page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussed here. Coretheapple (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Way past sell by date

Could someone else close down this twenty day old thread? If you can't get something to stick on an editor in one-third that time, it's time to gently set your stick on the ground and find something else to do. Note Coretheapple has been keeping the thread alive (see post above) and then claiming there's a "new" viewpoint [118] and canvassing others to comment [119] NE Ent 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. User:J. Johnson posted without anyone "canvassing" him, concerning disruption at 2014 Oso mudslide, an article nowhere else mentioned in this topic, commenting on Winkelvi's behavior there [120]. I posted a note on his page after he did that. You ought to know better than to make such an accusation, or to take it upon yourself to archive an ANI topic in which you vigorously side with the subject. The discussion has gone on a long time because of the subject's behavior and long record of disruption, most recently by behaving tendentiously at DRN[121] I know you like him and side with him, and that's great. I think that it would help the project a great deal more if you helped him, rather than shut down discussion about the serial problems he causes. Also I think that you're not quite correct about nothing "sticking" on this editor, whatever that means, as you may be aware that he was just blocked for 48 hours for edit warring, and made a promise to adhere to a topic ban and then reneged on it. So no, this ANI topic has not exactly been an exercise in wheel-spinning. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:NE Ent, and I, like User:Coretheapple, think that the editor in question has been troublesome, but can we allow this thread to hibernate? If the editor in question does anything new, a new thread can be started. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request template namespace topic ban for Sardanaphalus

I have been increasingly concerned about Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs)'s template editing lately. His template editing was recently mentioned in an ANI thread, after which I removed his template editor right. However, I've found that the problems aren't limited to protected templates. While most of his template edits are fine, a significant minority have problems, and given Sardanaphalus's fast rate of editing and tendency to not get consensus on template talk pages, this has resulted in quite a large build-up of templates that need to be fixed. I have noticed the following patterns in Sardanaphalus's template editing:

• Logic errors and bad parameter names that could have been spotted with better testing. For example, a wrong parameter name at infobox company[122][123][124] and a missing includeonly tag in infobox shopping mall.[125]
• Creation of template redirects and large-scale editing of articles to use the redirect name, bypassing the requested move process. (This is the matter that was discussed in the previous ANI thread.)
• Formatting errors, making text or tables bunched up or unreadable.[126][127][128]
• Creation of unnecessary template forks, for example Template:Semisub (TfD) and Template:End&startflatlist (TfD).
• Adding unnecessary subtemplates and parameters to templates. This makes processing templates slower, which in turn increases the time taken to save pages. For example, see this edit to Template:Collapsible option, the corresponding edits to Template:Mono, and several additions of the {{{1}}} parameter to navboxes to use the parameters added to Collapsible option.[129][130][131][132][133] Sometimes increases in complexity are fine, but I'm concerned that this is being done on a large scale without any discussion.
• Changing the function of parameters based on other parameters in the template, e.g. [134] and the edits to Template:Mono linked above. Once such a parameter scheme is added, it is hard to fix, as you need to go through every transclusion of a template and check that it doesn't use the new scheme, or add a special tracking category to find the transclusions that need changing. Again, schemes like this can be useful sometimes, but Sardanaphalus tends to add them without discussion in places where they aren't needed.

All of this wouldn't be such a problem if Sardanaphalus took on board advice he was given after problems with his template editing were brought up. However, he tends to revert rather than using the talk page,[135][136][137] and sometimes resorts to edit warring to keep his changes in templates.[138] Most importantly, advice on his talk page doesn't seem to have resulted in any change of behaviour. For example, after this thread that I started on his talk page last week, he is still making edits with the exact same problems.[139] I don't see much improvement after other recent threads either,[140][141] and I see quite a few complaints going back in his talk page history.[142][143][144][145]

I'd like to propose a topic ban from the template namespace for Sardanaphalus, to prevent further bad template edits and to allow us to start cleaning up the old edits without having to worry about cleaning up new edits at the same time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I had noticed that Sardanaphalus has the wrong approach to editing templates before this report. A minor example is seen in the history at Template:Hegelianism where Sardanaphalus is editing the live template as if it were a contentious article which requires edit warring and pointy edit summaries to overcome POV pushers. Bold editing is one thing, but templates really do require care and collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Sardanaphalus can seem quite productive, but he has trouble collaborating. He has very strong ideas about how things should be done and as such, he doesn't take ctiticism very well. That makes it very hard to fix his mistakes. When he does acknowledge an (obvious) error, he will often revert to his own established methods. His layout always based to fit on his own screen (1680 wide), and in such a way that it becomes illegible on smaller screens. He uses and creates templates like {{!-!}} and {{!-!!}} that are completely redundant to wikimarkup and make table/template editing exponentially harder, yet at the same time acuses experienced template editors of "thinking like progrmammers". I would be a good thing if Sardanaphalus would experience Wikipedia more as a reader... on small screens. Or at the least, he could do with some coaching. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 24#Template:Aquarium. Not too long ago, I reverted an edit by Sardanaphalus at that template, and they reached out to me at my user talk, and our subsequent discussion was very collaborative and improved the template. As a single anecdote, it seems to me to be contrary to what I'm reading here. I do however recognize that Sardanaphalus does an awful lot of template editing and that this is something where consensus is very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He used to inquire about my reverts, and I would answer best I could, even though he should have brought up any issue on their respective template talk pages instead. However, any advice I give him is simply ignored or very soon forgoten. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sardanaphalus has a habit of reformatting template code in such a manner that makes comparison by diff very difficult. Consider this edit from earlier today: the effective change is the addition of two {{{colheaderstyle|}}} but whilst the first of those is obvious, the second is disguised by the newline wrapped in <!-- --> markers which makes it look like some code has been removed and some very different code has been added. It has reached the point where I have refused to process their protected edit requests because it is so difficult to determine if their desired "minor" change truly is minor. More at Template talk:Shortcut#Protected edit request on 4 December 2014, Template talk:Information#Navbox version and Template talk:Div col#Code layout. They also nag me for not processing edits that I disagree with, see User talk:Redrose64#Template:Information, User talk:MSGJ#Advice, please..? and (by proxy) User talk:Edokter#Template talk:Div col. Sometimes it seems that a strange effect somewhere is the result of a Sardanaphalus edit - but it takes some time to trace it, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Linebreaks in infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You may also note from today's editing [150][151] that his use of the sandbox is not very effective; he seemingly moves every edit to the live template immediately, negating the purpose of the sandbox. If the transclusion count is high, this will unnecessarily strain the job queue, and in cases where he does not use the sandbox at all, may introduce disruptive errors on live articles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Sardanaphalus has asked some questions at both my user talk page and Mr. Stradivarius' talk page, and I would prefer that no final decision be made here until Sardanaphalus has responded here at ANI. At the moment, I'm neutral about the ban proposal, pending what I might hear subsequently. One possibility that I think we might want to put on the table is a topic ban from editing templates, but not from editing template talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that editing the template talk namespace should be allowed. Thinking about it, I would extend that to allowing the editing of template sandboxes as well, as without editing template sandboxes it is hard to make effective template edit requests. I'm also wondering whether editing /doc pages in the template namespace should be allowed, but I note that there has been some controversy about Sardanaphalus's editing there; see this section on his talk page, for example. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I looked at that discussion you linked to, and before I say what I think, I had better stipulate that I'm mostly ignorant about the technicalities being discussed there. However, just as a matter of two editors communicating with one another, I'm not seeing anything that bad about the way that Sardanaphalus replied to Edokter. After reading Edokter's reply to my first post just above, I wondered why the two of us had had such differing experiences, and it now seems to me that it takes two to tango. Anyway, I'm receptive to a more limited ban that prevents editing templates and template documentation, but permits template talk page edits and edits of draft templates in sandbox space – but above all, I'm eager to hear back from Sardanaphalus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  I should clarify that I never intended my proposed topic ban to include the template talk namespace - while it's related to the template namespace, technically it is not a part of it. Regarding Edokter, I agree that he could have handled that interaction better. I have noticed Edokter becoming increasingly frustrated with Sardanaphalus over the last few months, and this frustration is clearly evident in his recent interactions with him. It is not surprising to me that Sardanaphalus has reacted negatively to Edokter's complaints. However, Edokter is very knowledgeable about MediaWiki technical matters (much more than I am), and the technical points that he has brought up in discussions with Sardanaphalus are sound. I would say that his frustration is a symptom, rather than the cause. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  I've been thinking about the proposed topic ban scope, and I've come to the conclusion that we should allow Sardanaphalus to edit /doc pages for templates that have been updated due to edit requests that he makes, but not in other circumstances. The reason is pretty simple - after a template has been changed, it is often necessary to update the documentation with details of new parameters or new functionality, and it seems overly bureaucratic to require Sardanaphalus to do this on another page and then have another editor copy the documentation over. However, I don't think that this should be extended to allowing editing of all /doc pages unconditionally, as Sardanaphalus has been known to go systematically through /doc pages and change the formatting, and some of those edits have been contentious, as discussed above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Template:Cue I've had concerns about this user's ability to edit templates for some time as well but would only support a topic ban if the following is considered: I've seen some of their edits to templates, and they certainly have the logical ability to figure out how to properly do it and only lack the patience of making sure that it is right in the sandbox and making sure the changes are what the community wants in cases where a change might be objected to. As many may know, I've had issues and struggled with some of these things myself in the past and some would argue on my behalf that I have grown from them. Telling this user they can't talk about templates at all may very well drive a capable editor away, and that's harmful to the encyclopedia. I'd suggest that the closer of this discussion consider allowing Sardanaphalus the option of obtaining a mentor that is knowledgeable in templates and code and willing to be a middleman / filter for Sardanaphalus' ideas and changes. I'm fairly certain that the community would not see me fit for the job, and I respect that opinion despite not entirely agreeing with it, but I ask they give him a chance to find a mentor that is suitable to the community if he wishes to not be entirely topic banned from templates. Thank you for hearing me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Now I say this with some regret. I am convinced Sardanaphalus is a good faith editor with intelligence and technical knowledge. But I am also convinced that he is sloppy in his work, has difficulty collaborating, and has technical blindspots, particularly with resolution. While I support this TBAN I would like the following provisos to be considered: to only be restricted from templates not created by him, to have no restrictions to template talk or sandboxes, and to be allowed to collaborate with Technical 13 to suggest changes which are then carried out by Technical 13. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I largely agree with what Mrjulesd just said. It seems to me that it has been long enough for Sardanaphalus to post a substantive response, and I take the fact that it has not happened yet as reason for me to not wait any longer and Support a limited ban. Because templates appear on multiple pages, edits to templates require a reasonable amount of care and consensus. An editor who has this much difficulty responding here needs some boundaries with respect to editing templates, but it does not have to be a "punishment". I, too, trust Technical 13 to serve informally as a mentor; for that matter, I would also trust Mr. Strad. I would like the ban to apply only to edits of templates (created by anyone) and to template documentation. No edits there. But edits would be unrestricted at template talk pages and draft/sandbox templates, and any editor in good standing (not just the mentor) could agree to implement changes to templates and documentation. And I sincerely wish Sardanaphalus happy editing going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  Since my comment above, Sardanaphalus has posted at some length at my user talk, and also posted the two sets of questions to editors above. I've read all of that, carefully and with an open mind, and my opinion is not changed, because what I'm seeing is a combination of having difficulty accepting constructive criticism and having difficulty communicating effectively with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Working toward an alternative outcome

Hello. I have been trying to work out a promising way to contribute to this thread, so I apologise if this initial post appears belated. Mr. Stradivarius endorsed the idea that linking/copying the conversation I started on his talkpage should be a good first step, so, with the exception of its Template:Tnfs, I've quoted it below. Thoughts, please..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

== Request ==

Regarding your proposal: Though I've found a certain amount of information about this situation, I've yet to divine or find advice as regards what's considered an effective way for the... indictee? to proceed. I'd appreciate, therefore, your advice/assistance.

Sincerely,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As Tryptofish advised you, you should post a comment at the ANI thread. If you don't comment there, it will probably lower other editors' opinions of how well you collaborate with others. For things to go as well as possible, you need to a) show that you understand what the complaints about you are, b) accept responsibility for the issues brought up that are your fault (apologising helps here), and c) show that you are committed to improving your actions in the areas that you accept responsibility for (an action plan will help here). Though I started the thread about you, I don't actually want to see you topic banned if it can be avoided. I started the thread because I thought that a topic ban might be the only way to get you to change your behaviour after you seemingly ignored advice from myself and others. Perhaps this is all just a communication problem and can be sorted out through discussion - if that's the case, then so much the better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this message. In short: yes, I feel there's been an accumulation of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and unfinished conversations, some of which<aside>perhaps many of which</aside> have been prompted, I think, because of my attempts to take advice on board. I'm heartened to read that you don't want to see me topic (namespace?)-banned if it can be avoided; this is what the question at the end of a follow-up to the above that I'd been drafting had addressed ("...is there any kind of outcome other than the one proposed that you'd prefer to see / like to see..?").

Do you think, therefore, that linking and/or copying the contents of this thread to the ANI thread<aside>to see if/how anyone following it responds</aside> is a good initial post for me to make there..?

With my thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Despite, for instance, LT910001's own userpage, this may also be timely.

Yes, I think that linking to this conversation as part of your initial post would be a good idea. You should also try and address my points a, b and c above. But you shouldn't make the post too long - the thread will go smoothest if it is a conversation rather than a series of walls of text. Also, you should comment there soon, preferably today - the longer you leave it, the more it looks to other editors like you are ignoring the thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm required elsewhere for a while now, so will make the post sometime later today. Thanks for your confirmation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There's really nothing for the rest of us to add here. What is needed is for you to say whatever you are going to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not confident about what's best for that to be. Given Mr. Stradivarius's points (a) to (c) above, I'm thinking I should work through what's been said in the main part of this thread in order to demonstrate, I suppose, that I don't "understand what the complaints about [me] are"<aside>more accurately, to demonstrate that I feel their basis isn't as clear-cut or perhaps as well-founded as it may otherwise seem</aside> but I think that's likely to generate one of these "walls of text"...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The general sense I get from this comment is that, in essense, you do not agree with the complaints. In other words, you feel you are doing nothing wrong. That is unfortunate, because that may indicates there is no intent to change on your part. What we are asking of you is to adhere to some basic principles that we expect from anyone editing Wikipedia. One of these principles is to take advice from others instead of fighting them and perceiving criticism on your edits as personal attacks. You have been given lots of advice on technical matters, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears, as you generally do not show any change in editing. Also, if you feel you need a 'wall of text' to address these complaints, that is also not a good sign. So at this point I think a topic ban on Template:-space (meaning live templates only, not including template talk pages, /sandbox and /testcases pages), combined with some other technical restrictions, and coaching, is what is needed to improve the quality of your edits. Accepting a coach would be the only way to lift this ban in the future. Before deciding this, we'd like to hear your view (as concise as possible) on these complaints on your edits. I emphasized "edits" because I want to stress we are not discussing you as a person. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone endorse the train of thought in this message's first half..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It all boils down to...

...this, I think: no more than a handful of editors<aside>and one in particular</aside> thinking, I guess, that I understood something, or that they'd explained something to me<aside>or "advised" me</aside> while, in fact, I didn't understand something, or they hadn't explained something, or mistook statements<aside>or assertions</aside> for explanation. And, as a consequence, despite "most of his template edits [being] fine", it looks like these few editors will have someone banned<aside>not blocked or whatever, but banned</aside> from a namespace – not a topic within a namespace, but a namespace. Does all this mean I've made mistakes and/or misjudgements? Definitely. Do I apologise for doing so? Absolutely. I hope that's not too concise or robust. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the above statement helps at all. There is consensus in this thread to ban you from the namespace. The only thing which may possibly prevent this going ahead is to voluntary agree to a strict set of restrictions, such as the following:

• You accept that there are significant concerns about your current template editing.
• You adhere to WP:1RR in the template namespace, and seek consensus for all edits that are reverted before attempting to re-apply. You fully test all changes in a sandbox before deploying.
• You discuss all changes that introduce new functionality or new parameters to a template, and seek consensus for them.
• You avoid hard-coding any styles into templates.
• You avoid making cosmetic changes to the code which do not affect the output of the template. Examples include changing template calls to redirects, or fiddling with the whitespace.

Would you be willing to abide by these restrictions (and agree to be blocked if you do not)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a good list, but it misses the essence of the problem. No one should edit live templates by trial-and-error, and templates are not like articles where users edit war with snarky edit summaries. Sardanaphalus should use a sandbox to perform experiments, and should only transfer the result to the main template after thorough testing with the sandbox. Take a look at the responses from Sardanaphalus above—there is no acknowledgment of a problem, and there is no indication of a willingness to learn. A topic ban is the only reasonable outcome because technical people working on templates are not willing to deal with disruption—it's just not what is expected on the technical side. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that MSGJ said these rules could "possibly prevent" a ban, if Sardanaphalus would agree to them. I'm interested to see if he does. But if he does not, then a ban on editing live templates is the most likely outcome. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While this doesn't mitigate the above, I would like to point out he has made a better statement at my talk page [152]. But I can't understand why he hasn't said something similar here, but I hope it is forthcoming. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Reconstructed post]  Because, Mrjulesd, despite common sense and some research, I still believe some even-handedness might prevail. If anyone is still reading, no, that doesn't mean I think I'm "right"; it doesn't mean I think I haven't done anything "wrong"; it doesn't mean I don't think there're any problems ...... but it does mean that this narrow, selective mischaracterisation and misrepresentation of the (template) contributions I make needs to stop ...... It paints a distorted, one-sided picture of these contributions and misinterprets their intent. It also ignores the incivility ...... as a result of an inability to distinguish assertion from explanation or advice

[...Apologies; I will have to abort as duty elsewhere calls]

(Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

Close?

It doesn't look like there is much benefit in keeping this any longer, and consensus has been formed. I suggest we close this shortly with the following conclusion. Hopefully this will be a temporary ban and Sardanaphalus finds other avenues to be productive in the meantime — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs · logs) is indefinitely restricted from making any edits to the template namespace in the English Wikipedia with the following exceptions:

• Template talk pages;
• Templates sandboxes, test cases or other "non live" subtemplates used for testing;
• Documentation pages, but only as a direct result of a change to a template's code requested by Sardanaphalus.

• I have just been able to log in again. I will now try to reconstruct what I can recall of the post I was working on that was meant to precede the above. It includes notice taken of the railroading that seemed<aside>and now appears confirmed</aside> to've begun. Of course there is "consensus": it's much easier to make noises when being one-sided, negative and having an axe to grind. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  PS This also denies my completing the response to Mr. Stradivarius' original post on which I've been working and, in turn, his considered response.

User:Lachlan Foley indiscriminate mass article tagging and WP:DISRUPT

• Lachlan Foley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Lachlan Foley is out of control.

In just the last five days, LF has tagged about 400 album and song articles with music notability tags without any apparent research or examination of the articles themselves, many of which actually show they were hit songs or records, like with Blur's #5 UK charting Charmless Man and On Your Own (Blur song) song articles. [153][154]. He seems to have a particular dislike of live albums - 17 out of 22 Gary Numan's live albums articles has been tagged by him as well two Roxy Music albums.[155][156]

Many of the other album articles he threw notability tags on are of those by iconic artists such as Radiohead and Brian Eno.[157][158]

Looking just previous to this latest round of mass tagging, I see he tagged Roxy Music #5 charting Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article with a notability tag.[159]

Just have a look at his contributions page and you'll see.

Any kind of attempted reasoning with him will be met with edit warring as demonstrated by his block for 3RR about two weeks ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267#User:Info4allthepeople reported by User:Lachlan Foley (Result: Submitter blocked).

This editor needs to be kept in check.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done nothing wrong, so I have no need to explain myself, but I will say that if you had also bothered to look a cursory glance at the constructive improvements I have made to hundreds of articles over the period of five years, you'd think twice about calling my tagging "indiscriminate". You are just still upset about that Joy Division incident and are grasping at straws in an attempt to get back at me. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Mass tagging of hundreds of song and album articles, many of which were top 10 or top 20 hits demonstrates you were indiscriminate in your tagging. You can't erase history as the diffs are there forever. Glad you brought up the Joy Division album Preston 28 February 1980 article as that's yet another example in which you failed to do any research and threw a notability tag on. It seems you're angry about that tag being removed and being called on your WP:DISRUPT violating behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I recall this user sending dozens and dozens of similar articles to AfD and IIRC, they've all been kept. Recommend that LF raises notability on the WP:ALBUM talkpage first before tagging more articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given this is a longtime ongoing pattern, I think a topic ban might be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC) AMENDMENT: Given the behavior demonstrated by Cavarrone below with multiple topics, it seems more than just a topic ban would be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just drawing to your attention that User:Lachlan Foley has tagged almost all of the Jebediah releases with notability tags even though everyone of them are charting songs and contain independent verifiable references. Until checking his talk page I was unaware that this editor has a past history of this disruptive behaviour. Concur with previous comments that this appears to be an ongoing pattern that should be actively discouraged.Dan arndt (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute vandalism? See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Abuse of tags, and there are literally hundreds of wrong tags, it's hard to believe good faith. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Def. a case of WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And for Jebediah I see on the #6 charting Kosciuszko (album) article, LF removed all the professional review sources [160] and then tagged it for notability on the next edit. [161] Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I remember a similar incident back in June 2012 with the same editor indiscriminately mass-tagging for notability hundreds of films, including films by Otto Preminger, Oliver Stone, Ernst Lubitsch, Wes Craven, Mario Bava, almost an half of the whole filmography of Roger Corman and more, see User_talk:Lachlan_Foley/Archive_1#Stop_please and User_talk:Lachlan_Foley/Archive_1#warning. Probably a topic ban from tagging articles for notability could be in order. Cavarrone 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Really could use an Admin weighing in on this and for this to have a definitive end.--Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, they're too busy with backslapping and waiting for their spines to develop to help with a real issue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. Just in the last day, even after all the agreement of his disruptive behavior here by all editors, he's tagged multiple charting song and album articles with notability tags - examples are [162][163][164] - the latter of which, Found That Soul, was a top 10 hit.--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still continuing with the tagging spree. Admins, time to step up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have not checked his recent rapidfire tagging, but the time rate of the tags (one tag or more/a minute) is well below of a minimum standard it is reasonable to expect by a responsible, non-bot, good-faith reviewer who analyzes sourcing and contents of the articles. In spite of warnings and previous incidents, I don't see any sign he intends to change his attitude, nor he apparently wants to engage in a discussion to explain his actions, so I strongly suggest a topic ban from tagging articles, especially as the tagbombing appears to be a dead end for LF (even considering previous incidents, I don't see any intention to nominate such articles from deletion). Even if LF could be sometimes incidentally right, this mass-tagging is unhelpful and requires a lot of time (and sometimes stress) from the community to review and fix his edits, and frankly everyone has better things to do than loosing time behind some improper tags (LF included). Cavarrone 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin needed here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

He does not change his attitude very easily. When the Everything Must Go incident went down, he was just removing information that I added without any explanation. I tried to explain that there was nothing wrong with the information, and there wasn't, the information had reliable references, but he just kept reverting my edits, and eventually reported me for 3RR, that was the moment I tried not to edit the articles where he made changes, so I would not have to deal with the process of getting reported. Just wanted to share my opinion because I felt really cheerless when I was reported because of an article where I was adding valid information with references, and when I tried to figure out the reason for his removal of the infomration in question, he reported me. User:Info4allthepeople (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

When User:Rhanas attempted to explain to LF these unconstructive edits, his response was, "How dare you, you don't have a clue about what I'm doing. I am improving these articles and if you have a problem with that take your frustration somewhere else." [165] He just doesn't get it. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin action is needed

Any chance of an admin actually doing something here? This has been here for more than a week. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

C'mon you chocolate fireguards. Pull your fingers out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Moved this section down for visibility. Given the failure of the editor to respond sufficiently, or indeed to stop tagging articles that clearly pass our notability guidelines, I suggest a topic ban on User:Lachlan Foley from adding notability tags to music recording related articles, broadly construed. Please feel free to tweak this as required. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Discussion

• Support as proposer. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The user has no clear idea over notability guidelines and is tagging articles en-masse with thought. The edit history on this article is just one recent example. Continuation of tagging and failure to engage in this discussion point to WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Block until the topic ban issue is decided, to prevent further damage in the interim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have warned him to disengage from this area until the discussion is concluded. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. He's even edit warring to reinstate clearly incorrect tags, and is being very disruptive. It seems like some kind of obsession that can't be reasoned with. And if he's continuing the disruption while this discussion is in progress, block until there's an outcome here. Squinge (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my reasoning in the main section above. --Cavarrone 17:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Black Kite and Lugnuts. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, simple enough. This should be enforced with long blocks. Shii (tock) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support and block, but ensure notability tag ban applies to all topics. As Cavarrone indicated above, he has not limited himself to this tag abuse to just music related articles. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Quite clearly needed. BMK (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Agree, it is my opinion he does not change his attitude and just keeps adding tags wildly on every article. User:Info4allthepeople (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, clearly, the editor is either not acting in good faith, or is not taking due care when tagging articles for notability. Either way, they shouldn't be editing these articles until they demonstrate an understanding of when notability tags are appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC).
• Support appropriate restrictions on this editor including the proposed topic-ban. Even accepting his subjective good faith, his pattern of participation is damaging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Judging by this, I'm not sure if s/he doesn't quite understand what notability means or if s/he just doesn't care (I'm leaning toward the latter though). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning Lachlan Foley from adding notability tags to articles. User demonstrated on my talk page that their believes about notability criterion are in direct conflict with WP:GNG. -- Sam ^Sing! 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Given his history of constructive edits this is clearly not a SPA whose purpose is disruption. Tagging articles is a means of promoting discussion and dialog; an editor doesn't need to obtain a certain threshold of agreement to his proposals or face silencing. It would be different if the editor were blanking pages, etc., but someone should not be topic banned simply for expressing (extreme) minority viewpoints. BlueSalix (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose See Leviathan (song), for instance -- there is no particular assertion of notability on that page, so tagging for notability and refimprove was not a bad thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  WP:NSONGS clearly states that charting by itself is not sufficient to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If I went on a blind tagging spree, hitting 1000s of articles, I bet I can get one right eventually. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What Lugnuts said. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Just by randomness, something will hit.--Oakshade (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reason as Sarek. See Talk:4st 7lb, for example, where he's precisely right: WP:NSONGS states that album reviews don't contribute to an album track's notability. When I dig back through his tags they seem pretty much correct based on the properly-sourced contents of the tagged articles. This comes down to an age-old issue, where people that have made defective articles dislike it when people tag the defects as opposed to correcting them. That the tags can generally be easily addressed doesn't make them wrong, and, if we topic-ban Lachlan Foley, we make it that much more likely that no one will ever fix the underlying articles.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We can ignore Kww comments following a string of bad-faith edits over the weekend. Clearly needs to read WP:CIR before he continues. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The attacks are getting pretty old, Lugnuts.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For attacks, read facts. Are you now going to do your token block threat now that you've been found out? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with 4st 7lb (though there are lot of independent sources available - it might sneak in), but the problem is that LF has been tagging charting singles by major bands. What are the chances of there being no sources available for those? Nil. Tag them for more sources by all means, but tagging for notability is ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - NSONG isn't exactly definitive (probably are, may be, etc), but the articles (as tagged) appear to at least be in question. Yes, there may be other sources that establish notability - but they aren't in the articles and there is enough to question based on what is in the articles. Blocking or topic-banning for placing tags is not a good precedent at all. The editor is engaging at the article talk pages and at their own talk page (to some degree). Worse than the tagging is the edit warring to remove the tags [166][167][168][169] without addressing the concerns raised. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody here is claiming LF should be blocked just by tagging, it's the mass indiscriminate tagging with many clear examples tagging article topics that are most definitely notable (remember, WP:NOTABILITY is very clear:"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."). Tagging the #5 UK hit Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article [170] demonstrates the indiscriminate, almost random nature of LF's tagging. As pointed out above, this has been going on for years. Notability tagging the Oliver Stone-directed film Seizure?[171] Clearly LF has learned nothing over the years. As the opening states, something needs to be done to keep this user in check. --Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mayhaps I am in the wrong here too. Seeing Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song), I would tag it for notability and sources as well. There are two references, one is not about the article subject at all, and the other is a completely unreliable source of user-generated trivia. Yes, if this was a #5 UK hit then it may be notable (per WP:NSONG) - but we don't even have a source for that. I'd still tag it, as NSONG has additional criteria for standalone articles. I'm not seeing clear examples of indiscriminate tagging. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As for Seizure, it had zero references at the time of tagging. Of course it should be tagged or fixed on the spot. It now has a single reference (to Facebook, no less). The lack of a tag is hurting article quality, as nothing is drawing editors to find reliable sources for what is likely a notable film. Again, I would have tagged it too. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and the added tag asked for exactly what needed to be done: someone needed to add reliable sources that address the topic's notability.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Tagging for more sources is one thing, but notability tagging which in effect says "This is not notable because I don't see sources" is a different matter. For Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song), with no surprise it only took me about 3 seconds to confirm it was a #5 hit as you would want confirmation for [172]. For Seizure, it took 2 seconds to find very in-depth coverage. [173] It's clear LF doesn't make any effort to follow WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BEFORE on obvious examples such as those and just slaps on notability tags.--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:BEFORE isn't mandatory, isn't a guideline, and wouldn't be a relevant one if it was. It's a paragraph inside a page describing our AFD process and describes what to do before nominating an article for deletion. If Lachlan was dragging this many articles through AFD, I'd be in favor of a topic ban. Putting a tag on unsourced articles in the hopes that someone that cares about the topic will care enough to add a reliable source? That doesn't seem to warrant any kind of action.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we'll just go back and forth on this about tagging for sources, which nobody here is having issue with, is a very different matter from mass indiscriminate tagging for notability which is beyond simply a request for sources and where the issue is with most editors here. Pretty much what I stated just above is where I'll leave it stand.--Oakshade (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If the only difference between the two tags is that the notability tag has an implication that makes it more successful in getting editors to actually add sourcing, I would see that as a fairly persuasive argument for using the notability tag.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with that. The only time I would use the notability tag was if I saw an article that (a) looked non-notable, (b) I couldn't find any online sources, but (c) I was not familiar with it and could see that there may be something I'm missing. If I suspected it was possibly notable then I would add refimprove and see what happened; if I was fairly sure it was non-notable I would nom it for deletion. The notability tag is IMHO fairly useless in most circumstances. And especially with many of these where (b) doesn't apply anyway unless you're not trying. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, empirical evidence has told me that expecting anyone to fix a top level tag at any time is just wishful thinking. Take a look at George Town SC, Historic church of Cúcuta, Iranian football league system, New Town, Luton and New England Interstate Route 19 - not a single source added on any of those articles for well over eight years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The tags I have looked at mostly verge on the ridiculous. And there are many hundreds of them posted over the last few days. And they have done this before, and not learnt. They haven't even stopped for this ANI. And the only explantation posted is "You are just still upset about that Joy Division incident and are grasping at straws in an attempt to get back at me.", showing no understanding of the issues at hand. Something needs to be done, and this is a good start, else this disruption will continue. I would also support a motion to restrict drive by tagging by this user too, as most of them have no talk page discussions at all.--Mrjulesd (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion below. NE Ent 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ban as being Draconian (covering every single article "broadly construed"?) but suggest a stern warning that a topic ban on "music notability tags" is highly likely in future if too many bad notability tags do not stick. Collect (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He was already given a stern warning. And that was 2012. He doesn't care about warnings.--Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:HITANDRUN - the way you fix articles is by doing this, not this. (See point 15 on my user page). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - not buying the arguments of "there are loads of unreferenced things in this category", "NSONG is vague" or "they got this tag right!" - the fact is that tag bombing to this degree is almost always disruptive, and when many of these are blatantly wrong... then the user shouldn't be performing such actions. It's as simple as that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Semi-automated tagging with Twinkle of a series of articles with minimal or no investigation is disruptive and probably a mark of tendentious editing. It does seems that this is an editor who does other things than that, fortunately. A strong Knock It The Hell Off message needs to be sent. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Any admins wish to act on this now? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

LF topic ban Discussion

Copied from User_talk:Montanabw

Of the current 6,823,783 articles, about a quarter million [174] have {{Unreferenced}} tags, to pick one example.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. I actually do have a problem with tagging articles. Once upon a time some wikiperson had the road to hell is paved with good intentions idea that, upon finding a problem, instead of fixing it, they'd place a tag on the top the page so that some mythical, unicorn like massive herd of editors would appear and fix 'em. They're a bureaucratic, make work for other people abomination that should go away. Since so many folks like them, of course, a whatever-for-deletion would unfortunately be WP:POINTY which is why I haven't filed it. Given that they exist, and they're acceptable to the community, unless anyone can provide evidence that tags are consistently wrong, Lachlan Foley should not be banned from adding them. NE Ent 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

302860 for {{citation needed}}. Thank you for providing me with a method of verifying that adding that tag is of no particular benefit.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I use {{citation needed}} when improving an article towards GA status, for information in the article when I found it that I'm prepared to believe is true, but haven't found a source for yet. The main difference here is that I take responsibility for the tag when I'm adding it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of J Doug McLean

This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.

I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples:
8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question".
13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI).
5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.)
11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"

Finally, I asked for specific evidence of verifiability for one of his claims and was not satisfied with his response. He has already been asked publicly and personally to refer to WP:VERIFICATION. He proposes insertion of a footnote that looks to me like WP:OR, but he only seems to refer to policy when it supports his argument.

I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish, after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.

You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: I can't agree that things were handled in a responsible way. To give a relevant example, at one point we were asked, "If 0x0077BE and Burninthruthesky think The Statement is true for some control volume other than the infinitely tall sliver, they need to tell us specifically what control volume that is and provide citable sources for their assertion."

I don't think I made any such assertion (see my link to "evidence" above). Did you? Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability tagging, IMHO frivolous and disruptive, of a Star Trek episode

An editor, User:Doniago, has been applying a "dispute as to notability" tag on our article for one of the 79 original Star Trek episodes, The Gamesters of Triskelion. Although this article could certainly use more links to out-of-universe discussion of the episode, it is quite obvious, and has been accepted for years, that every original Star Trek episode is notable enough to warrant an article. No explanation has been offered as to why this particular episode should be an exception (a point I make here with some hesitation, as it should not be taken as a basis for tagging a dozen or more other episodes either).

There being no reasonable basis for questioning the notability of this particular episode, or any episode, I have attempted to remove the tag, although I have not removed a parallel tag asking for more links or citations. Doniago has repeatedly insisted on reinstating the tag. Ordinarily this would merely result in a talkpage discussion, which would eventually result in enough people who understand the historical importance of Star Trek coming to the page to create the obvious a consensus for notability. However, the community's time is its most precious asset and I do not believe it should be squandered in a lengthy discussion about a nonsensical tagging (after all, is there any doubt that if this article were taken to AfD, the result would be a speedy or snowball keep?)?

I request input on whether my view of this as a frivolous tag is shared by others, or whether the community believes that in such a matter as this, we should engage in process for the process' own sake. (Notification being given to Doniago and on the article talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

All 79 episode articles are equally notable. Why Doniago feels otherwise, is a mystery to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Equally notable as any other. Are they a new editor(like myself) who is just a bit confused on how to go about making it clear that the article needs improvement? FlossumPossum (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, just one who doesn't believe that all Star Trek episodes are notable any more than he would agree that all Lord of the Rings characters are equally notable. I asked for any prior consensus establishing that all ST episodes are inherently considered notable and was not provided one. I also asked for any independent source that had discussed the episode in significant detail and, again, was not provided with one. If the consensus is that all ST episodes merit an article regardless of how well-developed they are then I'll bow to that consensus, but I think to dismiss an editor's sincere concerns that an article may not meet Notability concerns, to summarily remove maintenance tags while not engaging in conversation on the matter, and to further dismiss the editor's concerns as "frivolous" is inappropriate. Then there's bringing the editor to ANI without making any evident effort to follow other Dispute Resolution processes... Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy to unwatch the article and let it remain as substandard as it is if trying to call attention to it is going to engender such a hostile and unwarranted response. DonIago (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I've read at the article-in-question's talkpage, there's a consensus that the episode is notable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DonIago, if you can realistically imagine an article like that getting deleted at AfD on notability grounds, then you are new to Wikipedia, so I'll just gently tell you that such a deletion would be extremely unlikely and that you'll come to understand this with more experience. And if you understand already that the article wouldn't be deleted in such an AfD, then adding the notability tag is frivolous, as Brad says. There's a huge difference between saying an article needs improvement and that the topic is non-notable. Generally, if you think an article is substandard, unless it's seriously biased or misleading our readers, it's best to either WP:SOFIXIT or leave it alone. Putting in tags telling other people to fix it just uglies up the article and makes you look like a dick. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought the point of tagging was to call out problems that needed to be fixed and that might go ignored otherwise. One doesn't need to be in a position to fix a problem to recognize that a problem exists, and is it not better to "fire off a flare", as it were, then to simply let substandard articles propagate? DonIago (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The intention of the tags was something like that, but they were another of those well-meaning ideas that (IMHO) hasn't worked in practice. The way to deal with a bad article is fix it yourself, or leave a note on the talk page with specific criticisms. If you don't care about it enough to do either of those things but tag the article anyway, you're just a busybody, and the tags make reading or editing the article distasteful enough that it's less likely to ever be improved. Edit warring over the tag compounds the problem, in this case to the point where it's worse than whatever was wrong with the article. Use the talk page, but also try to understand Wikipedia culture when deciding what to do about a particular article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I don't give a lot of credence to the views of an IP editor who engages in borderline personal attacks and has less than a week's worth of editing under their belt. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia practice that ship has long since sailed regardless of what we deletionists (I count myself as one) think. The tagging is frivolous and pointy and Doniago ought to meditate for a while on the meaning of NOTBURO, with administrative assistance if it comes to that.

As a content question I don't have any real concern about our ability to write a neutral article about something as old as a TOS episode anyway, so I'm not particularly bothered by the articles' presence. There's millions of other articles that I'd chop (like all the BLP's) before getting around to the TOS episodes. No they're not equally notable, and I agree that Gamesters of Triskelion was one of the weaker ones despite the presence of Angelique Pettyjohn. But the presence of an article for each TOS ep is an ancient Wikipedia reality and if someone has an issue with it, it's best to start a Village Pump discussion (or Jimbo's talk page [ducks]) rather than tag bombing an article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing right now, is that the back-and-forth adding/deleting of the tag, has stopped. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One quatloo on keep. --NE2 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I knew that kinda joke would surface :) GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I approve. DonIago (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, I think we have way too low of a bar on individual episodes and characters. In this case I do think its likely that this episode would be found notable but I don't think the tagging was in bad faith or is an issue for ANI though. I do think we need to have some wide ranging RFCs to nail down these criteria though. Personally, I think that if every episode is regularly covered by reviews, or in a "trek encyclopedia" etc that is not a sign of individual notability but series notability. To show episode notability, sources that do not cover every single episode are what we need. (IE, AV club, or TVCritic reviewing an ep does not show notability. When Time, or the NYT, or someone like that writes about an episode it does. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's pretty much exactly what the thrust of my argument has been with regards to this situation. DonIago (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a no-no even if the point being made is valid. Don't war over a content tag to pursue a larger wiki-crusade. If you want to pursue a crusade, start a mailing list thread or something. Non-notability of ST:TOS episodes is one of the stupider crusades a person could pursue in my opinion though. I can suggest some much better ones if you're interested (HHOS). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This has long seemed to have been a problem. If something truly is "inherently notable", it should be trivial to cite sufficient sources showing that it is. I wouldn't have any issue at all citing sufficient references to maintain a full article on, say, a US President or a chemical element, so if anyone questioned notability there, I could quickly and definitively prove them wrong. If such references aren't available, it really is time to question the notability of the subject. That being said, the person questioning the notability should also have done their homework and done at least a reasonable search for references, and should note what they did that failed to find sufficient material to sustain a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article has been tagged for needing citations since 2012 and was tagged for questionable notability in June of 2014. That suggests to me that it may be a case that either sources aren't available or no editors care to provide them. I made some effort to find sources that would not necessarily be expected to discuss a ST episode and couldn't find any (which isn't to suggest that they don't exist). The editors I attempted to discuss this matter with at the article's Talk page either could not or simply did not provide such sources either. If any source had been provided then we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. I didn't open an AFD because I think there probably is a worthwhile source out there somewhere, but if I can't find one and nobody else currently monitoring the article is willing/able to do the footwork, then IMO the Notability tag seems appropriate for the time-being. DonIago (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A notability tag on an article like this would make Wikipedia look absurd and I will continue using energetic best efforts to remove such tags, whether or not I have immediate access to my library of secondary Star Trek sources as a given moment. I do not believe this sort of tilting at notability windmills should be encouraged, as it results in gross misuses of community time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask how exactly placing a notability template on an article results in a "gross misuse of community time"? As Seraphim indicated, if a subject is notable then providing a source shouldn't be a problem.

In my estimation, by removing notability tags you're perpetutating the existence of potentially substandard articles while at the same time removing a tool that can lead to the improvement of those same articles. Put another way, I don't think I'm the one who's been frivolous and disruptive during this whole situation, and that's not even accounting for the fact that I was willing to discuss the matter while your first significant action beyond continually removing the tag was to raise the issue here. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, Newyorkbrad, it would be better if you used your "energetic best efforts" to chastise editors that persist in keeping unsourced articles in the project? If, indeed, the article was about a notable topic, correcting it should have been fairly simple. Encouraging projects to believe that they are immune to standard sourcing requirements is what causes the trouble, as their misbehaviour tends to spread.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind, before this ANI was started, the discussion in the episode's talk page did include sources. While we really prefer the sources to be included on the article, our pre-AFD checklist says that sources identified on talk page - if they would be the type to meet notability requirements - are sufficient to demonstrate notability. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• You may want to query some of the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've notified WP:STAR TREK. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And I've wandered over after seeing that post. :) The subject of whether or not an article on episodes of television series which only contain plots has come up a few times over the past couple of years since I've been involved with the project. It's not so much a case of whether or not the article is notable or not, just whether or not they meet the style guide for television episodes. Equally episodes of other series (Stargate SG-1 springs to mind) have been changed to redirects to the episode/season lists. Certainly for me, this is a much better situation than simply deleting the article entirely as it allows the historical article to be restored when expansion does occur. However, in previous discussions, those plots have been left alone as we've demonstrated as a project that we are working through the 700+ live action episode articles (nearing 100 GAs now) but we have well over 600 to go. Our TOS expert has returned and is working up "Space Seed" for FA, and I'm sure once he's through that then he'll intend to start fixing up the other TOS articles too. Plus since the publication of These Are The Voyages, there has been a resurgence in information avaliable as this published production notes and Nielsen ratings for all the TOS episodes for the first time. From online sources, I can quickly find two reviews from reliable sources (AV Club and Tor.com) specifically for this episode as well as a book discussing the slash relationship between Kirk and Spock hinted at in this episode and comparing it to the 1960's Batman series. I think the current tag requiring further citations is entirely appropriate, while it's notability isn't simply inherited by virtue of it's status as a TOS episode but by the coverage it has received. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My impression, as things seem to have quieted down in this discussion, is that there's no clear consensus as to whether the article should be tagged. While a citation to the NYT has since been added to the article, it is more of a throwaway contained within a review of a film than substantial coverage. As being tagged for notability does not harm the article and may lead to its improvement, my feeling is that the tag should be permitted for the time-being. As more than one editor noted above, if editors take issue with the article being tagged, they have the option of providing information with appropriate citations to establish how this particular episode is independently notable. All that being said, I obviously don't want to add the tag myself and then find myself back here, and I'm also concerned by Brad's previous statement that he "will continue using energetic best efforts to remove such tags". Would an admin be willing to support my or another editor's re-adding of the tag? Thank you very much. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to add a source or two, so tagging would probably be a waste of time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Doniago. Let me start by saying that I understand your concerns, and they're not particularly new.

We editors are but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of pop culture, and even a phenomenon like Star Trek really only has a couple of editors making things happen (h.t. especially to Miyagawa for picking up a lot of the slack I dropped while I was on ArbCom.) So while we work, there are a lot of articles that are mostly just summaries, because that was the easiest thing to add back in the day. And a year from now, a good deal of the 700-odd Star Trek episodes are going to in the same situation.

I can understand it's frustrating to just be told "it is notable" without a lot of evidence for it, but that's the case when you're dealing with people with a greater knowledge of the subject; it might be obvious to us but not to you, and I don't think that's your fault. We're just dealing with inside baseball. I know I've come across articles from (admittedly smaller) franchises like Gundam and pointed out how they read as cruft, and had people up in arms in a similar way.

I've gone ahead and added as ELs Tor and AV Club's review of the episodes, and there are a couple others that I don't think work as ELs that could be used as references.

Articles like these really come down to, "is it worth deleting an article that has a lot of verifiable info out there, but which is not in the article," and "is it the challenger's responsibility to add that information?" I would say that it's in the spirit of wiki-collaboration to do your best to add, but also understand that a random article you come across isn't your area of expertise and we can't all be content mavens. With all respect to User:Newyorkbrad's determinations, I don't consider your edits disruptive (they are certainly less wasteful of everyone's time than going straight to AfD, and possibly deleting the article and having to recreate it later); I find tagging articles and keeping them on our radars a helpful thing to do, and that editors tend to get riled up by maintenance tags more than they should be.

(On the subject of notability, I think it's arguable that Star Trek's immense notability doesn't exactly encompass all its episodes, but I think that's less true for the original series episodes, which have been the subject of many contemporary reviews, books on the production, etc. Later series like Voyager have less written about them on an individual basis and are the ones that might benefit from a merge into a season article, for instance; but first you'd have to get to each one and evaluate them with all the sources in hand.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments David. For now I'm at least content to wait to see Sarek's improvements to the article, and I certainly don't think there's any rush to re-tag the article; my main concern was that I didn't want this filing archived without a clear indication of whether tagging the article would be acceptable, or would land me right back here.

I certainly appreciate that progress on bringing the article to the point that (my) notability concerns are satisfied may take time, and I know there's no deadline. While I think it's appropriate to tag the article in its current condition, if someone was going to nominate it for deletion it wouldn't be me. As I've said, I consider one of the benefits of tagging to be that, while the article is waiting to be improved as part of a process, editors may be alerted to the issue via the tag and opt to improve the article on their own initiative. And as I also said, tagging the article doesn't do it any harm.

I'd probably agree that TOS episodes are more likely to be notable than episodes of later series, though that could depend on which particular episodes are being compared.

Anyway, thanks again. As I said, I'll hold off on re-tagging at least until I've seen Sarek's changes, and I'll wait to hear from an admin that re-tagging is permissible before I risk getting myself into (further?) trouble. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Massive POV pushing problem at WP:FRINGE and Indo-Aryan topics

A group of Hindu POV editors are pushing the Fringe POV that the Indo-European languages originated in India. They are doing this through absurd argumentation such as systematically misrepresenting linguistic facts and making absurd Randy from Boise type arguments such as this one[175]. For the record I have made uncivil comments in response to frustration over the absurd "argumentation" displayed by one of the editors, Bladesmulti (talk · contribs). If there is a boomerang in store for me that is worth it to get some administrative support at these discussions. The discussions are located at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Proposed_Hypothesis.2FTheory_as_fact and Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_hypothesis.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For how long you have discussed the hypothesis on fringe theory noticeboard? Only 30 minutes? I had only asked you to name "a single scientist who claims it(hypothesis) to be scientific?" Can you consider finding one instead of misinterpreting a hypothesis as a science when it is contradictory to the actual scientific researches and accepted migration(Early human migrations)? You are clearly contradicting the Wikipedia:FRINGE clearly says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." When you are aiming to represent it as a fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You meanwhile are countering my citations to prominent indoeuropeanists in peer reviewed academic presses with citations to books written by Punjabi accountants and supported by money from religious hindutva organizations[176]. So why should anyone take a word you say seriously? You are promoting fringe views and attempting to marginalize the mainstream academic view through obfuscation and outright lying. You need to be topic banned from anything related to ancient India caus eyou are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Much nonsense. In fact my citations have better quality. Now show me a single fringe view that I have promoted? Doubting the scientific status of a hypothesis, that already has no acceptance in the scientific community is not actually incorrect but it is the reflection Wikipedia:FRINGE that warns you against interpreting unscientific hypothesis as fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are an admitted advocate of Ayurveda, Blades. Is that not sufficiently fringe for you? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I admit it? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(It should be noted that Blades has changed the text in his comment above so that my response to him looks slightly odd. I was in fact replying to his comment "Show me a single fringe view that I have promoted?" which he has now changed to mean something a little different. an unfortunate , but not untypical action. It would be accurate to point out that Blades is a wp:spa account dedicated to the promotion of fringe views and pseudoscience.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever else Bladesmulti may or may not be, they are not a single-purpose account. I seem them pop up all over the place, fixing the rampant problems relating to caste articles etc and whatever this argument is about, it has nothing to do with the issues that they are usually fixing there. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can see that from the diff. Oh and nice jokes, only because your pseudohistorical revisionism didn't got accepted even after a huge RfC. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What diff? What jokes? Also, I've asked you before to explain what "Pseudohistorical Revisionism" actually means, but you have never answered. Do you actually know what it means? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See Pseudohistory, describes it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard. Do you deny it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not directly neither indirectly, only discussed it. You are mixing things there, and I am not getting that what it has to even do here, unless that is a violation of a policy. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you don't deny it then. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your base? I had asked for some links that you have not yet provided. Don't worry about the 0 revert rule on that page, it wouldn't be removed through this way. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Blades, your comment above doesn't make any sense at all. For the record, my base is London, but other than that, I cannot make any sense of the above remark. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly I had asked for the link for the above claims that you have made. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't appear to have made such a request, unless it is couched in language that is so obfuscatory that it has passed me by. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[177] was itself enough for any regular user to understand. Now just admit that you cannot show your claimed red herring, in form of diffs, but gibberish. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I made no claims regarding fish, or food of any kind. I merely pointed out that you advocate for the pseudoscience of Ayurveda, contrary to your claim above that you do not promote fringe material. I had not realised that you advocate for fringe topics outside pseudoscience as well. Could you please explain your reference to gibberish above. Is that a personal attack? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you point to at least one such topic. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You could start by examining the three examples that Maunus maunus maunus provided in the first post to this thread. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A general point about 'Fringe' on Indo Aryan topics:- According to Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." That means we don't know about the origins of vedic people nor their period, so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this uncertainty and not reject views of scholars disagreeing with Kurgan_hypothesis as only 'fringe'. That makes no sense. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong.. In order to be balanced the correct picture of this uncertainty should be reflected in the articles dealing with this subject. Rather than targeting editors who are trying to bring this balance. Every scholar who disagrees with Kurgan_hypothesis does not necessarily become a hindu nationalist and any editor bringing about the balance by pointing out uncertainty does not become Hindu POV pusher. Indoscope (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for User:Bladesmulti

User Bladesmulti has a long history of POV pushing on India and Hinduism related articles. They are using wikilawyering and other strategies to systematically misrepresent the scholarly mainstream consensus in the field and create insane amounts of work for good faith editors to defend the mainstream views acrosss different articles related to hinduism and the history of India. I propose they be topic banned from the topic area.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Disagreeing with a unscientific hypothesis should lead to topic ban? Really? None of your scholarly mainstream consensus holds any weight on scientific world, and atleast when they don't even talk about the scientific evidence but mostly the proposed linguistic similarities. I have mentioned before too, that no one has professed this hypothesis since 2011(DNA researches[178]-[179]) like they did before. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, POV pushing, lying and obfuscating, using unreliable sources, misrepresnrting reliable sources, and misrepresenting policy should lead to a topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• And where are the diffs? We also see scholars who actually claim the advocacy of these unscientific hypothesis as "unscientific".[180](changed) Bladesmulti (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you even read what you quote you gigantic moron. That is Jamison describing the proponents of the "Indigenous Aryan" hypothesis. For crying out loud when you cant even read three sentences in a row without getting them to mean the opposite of what they actually mean then how can you even claim to be competent enough that you should be allowed to edit here. You are pure and simple a waste of bandwidth and other editor's time and a clear detriment to the project of building an encylcopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Gigantic moron"? You were asked to provide diffs, not to repeat the same inflammatory nonsense. Oh and where did I said that I was talking about the Indo-aryan hypothesis and not Indigenious Aryans? I was saying that I am not in favor of either hypothesis, again you have failed to grasp what I was saying. OK you can see [181]-[182], the elements of Indo-Aryan hypothesis are indeed pseudoscientific. Bladesmulti (talk)

You changed the quote where an actual linguist states that your favorite pov is emotional and unscientific to a link to a book by notorious hindutva hack Srikanth Talageri in an attempt to show that the mainstream view is "pseudoscientific". An edition of the Rigveda does not show anything about the scientific consensus about indoeuropean linguistics. Honestly I wish I could get blocked here so I wouldnt have to feel responsible for not stopping your abuse of wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing opinions with the Wikipedia:FRINGE if a person(I mentioned as scholar) from the same field has expressed view, that is similar with many others, we cannot rejected it. It is considered that both of the hypothesis are incorrect, the previous one, "Indo Aryan" invasion theory is already rejected by mainstream as pseudoscientific. You are still not understanding that we cannot consider any of your claimed mainstream linguistic understanding, when all of them comes before the DNA researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you perchance show a source that suggests that the "DNA Researches" (which say the opposite of what you believe they say) are relevant for the question of Indo-Aryan migrations?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to that,[183] report says that no genetic influx took place. And suggesting[184] that there was no admixture for over 40,000 years. In order to analyze the material about the proposed migrations, it is necessary to mention the DNA researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Indiatoday? That is your answer?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And times of India,(who derived it from Harvard medical[185]), all 3 are reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No they are not reliable sources for genetics, and their summaries coontradict the abstract of the study they are supposedly summarizing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From where you have confirmed that? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Without a significant number of diffs this proposal will not go anywhere and is just a waste of time. And the latest comment should send a WP:BOOMERANG flying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'd suggest a boomerang as well for Maunus. There's no evidence of problematic behavior actually presented here aside from just claims made here. I tried to make sense of the actual content dispute over at the Fringe noticeboard, [186] but there really aren't sources being brought forth by anyone that really establish scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. Just seems like a difficult content dispute that's tough to gauge where the actual weight lies without really delving into the topic. That being said, asking for an editor to be topic banned without clearly articulating the actual problem with actual diffs is not a content dispute, but just plain bad behavior. That doesn't mean their concerns aren't legitimate, but if they're going to make the claim, they need to really back it up. Right now I'm just seeing WP:ASPERSIONS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared for boomerangs. However if anyone is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia here they would be more concerned about religiously motivated POV pushing in science articles. Kingofaces is talking without any knowledge about the topic except for a google search and he has not looked at any of the actual evidence provided.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That still looks like aspersions. You're only shooting yourself in the foot at this point. The "google search" you refer to was actually through literature databases like Web of Science, etc (though Google Scholar isn't half bad). Considering the general attitude I'm seeing here and things like "I would suggest that everyone who is not a professional historical linguist step back and listen to those who are actually knowledgeable in this area." [187] a boomerang seems warranted in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, I dont care. You are the one who ise going to end up looking like an idiot when you sanction someone who knows what they are talking about in order to support a religious nutcase with no clue and no competence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

At least learn to spell before repeating some inflammatory nonsense. Bladesmulti (talk)

At ANI, you don't just make a claim and run. You need to back it up. If you want someone topic banned for being a religious POV nutcase, then you need to actually demonstrate that's occurring and it's being disruptive. Not doing that is why you aren't being taken seriously here and why the only justification for any action is against you right now. You've made your bed in this matter, so I'm not going to try to help anymore if all you're going to do is only make accusations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol. "At ani you dont just make a claim and run"... How long have you been frequenting ANI? I am however not running anywhere. Thanks for all your "help".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I do see some signs of disruptive editing on the part of Bladesmulti here. Not sure yet whether it rises to the level where immediate sanctions are called for, but at least a warning is probably appropriate (and I'll notify him of the India discretionary sanctions, just in case). Blademulti's behaviour at the noticeboard thread on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and in the related discussions at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory tends towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT type of stonewalling. What's more, this edit from today [188] appears to be removing a validly sourced claim and a footnote to an appropriate source, without any explanation in an edit summary and no discussion on talk. As far as I can see, the point in question, that the Indo-Aryan migration also has genetic evidence in its favour besides linguistic and archaeological, is precisely relevant to the objections he was trying to raise in those discussions. He was claiming that there was a lack of "scientific" evidence for migration; here now we have a source providing just that (I checked the pages in question; the source does support exactly what it says). Unless he can come up with a very surprising good explanation for this edit, I would certainly count this as disruptive tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Yesterday I had removed the same one from Indo-European migrations with edit summary "not in citation" because the cited book[189] has no mention(of even Aryan) or support towards that claim. At p.167 it is talking about 10,000 years old,[190] which was later superseded. At page.168 it says about one of the same hypothesis that genetic evidence provides no support. It wasn't objected there and I was actually pointed on my talk page for similar changes that yes it wasn't on the citation. On this page, that you have pointed, I was only repeating the same change. It is mostly me and Joshua who are making most of the changes on these pages in last few months. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we clearly have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. The cited source says on p.167: "This strongly suggests that M17 is an Indo-European marker, and shows that there was a massive genetic influx into India from the steppes within the last 10,000 years. Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true". Whether or not it mentions the term "Aryan", this is about as clear as it gets. Bladesmulti, if you do not recognize this source for what it is, then it will be a lot better for the project if you do not continue try to edit in topic areas like this. I am now officially warning you that I will take action against your editing under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Another competence issue is seen on this very page when he quotes Bryants book as calling the Aryan migraiton theory "emotional" and "unscientific" when in fact it is Jamison saying that about the Indigenous Aryan theory. That can only be explained as either a bad faith attempt at obfuscating well knowing that most editors wont read the source he presents, or it is such an amazing lack of competence that he probably should not be allowed to edit at all. Every time he has presented a source it has had similar problems. Either they are veiled propaganda sources published by people with no relevant credentials backed with Hindutva money, or he misrepresents the conclusions of actual studies such as the genetic study which exactly argues that NOrth Indians (Indo-European speakers) are genetically distinct from South Indians and have genetic connections with IE speakers in Europe and Central Asia. So there are two possibilities, lack of competence or bad faith. Either way I am not intetrested in wasting more time on it and hence proposed the topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is competence issue on your part here. I hadn't mentioned either hypothesis in the post, thus you got it wrong, but I had changed it for you so it couldn't look anymore meaningless, you had expected just opposite. Yet you claimed that I am showing wrong wording of the policy when I had shown completely correct. Not your rapid OR/SYNTH that you have just made up above. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)(rephrased)

Enough. You were caught red-handed in blatant misrepresentation of sources, claiming [191][192] that reliable sources called the mainstream hypotheses "emotional" and "unscientific", when the source you used was in fact saying the exact opposite, and now you are trying to wiggle out of it [193] by claiming you didn't actually say which hypothesis you were referring to? When it was perfectly clear from the context of the first two posts that you could only be referring to the hypotheses your opponents were claiming to be the mainstream, i.e. the migration view? This is getting more than just bizarre now. You really need to back off from this topic, in which you have entangled yourself hopelessly, or somebody will have to make you disengage from it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's that case, I have just told before that I would rather contribute with more caution. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That edit isn't great. The real issue here is the usual content dispute that emerges when people try to use DNA evidence in Indic articles. The source Bladesmulti removed, for example, appears to be at least 13 years old and is a subjective interpretation in a rapidly-evolving area of scientific knowledge. Almost certainly, we need to be couching things in much more circumspect terms and attributing them within the text itself. But, still, Blades should argue for that circumspection rather than just wipe it as they did. Maunus, in my experience, is not keen on circumspection so the entire thing could well end up at DRN or similar. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it shows 10k for the migration into the US, although such dating have been updated for years, it is about 15,000 now. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that Blades' defending tooth and nail of a hopeless position is highly annoying. Yet, he still seems to know when to stop, in contrast to some other biased editors. I've also seen some constructive discussions at the related talkpages, for example Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Balance, which gives me good hope that most editors involved can still work together. The Fringe Theory Noticeboard gave a very clear statement, with which we can go forward, I think (well, most of us, not everyone diff, thread). So, I'd prefer to give Blades again the benefit of doubt. This being said, I very highly appreciate Maunus' contributions, and hope to meet him again in this area! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with the admins who are watching this page, calling someone a gigantic moron by a former admin is OK? Maunus has a history of making personal attacks and he is being given a very long rope here. This very much looks like a content dispute and Maunus just wants to silence the other party. Most of his complaints are not really backed up by any diffs. -sarvajna (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker

I have proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker, after re-opening the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Not very happy about recent closure of debate) which was just closed. See below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct link.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Thanks. What an irony: a self-referring link. Somehow fits into the whole discussion... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

RfC is opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues continuing at The Lost River

Many of the same cast of characters discussed/discussing above are now tangling at The Lost River, another ancient-India-related article. My attention was called to that, by this: Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Books_advocating_a_fringe_theory. We have three big threads on this page with these folks. I think Robert McClenon was correct back on Jan 27 when he recommended) that these threads be shut down and an arbitration enforcement case be opened under WP:ARBIPA with respect to India-related issues. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreement and restatement

As User:Jytdog points out, there is a lot of heated discussion between specific editors about various topics involving ancient India. In my opinion, this noticeboard should not try to adjudicate conduct issues that can be adjudicated by Arbitration Enforcement, and the ancient history of India is subject to WP:ARBIPA, because, as the arbitrators have restated, the modern conflicts on the Indian subcontinent are inextricable from the ancient history of the region. The administrators at Arbitration Enforcement do a good job of deliberate application and enforcement of sanctions. The community should not try to adjudicate conduct issues that have already been identified as polarizing the community, and India is such an area. Take the ancient India issues to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

One particular editor has been identified as having conduct issues that go beyond ancient India, and include Buddhism, which is not subject to discretionary sanctions except with respect to its country of origin (and the locus appears to be Tibetan Buddhism, not Indian Buddhism). Conduct issues involving Buddhism really are in scope here, such as the request for a topic-ban. I did propose an interaction ban with respect to stalking on an India-related issue, and I request that its discussion be continued, because the most obvious evidence of the stalking took place before that editor was notified of discretionary sanctions, and because stalking is contrary to Wikipedia policy without respect to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the India-related threads be closed and taken to Arbitration Enforcement. I will let the community decide how the original threads should be closed, by consensus here, or by moving to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The problems with RW do indeed stand apart from the india-topic; it should be judged on its own. Regarding the IAMt, OIT & FRINGE, personally I'd prefer to let the RfC run its course, so everyone can participate and give their arguments, and we can settle this issue once and for all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis of JJ. As the RFC has improved much of the article already. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. The RFC has been deadlocked with the same old arguments and the attitudes of the editors pushing fringe theories haven't changed. We can give the RFC some more time. But it would be wrong to conclude that the issues have been resolved. Far from it. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have improved the article; Indoscope has aided to this (oh irony), by providing summaries of various "publications." I simply hope that this RfC is binding; if not, can ArbCom make a binding statement on the "status" of the OOI/Indigenist campaign? Or can they "only" (it's not "only," of course; it's quite a lot, I guess) sanction specific editors, judging on their behavior? Or can ArbCom also say: "This is fringe, it should not be given undue weight, and if you do so, DS applies, since this is about India"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Though it surely would help if we could close a couple of threads on OOI. I'm getting old; I have to check at which thread I'm responding when I click the "save page" button... NB: apologies for posting too many messages that I'd opened a ANI-thread on you-know-who; I was quite pissed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by some editors Vedic Period - Neutrality of which is disputed

I would like to highlight the case of tendentious editing by some editors, who are gate keeping a particular WP:POV on Vedic Period - Neutrality of which was disputed by me. User talk:Joshua Jonathan and a group of editors including User talk: Kautilya3 have done a highly objectionable job by shifting the discussion from the talk page of Vedic Period and moving it to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact without inviting/informing me since I had raised the question on neutrality of the article. By discussing the issue amongst like minded editors and coming to a conclusion without including all the points I have raised they have engaged in WP:GAMING and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources". I had only wanted to build a consensus about presenting the views of other scholars who have done research on the topic of origins of Vedic People which is a highly debated issue and no scholarly consensus exists on it. The same fact about lack of consensus should reflect in the article to make it Neutral and encyclopedic. It should be noted that I had not engaged in any edit wars while trying to build consensus and had done so in good faith. Indoscope (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua Jonathan had also the moved the page for book The_Lost_River by Michel Danino which is a notable book which details an alternative view to what he and a few other editors including User talk: Kautilya3 are pushing by engaging in WP:GANG. He had merged The_Lost_River with Michel Danino without first raising a merge notice. I believe to was done show it as frivolous and less notable than it is which can be seen from the talk page that these same to editors were involved in trying to remove that page. I later provided the relevant references of book review and restored that page which thankfully settled the issue.Indoscope (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Indoscope, that thread was opened by Blades. I'm not your personal servant, as you will understand. NB: the correct link is Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact.

Regarding Danino, you moved it back, and added some reviews, which is fine with me.

Regarding WP:GANG: "As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV)'." The Fringe Theory Board gave a very clear statement regarding the status of your favorite theories: it's fringe. There's a very clear consensus on that. Presenting fringe-theory as being equal to mainstrwam scholarship is POV-pushing. You may choose to do so, but that's clearly not in line with Wiki-policies.

Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Vedic period. I offered an opinion on the The Lost River and suggested an RFC for merger. You decided to unmerge it, and Joshua Jonathan accepted your action. So, I don't see what is "tendentious" about it. Your input on Talk:Vedic period has been taken on board by Joshua Jonathan, and he is following up on those sources. See Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Souces. Again, there is nothing tendentious here. I would say you are wasting your time, and his time. Forget this. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not once said that User talk:Joshua Jonathan initiated Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact. I said he and User talk: Kautilya3 moved the entire discussion their without inviting me to participate when they were fully aware that I had initiated the WP:POV dispute Talk:Vedic_period#Neutrality_of_the_Article_in_Question. Total of 7 editors discussed over a short peiod of 2 odd days to decide that every scholar who does not agree with the Kurgan_hypothesis is fringe. That is far from representative, not enough editors participated and not enough time was given for other knowledgeable editors to join in. The issues of dispute raised in the Talk:Vedic_period#Neutrality_of_the_Article_in_Question were not discussed there. User talk:Joshua Jonathan based on that side discussion removed the WP:POV notice board. This entire behaviour in this episode was bad faith editing. Joshua had clearly invited like minded editor Kautilya3 to gang with him in the debate on Vedic Period article evidence here.

Joshua moved The_Lost_River page again with the same editor Kautilya3 involved evidence here. These two editors are collaborating to keep only a certain POV in the wikipedia articles rather than build balanced encyclopedic content evidence of WP:GANG here. Jonathan is driven to keep only a certain POV as dominant and collaborates with other like minded editors in doing so more evidence here.

According to Upinder Singh who was herself quoted out of context by Joshua Jonathan in his edits on Vedic_Period, "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." That is exactly my point we don't know so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this uncertainty and not reject the other view as only 'fringe' that makes no sense. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong..

I am alleging and have provided evidence above that these editors are engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources" and WP:GAMING the system to project only a particular WP:POV by way of collaborating in a WP:GANG Indoscope (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

In 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:

"Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions [...]".

Michael Witzel warned, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."

[User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]] -Let's talk! 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Witzel has been responded to by Kazanas in an open letter here and here. His response was defended by Ashok Aklujkar by stating "I do not know what a researcher living in Greece would gain by risking his scholarly integrity or believability for reasons of Indian politics." "Dr. Kazanas has responded to Professor Witzel's comments, in what I, as someone knowing a thing or two about linguistics, consider a scientifically defensible or plausible way. Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..

Dear User talk:Joshua Jonathan the edits I had done on Vedic_Period were not WP:UNDUE which I have explained to you earlier also even if a certain scholarship is not widely accepted it does not mean it cannot even be represented on the page. My edits which you reverted were not overshadowing the main thrust of the existing article. Only after due mention of the supposed' mainstream view had been represented the differing scholar's conclusion were added. wikipedia editors should not be sitting in judgement of scholars by deciding that so and so has been criticized by so and so and hence he/she is 'fringe'. We can equally find other scholars supporting that scholars view too. Above mentioned comments by you is another demonstration why I feel your editing has not been Neutral. Hence I have raised this ANI WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources" and I stand by it. Indoscope (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Behavior of Keepitreal2

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

---

I am not 100% sure if this should be in Sockpuppet investigations, Edit warring or on this page. If I am in the wrong place, please let me know, I will move it.

I am requesting administrator intervention regarding Keepitreal2 behavior on Missouri Executive Order 44. Keepitreal2 has absolutely refused to discuss the edit made by her, instead demanding that all the editor "Let me be clear, give up already"

Keepitreal2 made 4 edits in December 2014 to Missouri.

1. (cur | prev) 21:30, 30 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,779 bytes) (+69)‎ . . (Removing it all validates my position it was an inconvenient truth.) (undo | thank)
2. (cur | prev) 18:06, 27 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 639714447 by Ecjmartin (talk) Many is not maximizing. It is accurate. The word missive incorrect, it was not a message or a letter, it is an ORDER. An inconvenient truth for you) (undo | thank)
3. (cur | prev) 14:37, 25 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 638664905 by Ecjmartin (talk) minimizing the deaths is not appropriate) (undo | thank)
4. (cur | prev) 19:08, 7 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+919)‎ . . (Undid revision 636978996 by Ecjmartin (talk) Speculation has no place here. Facts only. To state the Militia did or did not know is pure speculation and is unverified) (undo | thank)

User:Ecjmartin (multiple times) and User:Tripleahg (one time), and user:AsteriskStarSplat attempting to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, reverted what (and I agree) were WP:POV edits. All three asked Keepitreal2 to discuss it on the talk page. Instead Keepitreal2 refused saying things like "Talk page addressing was not necessary". The Keepitreal2 began to using an IP address to edit instead:

1. (cur | prev) 01:53, 21 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:765:fc7a:aee7:3fa9:be63:ce08 (talk)‎ . . (23,783 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Undid revision 642848168 by Ecjmartin (talk) Talk page adressing was not necessary. The issues were previously answered in explaining edits and were redundant.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:34, 16 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:2903:559d:2f78:15e8:5153:1b40 (talk)‎ . . (23,783 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Adding edits back. My points are clear and concise. Inconvenient truth for some perhaps. Talk all you want,.) (undo)

I came along on 21 January 2015‎ and reverted Keepitreal2 myself and also requested that she take it to the talk page. Ecjmartin open a discussion. The on 26 January 2015‎ the IP editor restored Keepitreal2 version, again refusing to discuss the issue here:

1. (cur | prev) 19:15, 26 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:2903:2eeb:e7e3:ecad:b8ef:48f8 (talk)‎ . . (25,872 bytes) (+969)‎ . . (InconvInconvenient truth. Stop trying to change history. As stated before, there is no proof they had no knowledge and given the political positions the men had there is more probability they knew than did not. Let me be clear, give up already) (undo)

This lead to the page being Semi-Protected for a month. In response, instead of taking the issues to the discussion, twice user Keepitreal2 posted on my talk page (here and here) that she is doing "Nothing wrong", that she "was not the one disrupting". She treated to "Report me". Then she stated that she is a "female", something we had no idea she was until today, and that we (Ecjmartin and myself) were "misogynistic" since we disagree with a "female". Lastly she states that "unequivocally you have an agenda" since I am not "Mormon" (the page is about Mormons), but I edit on "Mormon topics". Ironically, just this week I was accused of being a "Mormon apologists" here. Apparently I'm bias as a Non-Mormon Mormon apologists who can't make even ONE edit on pages about "Mormon topics".

Clearly Keepitreal2 has been edit waring, Sockpuppeting, and Uncivil. She refuses to use the talk page and follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of addressing the issue she makes Uncivil comments. An admin need to address this behavior. What this is I leave to the administer.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is me who has been bullied. My verifiable, scholared, sourced edits removed repeatedly. Being forced to state the same statements over and over. Deleting my response to conversations about me. I am being silenced. I am being falsely accused of having previous interactions with this person. The list goes on and on. It is infact misogynistic to assume I am male and refer to me as such. Yet another example of inconvenient truth. Keepitreal2 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just looking through some of your contributions Keepitreal2, I think you have been acting at the very least Rashly. You claim non mormons editing mormon pages must have an agenda which suggests POV issues.1 You've repeatedly re-inserted the information without discussion on the talk pages failing WP:BRD.2 and you're account has only edited pages related to this one dispute. If you just go to the talk page and discuss the best way to present information available in reliable sources this is much less likely to blow up into a dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well to the casual observer it might appear that way unless you look at User:ARTEST4ECHO userpage and observe the history/pattern of the editor who started the disruption User:Ecjmartin consistently teaming with / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits. Not playing into their mob mentality does not place me in the wrong. Seeing their pattern of promoting their agenda puts me in a position to demonstrate their abuses. Keepitreal2 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to read what Keepitreal2 calls a "consistant pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits". It is all contained at User_talk:ARTEST4ECHO#A_question.... Please go read it.

However in a nutshell, User:Ecjmartin came to me, as a long time editor, to ask me what the proper procedure was to handle an IP editor who refused to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. He was frustrated and about to leave Wikipedia.

I told him what another unrelated administrator (who I think is Mormon) told me when I asked him the same question, but on a different page. We both agreed that the best thing to do was start a Talk:Missouri_Executive_Order_44#Recent_edits and again ask the IP editor to talk. If that didn't happened, then the admin suggested taking it to WP:ANI. We decided instead to request Page Protection, as it can be hard to block an IP editor. If that failed, then we would go to WP:ANI. Keepitreal2 was only mention when Ecjmartin noticed that the edit summaries for the IP editor and Keepitreal2 were exactly the same and that was after Page Protection was applied, and only in the last response.

If asking an IP editor to talk about his edits or answering a request for information on WP policy is a "consistent pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits", then I guess I'm guilty. However, so is every editor are most follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and ask for information from others. Again I find it funny that I'm guilty of "anti Mormon edits" when I only ever edited Missouri Executive Order 44 ONCE, but I'm also a "Mormon apologists" pushing a Pro-Mormon Agenda on other pages at the same time.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is wrong-headed to characterize ARTEST4ECHO's edit's as anti-Mormon. In the time I've been editing WP with this account, as well as during my earlier editing as an IP, I have never seen a single edit from him that could be properly described that way. Instead he has made significant, useful, generally even-handed contributions to the text of literally hundreds (if not thousands) of articles related to the LDS Church, and the Latter Day Saints movement as a whole. Additionally, you may not realise this, but ARTEST4ECHO is personally responsible for finding and adding as much as perhaps 75% of all of the photos used on biography article of the leaders of the LDS Church here on Wikipedia, and a significant percentage of the images for Latter Day Saints movement topics as a whole.

It normally doesn't matter why any editor develops an interest in editing any article, as long as the edits themselves conform with the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a volunteer service which is here to build an encyclopedia by working together to come to a consensus on what should be included on the articles. In any community, disputes will arise, and there are methods of formally resolving user conduct disputes, but those are rarely needed when everyone remains calm, and the focus remains on the the edits (ie content and context) and not the editors. Even incivility is tolerated to a degree, so long as it is not disruptive.

I personally find Keepitreal2's actions moderately disruptive, that editor's accusations rash and groundless, and that editor's unwillingness to truly dialog (which is different in attitude and approach than taking pot-shots at people one disagrees with) as unproductive. I have no opinion if that editor deserve any formal sanctions. However if Keepitreal2 is in fact Mormon, they need to learn what was described at Talk:Temple garment/Archive 8#This Article Is Completely Inappropriate, with a particular focus on the 5 enumerated points that start with quotes from M. Russell Ballard. To borrow a quote from someone else: "we can disagree without being disagreeable". ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally exclude Ecjmartin above - merely an unfortunate oversight on my part. Ecjmartin also doesn't deserve the anti-Mormon epithet, nor should his efforts be disparaged. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of you requesting dialog, I will counter your assertions with four simple concepts:

1. Although after being repeatedly advised it is misogynistic to assume I am male and refer to me as such, Artest4echo is still refering to me as "his" even in these resposes here. Clearly he has an issue and my assertion in the matter continues to be validated.

2. Having contributed such a large portion has given him a God complex and he feels he is the absolute authority. One could argue a person with that much contribution makes the subject lopsided or skewed to said persons opinion.

3. Not one acknowledgement or discussion of my concerns here have been addressed.

4. Skewing an article to slander a group of people which takes away the extreme injustice done to them does make someone "anti". It doesn't have to be done overtly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Keepitreal2: Thank you for taking the time to respond here. I have responded in kind at User talk:Keepitreal2, where we can more easily continue this dialog. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The only time I used the word "His" on this ENTIRE page was when I said "If asking an IP editor to talk about his edits or answering a request for information on WP policy is a "consistent pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits", then I guess I'm guilty." I was referring to IP editors in general, and proper English uses Male titles unless specified. Additionally, when referring to Keepitreal2 specifically, once she said she was a female, I never used the word "Him", "He" or "His".--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I attempted dialog with Keepitreal2 on that editor's talk page, as it appeared above that the editor was willing to do so. Based on this most recent exchange, as well as those with others, Keepitreal2 appears to display an unacceptable level of I can't hear you, TRUTH!, I'm right and you are wrong, and temper tantrum behaviors. Additionally, based on Keepitreal2's interactions with others, the editor generally appears to be unwilling or unable to maintain a minimal level of civility and Wikiquette, particularly by displaying an unacceptable degree of Carthago delenda est about those who are perceived as not agreeing with that editor. Because of this, I formally add my voice to those requesting intervention: a short block of Keepitreal2 seems to be in order, and perhaps a ban from the Missouri Executive Order 44 article itself (but not the talk page) for a month following the block. Hopefully after that action Keepitreal2 will better demonstrate that they are here to build an encyclopedia. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example of abuse. They were very aware I was not an IP editor but rather jumped on the fact I was not logged in due to clearing my cache. Abusing this tactic to get their way. As you can view on ARTEST4ECHO talk page history, It was made very clear to him. Also note Ejcmartins acknowledged reference of knowing it was me prior to subitting their false accusations. Also note on my talk page I informed him I was going to report him, so he then turned around and repoted me. Keep digging yourself deeper if you like. Keepitreal2 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this has clearly become a case of Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire and Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls, I will just leave it to the administrators and other editor on this board to read my talk page, Keepitreal2 comments, History:Missouri Executive Order 44 (including Pre-"clearing my cache IP edits" on the 5th and 6th of December) and Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44:Recent edits. Then administrator can decided what to do.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We agree on something. Thank you for pointing out not fighting fire with fire. I'm confident the administration will look at the timestamp of me informing you I was going to report you and the timestamp you reported me. As well as the edits/deletions to your userpage and talkpage. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am just returning home from work, and so am just now able to reply. Other than saying 'thank you' to Asterik and Artist, I simply wish to refer all disinterested parties to the talk page for this article. I have been repeatedly accused of ignoring an "inconvenient truth," of making "false accusations," of promoting an "anti-Mormon agenda," and now of displaying a "mob mentality." Yet when I invited my accuser to come to the talk page and discuss her concerns there, she refused--not once, but repeatedly. I do not intend to answer these baseless accusations any further, save to refer disinterested parties to the relevant pages, where they may compare my entries with hers and judge for themselves. I do not claim to be 100% 'in the right' here, and if I am judged by a consensus of disinterested WP editors/administrators to be in any way in the wrong, I am prepared to offer an apology and amend my future conduct. I am not asking here for any specific sanctions against anyone; I simply wish to concur in and support Artist's efforts to end this fruitless 'edit war' and make this article the best possible article it can be.

My original offer still stands, Keepitreal: come over to the article talk page, and let's discuss your concerns in a friendly manner. I'm still willing--and I think I can speak for the other editors involved in this dispute as well--to consider your concerns and work together with you to find some middle-of-the-road solution to this dilemma. How 'bout it?? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just came from the article talk page. So much for that idea... I defer to WP's 'powers that be.' - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To update thing. Despite and after this ANI was created, Missouri Executive Order 44 she changed the page twice (again) ([194] and [195]) without discussion.

Then when Keepitreal2 was warn by an admin here for her behavior, she simply said "Thank you for the information as I did not kno who to turn to. These folks have a history of such behavior." Refusing to even acknowledge that the warning was directed to her, not me or Ecjmartin.

However, and finally, she did finally comment on the talk page. Unfortunately, it was only to state that "I'm not sure why you guys think your Opinion matters.", "You are trying to rewrite history...", "Your arrogance is beyond unacceptable" and "Believe you me, this will be resolved".

She is still in no way was willing to discuss the WP:POV and WP:Scope issues, or anything other then her getting her way. Her edits are clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

It's clear that she has no intention of listen to any suggestions or warnings. She insisted that she is not going to stop, which is Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, what she accuses me of despite the fact that I have only reverted her edit. I haven't edited the pages since March 2011‎.

While I defer to admins to do what should be done, I do feel that something, like a block, page or topic ban, need to happen, or this behavior is just going to continue and we will be right back hear in a few weeks. I would even be willing to not edit the page for 2 or 3 months, if she would be willing to do so also.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lmao this is tiresome. It takes two or three or how many ever to hav an 'edit war' war is not an individual sport ejcmartin started it and is very much a part of it as are you. I hav never refused to adress anything... the only thing i have no intrest in is hashing and rehashing ridiculous circles a.la this ish. Some people havw lives. I am on a mobile and no where near my computer. At some point if you have anything original to ask/say perhaps we can make progress. Keepitreal2 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Her comments are increasingly aggressive. I am hoping for some sort of admin intervention that might help cool the overall situation.

This morning I said "This drama is the most exciting thing that's happened to me all week." While it's true that this has been "drama," that was not a constructive word choice and I regret it. It's true this has been exciting for me- in a bad way. It's the agitated sort of excited. BUT. I know that my intent with the word "excited" was probably not clear to her or any other reader and I should have communicated better. On the other hand, she recently said "This is so comical I don't even know where to start" to an editor who was calmly making well-reasoned points.

I said a source she provided (the pertinent portion of which is written in the third person and does not present itself as a primary source) is the best source of the three we have for that subtopic. I said nothing negative and neither did anyone else. She then commented elsewhere on the talk page "yall [are] saying a mother's firsthand account of her experience with this order is questionable" (referring to us questioning the source she posted, which no one had done). She then said I'm "not in the right state of mind." Pot meet kettle?

She repeatedly said she has more authority on this topic than peer-reviewed authors because four of her great-grandparents were prominent Mormons so she grew up with the stories. (Semi-prominent is generous in this case, but whatever.) She's been told that her family background doesn't change anything here on WP, but she insists it ought to. I think she must be aware that most peer-reviewed Mormon history articles are written by descendants of the early Mormons, but she wants to be the authority. She's also casually assumed that the other editors and I do not have Mormon ancestry. (For comparison, look what happened when someone used a male gender pronoun in a hypothetical that wasn't even about her specifically. Their "assumption" was highly offensive to her and she brought it up repeatedly.) From what I've seen, MOST editors of the Mormon history articles have Mormon ancestry. My "Mormon credentials" are stronger than hers, but I don't go around talking about my ancestors as though it means I should get my way.

She's said that any ex-mormon editing pages on Mormonism must have an axe to grind and, basically, they should not be allowed on pages that no longer concern them. That comment was directed at one of the other two contributors to this article, and I felt it was extremely rude/insulting.

Even her comments about how she should take a break and let an administrator handle things are worded aggressively. (And the break hasn't been taken.) Two recent examples: "Do you need a little time for it to dawn on you?" and "Now go ahead and remove your slanderous contributions as promised please and thank you." (I was unable to guess what contributions she meant nor did I see any discussion of removing something from the article, so I asked. She never replied).

Today she posted a massive block quote of copyrighted material. The relevant portion is perhaps 1/5 of a page long at the very beginning. There was another question raised on the talk page which is answered in the middle of the quote, but that question was already determined to be outside the scope of the article by the time she posted. I think the publisher would be less than thrilled. An editor expressed concern but said he didn't want to offend her by changing anything, and she has completely ignored his comment.

Her strong emotions against other editors extend through the whole range of Mormon topics, and I wonder how much further they extend than that. This isn't the place for emotional baggage to get aired out. This is an encyclopedia. Tripleahg (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you even hear yourself when you write this ish? Somebody questioned my credibility, I responded by divulging information about my background to defend ugly attacks against me. Am I allowed to breathe? I'm confused by this ish as I'm sure the admins can read timestamps and see that the last thing I said last night was I will let them handle it. Again, false accusations. At least that's easy to prove. On the other hand, your my ancestors are more prominent than hers is downright childish. Your definition of prominence must rely on post Missouri 44 and assassination of Joseph Smith when Brigham Young did his thing because saying Joseph Kinght and Isaac Morley were Semi-Prominent shows your lack of knowledge about church history and only goes to validate the position you say I have taken. Unless of course you don't consider material supporting the translation of the book of mormon important. Hell the plates were picked up in my grand fathers wagon. The only person more prominent in the church than Joseph Knight, Sr. was Joseph Smith and he is a cousin of mine so your point falls beyond flat. And if you want to take it in that silly direction... lets use Joseph Smiths words concerning my great grand father Joseph Knight, since they hold more weight than yours "[He] was among the number of the first to administer to my necessities. … For fifteen years he has been faithful and true, and even-handed and exemplary, and virtuous and kind, never deviating from the right hand or to the left. Behold, he is a righteous man, may God Almighty lengthen out the old man’s days; and may his trembling, tortured, and broken body be renewed, … and it shall be said of him, by the sons of Zion, while there is one of them remaining, that this man was a faithful man in Israel." But ya lets let you tell it... #smdh Anywho I don't have patience for your drama. As for the copyright claim, that book is not the only or even 1st published first hand account of hers. She owned her copyright as the writer and she has been dead over 100 years which means it's now public domain. Nice you know your copyright laws. This is why I loose patience with yall and might come across as sarcastic. Lastly, if I am adressing something somebody has said or responding to something somebody has asked me, making it about you doesn't infact mean it actually was about you. But since you mention your ancestors are prominent, shame on you for not standing up against the slanderous way this article was written stating nobody was known to have died as a result of this Order. Joseph Knight Sr. died as a result of it and I will not sit idly by while his and others suffering or deaths are discounted. If that constitutes emotional baggage, so be it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And btw yes her account was questioned by ejcmartin and even deemed as failing validation by artest4echo. Humorous is an accurate label. Cheers Keepitreal2 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The Weight of Chains [2]

UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an ongoing POV war on the topic of Boris Malagurski and his films. The three editors above are absolutely incapable of working with each other without perpetuating a three-way revert war - see the histories and talk pages of Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and The Weight of Chains 2 for examples of the disruption left in the wake of any meeting of these three. I foolishly attempted to moderate this in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for UrbanVillager) and administrator Ricky81682 has also been involved in the past, having blocked at least one of the users. At the latest asking the other parent deletion review thread, all three started in with sniping at each other ([196], [197]) and at other editors who participated ([198]), comments which I took the liberty of refactoring, however they insist ([199], [200]) that this petty back-and-forth must remain for the benefit of the discussion, or something. Their behaviour is clearly seen by other users as disruptive (e.g. [201]) and has become a net negative for users who wish to edit these articles and for the community in general. Therefore: I propose a three-way interaction ban between all three of these users, and further propose that all three be topic-banned from Malagurski-related topics. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? Over at the deletion review that UrbanVillager started, I had the temerity to suggest - briefly and civilly, with a diff - that UrbanVillager had canvassed supporters. You removed that comment. I suggested that removing evidence of canvassing would be unlikely to help the closer reach the best decision, then you removed that comment, and now you frame that as "petty back-and-forth"? We certainly have a lot of trouble with these topics, but I really don't think that is the best way forward.

For what it's worth, I'd happily stop editing the topic right this moment if we could be assured that the problem went away. However, a topic ban would be a unilateral and hence ineffective sanction because, well, I'd comply but another sockpuppet would appear soon enough - there's a long history of promotional sockpuppetry here. Stopping previous sockpuppets stopped the problem temporarily. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, here also RealButter is canvassed[202], to which he replies here:[203] (though to date RealButter has taken no part in the deletion review, and in my dealings with him I have no reason to doubt his good faith). Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly am I mentioned here? Why is a civil post from me drawing attention of ALL editors (inc. Ivanvector) to the 'discretionary sanctions' issue,(here, para 3):[204]). Why is this post removed by Ivanvector AT ALL. Where on the deletion review have I "sniped" and since I have not interacted there with either Bobrayner, UrbanVillager, nor anyone how can I have "back and forthed" (I DID address a single post to Ivanvector, but I think I did so in a civil and constructive manner, again para 3:[205]).

Ivanvector, I invite you to reconsider whether you still feel I have said ANYTHING uncivil to ANYONE or done anything unconstructive in the interactions you cite above.

I endorse most of what Bobrayner says above, specifically that a topic ban on he or I would solve nothing.Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the three, I'm the only one who ever constructively edited Malagurski-related articles, the other two just dispute everything, remove sourced content and attempt to minimize everything that has to do with Malagurski and his work. Bobrayner is frequently canvassed by Pincrete, and the two work in sync to undermine every constructive edit to Malagurski-related articles. Look at the edit history of the articles, all they do is revert every attempt to make the articles neutral and remove anything positive or neutral added about Malagurski (while I've agreed to add negative reviews time and time again). They've already admitted that they despise Malagurski and his work - how can I edit constructively with people whose only goal in regards to those articles are to present Malagurski and his work in the worst possible way, when my goal is to make the articles more informative about the topic that sincerely interests me? I'd like to edit with neutral editors, but the topic area doesn't seem to attract such editors because Malagurski's work is controversial. Both Pincrete and Bobrayner have spent far more time arguing that I should be banned than making Malagurski-related articles better. So, if anyone should be topic banned, it's Pincrete and Bobrayner. If you're going to ban the one person who has expanded Malagurski-related articles to such an extent that these articles have more reliable sources than the majority of film-related articles, ban me as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just here to say I'm out. This topic falls under the Eastern Europe Arbcom heading (controversial as hell) and that hasn't been enforced so this is not too unexpected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be WP:ARBMAC by the way? The initial topic was Macedonia but the conclusions were defined for the whole Balkan region.- Anonimski (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. Also, I have not blocked any user. I screwed up on my request for a topic ban against UrbanVillager and have since then disengaged from the entire issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only observed the conflict between these users after finding The Weight of Chains 2 article, and I couldn't understand why the article needed to be deleted and baked into The Weight of Chains 1, after UrbanVillager had sourced it properly and with material that suggests notability. Anyway, what I've noticed is that Bobrayner has had a tendency to be overly dismissive in topics that relate to Serbia, broadly defined. For example, the unnecessary accusation at Talk:North Mitrovica (11 May 2014), and the way I've been approached at Talk:Goraždevac when I actually had done wikilinkage to a sourced article. I'm not sure if this dismissive attitude that I've encountered is limited to the Balkan region, look for example at the Stealing a Nation edit history and see the blanking there. As for UrbanVillager and Pincrete, I don't know if I can contribute with any info, I haven't had any significant interactions with them so I can't see if there's some sort of trend in their editing.

As for discretionary sanctions, I think it's generally better to just send warnings and constructive criticism in the cases where it may apply here, than to ban for N days and think that everything will be fine afterwards. However, I have no experience with what admins commonly do in these disputes so I don't know what to propose. - Anonimski (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I think some clarification is in order, because everybody (inc. me perhaps) is getting 'deletes', 'redirects', and 're-instates' muddled. The current position is that there should be a redirect, Urbanvillager, was advised to seek a consensus for overturning that decision. Bobrayner and I have argued in favour of upholding the 're-direct' decision (not deleting). Our argument has been that notability has not been established sufficient to justify a second article and the little sourced info there is could adequately be merged with the main article. I remind Anonimski, that notability is established by independent RS having written about the subject, and at the moment the only sources regarding content/claims are interviews with the film maker. Interviews made (I believe) before the film was released. That the film has been seen by about 10 audiences worldwide (and is to be shown in Subotica & Belgrade shortly) is also RS, but none of these showings has so far resulted in articles or reviews. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's a deletion or a redirect, there's also the fact that there are a lot of notable people who appear in the film, as well as its status as a sequel to The Weight of Chains 1, which has notability. All this combined contributes to the notability status of The Weight of Chains 2. Furthermore, I searched around a bit, and though I haven't found any reviews yet, there are definitively articles about the second movie. Links: example 1, example 2. - Anonimski (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski, precisely, but when you're discussing this topic area with editors whose purpose is not to sincerely do what they can to make the articles better, it's hard to edit. Pincrete and Bobrayners only purpose in regards to Malagurski-related articles is to remove sourced content, minimize notability in any way and, if deletion and removal of content is not possible, present Malagurski and his work in the worst possible way. In my personal life, I've been able to work with people who disagree with me on almost everything, but only when our goal was the same - to do the job right. If this was the case here, I would have no troubles working with Pincrete and Bobrayner and we could work together on building consensus. However, considering they dispute everything and are not here to make the articles better, but to make Malagurski look bad and insignificant, I'm afraid I don't see any other resolutions to the issue other than a topic ban for Pincrete and Bobrayner for Malagurski-related articles. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski, notability isn't established by either who is in the film, nor by the previous film, I think guidelines are fairly explicit on both those points. I don't dispute that the film has been shown in (now) about 10-12 screenings, which is all that the sources (inc. your new ones) confirm. Content is solely sourced to interviews with BM, which therefore need careful editing, since anyone with a product to sell is likely to promote it as much as possible. I don't want to extend the 're-instate/redirect' argument onto this page, you have expressed your opinion there and I have expressed mine. The re-instate backers seem to be the majority and that will probably happen. I just wish to make it clear that I, and others have been arguing from a valid stand-point, which is supported by guidelines (and on my part done civilly I hope).Pincrete (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: My primary concern regarding your conduct is the revert warring wherever the three of you edit. From the policy, since I don't think you've read it: Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. The forumspamming between the three of you is a textbook example of what happens when editors simply undo each other repeatedly rather than attempting to have a constructive discussion. Of the last 50 edits (as of this edit) at The Weight of Chains 2 (which happen to be the 50 since UrbanVillager restored the article) 14 are obvious undo-button reverts: by bobrayner: [206] [207] [208] [209] by UrbanVillager: [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] and by you: [216] [217] [218] [219]. You are all very careful to stay under WP:3RR but this behaviour is disruptive anyway, and it's not one of you instigating, it is all three of you put together. And yes, it's uncivil. I could propose WP:1RR or temporary full protection instead, but this just moves the problem onto the talk page, where you and UV post walls of text and WP:BLUDGEON any user who tries to insert a comment (e.g. [220] [221] [222] [223]), and bobrayner throws snide comments around like candy (e.g. [224] [225]), which seems to be his modus operandi in general. The only way forward for these articles is for all three of you to be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion I'm sorry Ivanvector, but your argument seems to be "I don't know who is to blame but at least one of the three MUST be, so let's ban everyone". Since any incoming uninvolved editor is likely to start to forget who the various parties are and who is accused of doing what, can I suggest sub-headings in which the behaviour and actions of each of us three are examined/commented upon. I make this suggestion because I don't see how I can defend myself in a 'group' action in which I am supposedly accountable for the actions of all three.

I am happy to respond regarding my own actions in your list above, should you wish. In one case I misunderstood the situation and was wrong, in some cases I would defend my actions as conciliatory or otherwise constructive, some baffle me as to why they are there or who you think is at fault. Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear that it's the three of you who are at fault. Not any one of you, all three together. There would be no point in breaking this up into subsections. I wish to address POV warring and the edit warring for which all three of you are responsible. Other editors have tried to get involved (notably, RealButter, Shawn in Montreal, FkpCascais, Jsharpminor, Stifle, Ricky who has already commented above, Anonimski who has participated recently, myself, and a whole list of editors who got involved at the previous AN/I and who no longer edit in this topic area because of the nonsense) but it's just all three of you (not any one but all three) who revert-war, plaster talk pages with endless pointless arguments (much of it WP:GREENCHEESE) and drive other editors away from the topic. You've got a long way to go to convince me that any one of the three of you is solely responsible, or that any one of the three of you can behave when the others are around, thus the only solution is that all three of you should stay away from each other. Ivanvector (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, is the goal here to find the best solution for Malagurski-related articles on Wikipedia or to just get rid of everyone editing them? Because if the articles' fate was left solely upon Pincrete's and Bobrayner's decision, the articles would either be deleted or made to present Malagurski as a demon. On the other hand, I've done nothing but expanded these articles, brought notable sources and helped make them more neutral. To the anti-Malagurski editor, any neutrality is perceived as promoting Malagurski and his work (which I've been accused of, even of being Malagurski himself), when all I've wanted was to edit the topic area which interests me most. If you ban me on Malagurski-related articles, it's an effective block on Wikipedia for me, because this is where I'd like to contribute (check my edit history) - I follow Malagurski's work closely and feel I can contribute most in that area. On the other hand, Pincrete and Bobrayner edit other articles as well and their banning would be a much less harsh punishment. I've asked many administrators to explain to me what exactly am I doing wrong, how I can improve my relations with other editors, none have helped me with any advice other than to "try to build consensus", and I've tried. Sure, I've lost my temper a few times, but in the end I'm the one who brings quality material to these articles. A prerequisite for collaboration and consensus is that other editors also want to make the articles better, not delete sourced content and minimize everything to make Malagurski look bad. Look at the edit history - do Pincrete and Bobrayner really, sincerely, care for Malagurski-related articles and want to make them better? Do I? Or do the two of them use every opportunity to dispute everything and vent their frustration with Malagurski and his work at anyone trying to help inform the Wikipedia audience about Malagurski and his work? In my opinion, the solution is not to "Kill them all, God will know His own" (Massacre at Béziers) but to distinguish who is doing good work and who is sabotaging the work. Again, don't take my word for it - if you have time, check the edit history of these articles, the answer is there. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thankyou for naming those editors, I hope as many as possible will respond here and confirm or disagree as to whether I am ordinarily, 'uncivil', 'bludgeoning' or unconstructive. If a reasonable number confirm, I will voluntarily ban myself. I hope you don't object but I am adding Somedifferentstuff's name as he is the only editor to have been involved in the last 6 months, who has not already been named.Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I feel as if there is a bit of mud slinging going on in this thread... Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 15:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, this is clearly going nowhere, Happy Attack Dog has a point, and keeping this open is doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Consider me to have inserted the standard rant about admins failing to act on discretionary sanctions, and then everyone can go back to standard editing behaviour. I'm not intending to reply in this thread any more and keeping AN/I on my watchlist is bad for my blood pressure, so please ping me if my attention is needed, or rant on my talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP

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

---

It was suggested that editors might like to improve Iris purdyi as a tribute to retired User:Neelix who was one of our most active contributors. I reverted an inappropriate addition by an apparently legitimate account which has not been used for over a year, and reverted its re-addition a few minutes ago by an IP.

It might be worth some more folk adding it to their watch-lists, and possibly other action of an adminy nature.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Template:Cue Other editors, please also see this ANI thread for context on why Neelix retired; this may be why the vandalism on the Iris purdyi page may be happening. Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect Lvckv (talk · contribs) is compromised, as not only is the edit made to Iris purdyi the only one made in the last 16 months, but it's not even in the same topic area as usual (all prior edits have been about footballers). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, an apparently legitimate account.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

If it's compromised, it needs blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Unexplained Removal of sourced content and edit warring

A user by the name of NikeCage68 is edit warring and removing sourced content on an article Weegeerunner (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen this come through AIV, and I'm going to give my two cents here. Firstly, Weegeerunner's assessment of the situation looks accurate; NikeCage68 has, frequently, removed content without giving an explanation. This user's major problem is the lack of edit summary usage; the amount of manually filled-out edit summaries in the last 500 edits or so is probably a dozen at most. However... no one has actually attempted to discuss this on a talk page, as far as I can see. Indeed, the talk page for that article hasn't even been created yet, and this should've been attempted before any ANI thread was opened. I personally think the article should be fully protected, and discussion moved to talk. Then again, I don't think the articles should exist at all, and that's why I AfDed them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring continues, we need admin intervention. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Easiest solution: go to RFPP and request temporary full protection due to the edit war (unless an admin sees this and protects it for you). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. I am also feeling Nick is showing behavior that can be seen as ownership. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles have been protected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. This is unfortunate because they are at AfD. Nick has blanked messages on his talk page relating to this dispute. Having said that Nick has apologised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2015–16 Aviva Premiership transfers First of all what I did with the deletion of several citations on those transfers pages without giving valid reasons. My reasons were just really stupid and naive. I really and sincerely apologise for that.

Given this I think that there is hope that the pages can be unprotected to allow them to be worked on while the AfD is running its course.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

Mr illuminaty messing with my userpage

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

---

User:Mr illuminaty Has messed with my userpage because I reverted him and left a warn on his talk. And now User:AnomieBOT Has posted a troll block there. Pls help quick. Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Clubjustin4: You can make a report at WP:AIV for User:Mr illuminaty. As for User:AnomieBOT, that is a bot that substs templates that aren't already substed but need to be, like {{troll}}. Epic Genius (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Ashurbanippal

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

---

Ashurbanippal (talk · contribs) is currently edit warring on several articles. He has been warned by another user [226]. He is copy pasting others edit comments [227] [228] instead of writing anything relevant. Here he is referring to the same WP-pages he was told to read in warning above. He keeps reverting on Arameans in Israel without any relevant input on talk page, and from what I've understood the same story goes for the other articles where he is edit warring. In all cases he is argument is "not to remove sourced material" which he clearly has not read himself. Shmayo (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of making personal attacks against me, you should gain consensus on this talk page before making controversial changes or open incident reports, because that's edit-warring and stalking. I did answer you on the talk page. And if you don't know nothing about the other discussions I'm involved in (where you don't participate), don't give uninformed opinions trying to undermine me. It's quite pathetic.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashurbanippal has now been blocked for 60 hours for edit-warring on Arameans in Israel. Looking at their contribs they've been edit-warring on several Israel related articles, inluding the one in respect of the 3RR warning I gave them linked to by the OP (on Six-day War. It is to be hoped they come off their block with a different attitude. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

MusikAnimal admin abuse

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

---

MusikAnimal [[229]] is abusing his admin privileges and I would like his work reviewed and his admin rights taken away due to his Wikipedia vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_video_game&action=history

There is no cited material or facts related to what has been posted about.

"In May of 1967, the world's first videogames -- as we know them today -- made their quiet, humble entrance into the world. "

According to WIKI,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games

"Due to the haphazard nature of early computer game creation and the lack of concern for preservation at the time, it will likely be impossible to pinpoint the first video game ever created."

This was an obvious fact well before 1967. They were invented more than a decade before Baer.

Please stop reposting incorrect information on wiki and abusing admin powers by denial of truth and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.251.18 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: protected the page because you were edit-warring. Instead of repeatedly reverting the same material, you need to go to Talk:First video game and explain why you think changes are required. Pretty much any administrator would have done exactly the same thing. You are not banned or thrown off Wikipedia, but you now need to justify your point of view and gain a consensus. The best way by far to resolve this debate is, rather than argue about dead links (which, per WP:DEADREF, are still acceptable provided we can find a log on the Wayback Machine), it to supply better sources such as books or newspapers, which are set in stone and never go "dead". On a related note, I saw you removed unsourced content on History of video games, which despite the message given on reverting, is not vandalism and an acceptable good-faith edit. I do it too (though I make a point of rewriting and re-sourcing the material too). In short, calm down and use the talk page to explain the factual problems in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't think it can be explained better than how Ritchie333 put it, but I'll elaborate on my part. Looking at the page history, it's clear that you have multiple IPs blanking material, then confirmed accounts restoring it – over and over. So as an admin, semi-protection seems like the easiest way to calm things down. In other words, it's not that I'm siding with the registered users, it's about preventing disruption. In a content dispute, we generally fully-protect to force discussion, but why do that when semi does the same job? We want to minimize the number of users we shut out. That's my justification. I have no opinion whatsoever in the debate.

I also wanted to second Ritchie's thought on blanking unsourced material. I generally consider that okay... but if another user wants to restore it a discussion needs to take place as to why it should be retained. Verifiability is a must. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Note

FYI, MusikAnimal and anyone else who cares to know, I ended up blocking the IP because they kept on giving out personal attacks to various editors, which eventually got extremely offensive. If anyone other IPs appear to continue this streak, they should probably be blocked for block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fyi: The editor returned as 104.229.37.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Blocked for exhibiting the same behavior that led to the first block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by User:Cassianto

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

---

Today Cassianto has put more fuel on the fire by making yet another personal attack against User:OrangesRyellow: "It pains me to have to speak to you as I find you repulsive". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Cassianto has retired from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They "retired" several days ago, but that hasn't stopped them from continuing to personally attack people. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.... Could a passing admin close this please – or also take strong action against OrangesRyellow for editing the talk page comments of another user, which is what sparked this off. – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict) And perhaps against Rationalobserver for doing the same thing?[230] EChastain (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Close, please Could that passing admin remind the user starting the thread that this isn't the National Enquirer and that we're meant to be editing an encyclopedia here? We hope (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

All of Cassianto's PA's since retiring seem to be related to the original incident which was dying down (see closed threads above). In the name of Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas and also Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, could someone please close this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd wager that Cassianto will be back, so I don't see how slapping a retired tag on his page lets him make a few parting jabs that are obviously personal attacks without any fear of consequences, but I guess consensus trumps common sense here. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:Common sense would indicate acts like this are disruptive. We hope (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fucking lame, there is no personal attacks, the problem is the refactoring of another user's comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• This talk page edit is not acceptable--it's already not acceptable since WP:TPO does not allow it, and the attendant commentary by OrangesRyellow, that "fucking victim" means "victim of fucking" is too silly to warrant an explanation, though if one is needed Giano kindly provided one. In the meantime, another contributor has fled the coop; Rationalobserver, your continued baiting and bad-faith commentary will boomerang on you. And now I'm going to close this since I doubt that anyone is going to block someone with 12 FAs and 9 FLs for saying "I find you repulsive" to someone who was guilty of a terrible misreading that smacks, and not mildly, of false consciousness--either that, or it is evidence of complete incompetence. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Retired"?

If someone posts a "retired" banner on their user page and has clearly not retired, is there a rule being violated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of. See also this discussion for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor should change his banner from "retired" (which is clearly a falsehood) to "semi-retired" (which is undefinable, i.e. very flexible). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing actionable here. The continuation of this matter is becoming increasingly disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Cant this just die already?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Leave it to schrocat to stifle questions about his buddy's behavior once it gets too close to the truth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC) <sarcasm font>BB, now you're being disruptive, and quite frankly, addressing any more of SchroCat's comments will be viewed as harassment!</ end sarcasm font> Rationalobserver (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Luckily, he can both dish it out and take it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC) How tedious and tiresome. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC) You and your little clique are definitely tedious and tiresome. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC) And another PA. How predictable. - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC) And another "I can attack you, but you can't stand up to me." How predictable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC) It's noting of the sort: I have not attacked you. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, this guy Cassiano and his buddy Schorcat and the other members of their little clique think they are better than the rest of us - that they can get away with any amount of incivility, any amount of vulgarity, because they are such "valued contributors". And when someone stands up to them, they cop this "How dare you?" attitude. So, can this particular incident die? Maybe. But next time someone stands up to them, watch what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, I feel the same way you about the cliques do but I feel that this can be addressed on other venues, for this case the discussion has been had and people just want to move on from it onto other things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. Close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not part of any "clique" at all. I do not throw around incivility (when used its normally in relativisation, or because I am at the end of my tether with something or someone pushing a situation beyond what is reasonable). Your continual pushing of this situation each and everytime threads are closed is pointless. What do you think constructive is going to come out of this? That the admins are going to say "Oh, Bugs has started a new sub-thread on top of a closed one, and gone to a personal attack: maybe he has a point that we need to take on board"? Or do you nick that you are going to exhaust everyone's patience and their dwindling reservoirs of good faith? Enough is enough, just close this bloody thread and step away from the dead horse. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bugs, I love you like a brother, but this is enough already.

  I have a request for the clique of valued contributors, and for the clique of non-valued contributors (you, whoever you are, are a member of the first group, of course: go do something else. Paramaribo needs help, and so does Anton de Kom University of Suriname. For realsies: this thread is closed, and it will not be reopened. If anyone wishes to contest the validity of a "retired" template, do it on WP:Village pump or wherever, but do not do it as an extension of this thread. If anyone wishes to take issue with Cassianto as an editor, they can do so...where...in a stone-chiseled RfC/U, for all I care. Basta: closed with administrative authoritay. Drmies (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Heads up on possible controversy

Molly White (Texas politician) made some... um... interesting comments today on Facebook. At least one response has linked to her article, so we should probably keep an eye on it for good measure. http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/rep-staff-ask-muslim-visitors-pledge-allegiance/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Was that really necessary?

Who cares? The liberal editors will gang up and insist on including every negative piece they can drum up off MMfA in every conservative article and will argue weight and undue for every major issue that comes off as hurtful to the political careers of their liberal favorites. Has been that way and always will be that way. No point in trying to ensure neutrality on a political article. Why would you bother trying?--v/r - TP 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC) A Texas politician fomenting religious bigotry? That's so hard to imagine. Should be fun to watch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Ahh, here we have an editor casting wide aspersions that it shouldn't surprise anyone that any Texas politicians could spout bigotry. Will this editor be sanctions for their viewpoints? Not likely because Wikipedia doesn't care if you slander conservatives. It's perfectly acceptable. But don't you dare slander a liberal because then you'd be pushing a POV.--v/r - TP 20:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Slandering editors So is slandering other editors somehow OK? Will you "be sanctions" for the false assumptions you just lobbed my way? If I were to venture into editing the article (which I don't intend to), I would work to keep the extremist views out, as I did with the Sarah Palin article in the fall of 2008 when her article became a high-powered POV-pushing magnet. And I assure you, that effort required a lot of energy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Slander requires that I lie about you. I haven't. You cast a wide negative net against all Texas politicians and clearly stated that we should not be surprised if they spout bigotry. Feel free to reflect on what you said.--v/r - TP 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC) So I should take your comments, about the way liberal editors supposedly, behave as being merely satirical? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that we're done slagging each other off, can we get a revdel on that edit summary with the phone number? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

done, thanks for bringing it up (by either me or SamWalton, we deleteconflicted?) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz edit war

I am the principal editor on the article Kit Carson. User Walter Gorlitz repeatedly reverts material to his preference. I have asked him to take his concerns to the talk page for concensus. He ignores me. His archives reveal that he is in the habit of operating in this way. His reverts are inappropriate, expecially since the article was sent to GA noms a few days ago. Please help! SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of your claims, edit-warring is dealt with at WP:AN3. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll comment at the talk page but you're both at 3RR and have been (equally) blindly reverting claiming consensus where no such consensus seems to have been established. Suggesting Gorlitz has ignored calls to take his concerns to the talk page is plainly contrary to the evidence which is that he started a talk page thread and you've participated in it. Bringing this here to highlight your own edit-warring is a bad idea. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

SeeSpot Run seems to have created a new position: Principal Editor. I'm going to leave a message on his talkpage concerning ownership of articles and collaborative editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I also see he started up a WP:GAN on the article while there is on-going edit warring, and an active WP:RFC. Extremely poor judgement. SeeSpot Run, I think you need to slow down a bit and learn a bit more about how things are done here. You seem to be forcing things in rather incorrect ways. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Kid (1921 film)

User:Clibenfoart persists in adding two unbilled actors (out of 60), a woman (playing "Extra in Alley Scene") and her real-life baby ("The Kid as a Baby"), to the cast listing. This is the single movie appearance of both,[231][232] and it is blatantly obvious, despite a denial,[233] that there is a WP:COI issue: the woman is listed in IMDb as Louise Hathaway, but Clibenfoart calls her Loulou Hathaway and gives her maiden name. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't called her Loulou Hathaway, the edit with Loulou Hathaway was made by an IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/158.222.192.13 - I'm from Germany and I swear that I have no relation to an American family named Hathaway. You should stop making weird speculations! --Clibenfoart (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Several times, you have reverted in such a way as to restore that "LouLou" reference, so it's reasonable to suppose that you approve of that edit, even if you're not its author. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Clibenfoart's given up on Loulou, but still insists on keeping Silas. Unfortunately, the reference given talks about a Silas M. Hathaway and his World War II service without mentioning The Kid at all. P.S. Stop deleting the naming of the credited roles as displayed on screen. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17

Someone want to look at this blocked editor's recent talk page posts with delightful edit summaries [234] and remove posting privileges? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page comments, but this is serious. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have done it. His block will expire tomorrow. Let's see what happens then. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Titodutta: Thank you. Perhaps you can drop them a note saying they'll be able to edit again soon and focusing on content matters rather than attacking other editors is pretty much a must? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have dropped a short note and watchlisted their talk page. Let's see how it goes. Hopefully they will make constructive edits from now, else it might be a WP:ROPE too. Thanks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yanks in the bayou? Strange. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment by ceiling fan vandal

I am being constantly harassed by the ceiling fan vandal. At the moment, his modus operandi seems to be to vandalize a specific article on Wikia [235], then to pester me about it on my talk page. The user has also created two impersonating accounts: [236] and [237] (of User:GB fan and User:Ian.thomson, respectively); I have informed Wikia about the state of affairs, but nothing has been done so far. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Email abuse@att.net , listing the IP addresses and what times they were active, and point out that he's stalking, impersonating, and harassing you, as well as disrupting Wikipedia services. I've written a form letter documenting his actions that's easily, with the intention of sending it every time he harasses me. It explicitly points out how he's violating AT&T's terms of use, if not the law. Could we get someone from the WMF to contact AT&T? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just emailed AT&T. Every day I see him active, I will keep sending an increasingly longer form letter. And I repeat this because this is an important question: can we get someone from the WMF to contact AT&T? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if the WMF legal department isn't taking a lengthy vacation. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The WMF legal department, AFAAIA, has never managed to get an ISP to take action against any of their customers, even where such action is clearly illegal (i.e. Jarlaxle Artemis). I conclude from this that such action is very difficult or the WMF's legal department is incompetent (I know which I'd go for). Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm more apt to side with the former. ISPs are very reluctant to disconnect paying customers. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike blocked his talk page to avoid further harrasment from the IP and as soon as he unblocks his talk page the IP is at it again, I'd suggest blocking the IP now but he seems to have stopped since yesterday--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• In the last thread where Beals was community-banned, a note was left asking to report any further disruption to m:SRG and #wikimedia-stewards. Should do those also.

In response to AT&T's failure to act on its users breaking their own Terms of Service and causing problems here, a radical idea would be to rangeblock their entire IP range in Beals' area, with a note here that informs affected users of the situation and advising them to email abuse@att.net to encourage a resolution. Leave the block in place until such time as AT&T provides assurances that they are dealing with this. It's absolutely ridiculous, but I would support it. Ivanvector (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I second the range block if the stewards can't do anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Block all editors on an ISP to encourage the ISP to enforce their terms of service? Go a step further - block all READERS as well - like was done to protest SOPA. Similar to what TV providers do when channels are "blacked out" - redirect them to programming that tells them that it's their ISP (or in this case the channel's) fault.

Possible compromised account?

Jaywubba1887 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in some very dubious editing over the last few days, basically blanking or deleting sections of an apparently random selection of articles using a mobile device with the edit summary of "Fixed grammar" each time. Another editor has raised the concern that the account has been compromised. Could someone please take a look at this? I'd recommend a preventative block until the account owner has explained what is going on. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Prioryman: Please notify users you bring up here; this is required. To do so, use {{subst:ANI-notice}} or {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=[Heading]}} on their talk pages. I have notified Jaywubba1887 in this case for you. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like a blanking happens whenever they're editing a large section, same deal with the article blankings. I don't think this account is compromised, rather they might have an unstable data connection/phone running out of memory or something. — east718 | talk | 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Off wiki non-constructive editing related to the English Wikipedia

User:IvanOS has accused me on the Croatian Wikipedia that I have a sockpuppet here, which is not true without initiating checkuser request here. To "prove" their point they added following diffs: 1, 2 adding that the users who made the edits are the same person (me). They used those edits as the "evidence" that I have insulted the entire Croatian nation (!). What is less relevant, but worth mentioning is that surprisingly their reasoning was accepted by an admin there leading to my indef block there. VS6507 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi VS6507, thanks for raising this but I'm not clear what action you'd like taken - the en-wiki admins don't have any control over actions taken on the Croatian Wikipedia, and your account is not blocked and has not been accused of sockpuppetry here. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Be glad you didn't get a warning for restoring the vandalism of the other account.[238] For those unfamiliar with Ustaše, this is like opening Germans with "also known as nazis". I will be kind and assume good faith: Maybe you thought the IP had only reverted your own edit and that reverting the IP would only restore your own edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter, I apologise because I didn't notice that bit about "also known as ustashi".

I let admins to decide what action needs to be taken as he speculated off wiki about sockpuppetry here instead of reporting it. I give my consent for a checkuser check if someone thinks that that account might be associated with me. Valid checkuser analysis would also be useful to prove hr wiki admins that IvanOS didn't tell the truth and that my account here is clean when it comes to sockpuppetry and other negative behaviours as well. VS6507 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Malik-Shah I

Qara xan [239] keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the Malik-Shah I article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;

Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.

And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

At best this is a content dispute as it doesnt appear to be vandalism. No eidts have been carried out in the alst week so this also is quite stale. Best option would be to take it to the talk page to discuss or seek dispute resolution. Amortias (T)(C) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Amortias. That user HistoryofIran is a liar. Just take a look on Talk:Malik-Shah I. --Qara khan 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:

if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning)
— User:HistoryofIran

Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly).
— User:HistoryofIran

Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English.
— User:HistoryofIran

I don't know the Wikipedia rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh.
— User:HistoryofIran

didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Wikipedia, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say.
— User:HistoryofIran

• I've bolded all the statements I consider offensive, and this is only from one of your discussions.... -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Wikipedia rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example [240]). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:Secret

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

---

Hi I'm Secret and I'd like you to please courtsey blank my talkpage. SecretIzBack (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Secret. If that really is you! we have no way of knowing. Your best course of action is to please contact by email someone to whom you are already known. I suggest User:Guerillero, as they are the admin who protected the page from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Per CU evidence, this isn't Secret, thus, I have blocked the account. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ed Hubbard The Sniper has attempted to refactor this section has made what could be considerd a chilling effect and has made (then retracted) a threat to kill here[241] a swift block would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Off topic, but Amortias, I don't think WP:CHILL points where you wanted it to point. Just a heads up... ansh666 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No, no it did not. But it does now. Amortias (T)(C) 00:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Qewr4231

For two years, Qewr4231 has been either adding content at International Christian Church designating the church as a cult,[242] and its former leader Kip McKean as a cult leader, or has repeatedly shown up on various talk pages to comment about this topic. User tends to come by, drop a bunch of drama on the talk page, then disappear for two or more months. Most recently the user came by to drop a bunch of links on an article's talk page in a discussion that has been inactive for 2 months. Certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been explained to this user several times over the years, including WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, our reliable source guidelines etc., but user is reticent to accept any of that or simply cannot process it. User also engages in soapboxing on talk pages, for example here (which also includes a nonsensical personal attack), here and here, which is unrelated to Kip McKean, but still completely egregious. In April 2014 I had to redact copy/pasted (i.e. copyrighted) content the user added to a talk page, which resulted in an exchange that demonstrates confusion on the part of the user, and which also highlights the fact that he has previously been asked to stop soapboxing on talk pages. He has so far accused 3 editors of being pro-Kip McKean, including myself, TheRedPenOfDoom and JamieBrown2011. Since the user keeps disappearing, I don't see any efficient way to help him understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but his actions are now disruptive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.

There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.

During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.[243][244]

I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here[245], however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not. Both involved editors informed.[246][247] Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. Please do share these reasons, as accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, and not showing any kind of support behind them is concidered harassment, and can get you blocked. Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Please take care. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

70.190.111.213: repeatedly reverting biased, inaccurate edits on current events portal; refusing constructive dialogue (unarchived)

Good day all,

(this is an unarchiving of an unresolved incident)

First, I apologize in advance for any breaches of protocol I may myself have unknowingly committed, as I am a new user.

User 70.190.111.213 has, at least ten times, insisted on biased and to varying degrees inaccurate renderings of headlines on the Jan. 21 mass-stabbing in Tel Aviv. He has reverted edits by myself (Slvofjstce, previously 70.114.220.115, 72.182.49.254, and 128.62.31.0), FourViolas, 2605:e000:aa0c:f200:443a:c372:b7d9:a32e, 174.88.203.17, and Snowball359:

[248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257]

His current version reads:

• A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crosses into Israel for the express purpose to stab (sic) people attacking over a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street. (The New York Times)

As I've pointed out in my edits, and on his talk page, his headline is overly long, openly biased, and contains two pieces of information either not present in, or contradicted by, the article he provides. My suggested version reads:

• A Palestinian man from the West Bank stabs up to a dozen Israelis in Tel Aviv before being apprehended. (The New York Times)

Once I had familiarized myself with Wikipedia's editing protocols, I decided to reach out to 70.190.111.213 to hopefully end the annoying cycle of reversion (see: User talk:70.190.111.213, January 2015 [the first]). I apologized for the preceding back-and-forth, and explained my concerns with his edits, as well as the rationale behind the changes I had suggested. I requested we engage in productive dialogue before any further edits be made; to that end, I agreed not to change his headline for over eight hours, in that hope that we could open dialogue before then. I received no response during those eight hours, then went ahead and made the edit I had previously suggested. Three minutes later, he reverted the edit. He has since done so two more times, once for FourViolas and once for me. He has not responded to my request for dialogue, but has referred to me as a "sockpuppect (sic) created just 4 days ago for block evasion."

Especially given that 70.190.111.213 does seem to be a fairly prolific and generally productive contributer to the current events portal, I'm not quite sure what action I would suggest be taken. But I do feel that he is acting unfairly and unreasonably, and I hope we can finally bring this matter to a just conclusion.

I apologize again for any inadvertent breaches of protocol, and thank you for your attention. Slvofjstce (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

elegent speech too bad this guy is a sockpuppet for a banned account and he just keeps changing his ip and registering new accounts to do whatever he pleases. This current account is just 3 days old (Slvofjstce) yet he already knows to come to this area to try and contrive a scam to an admin.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

he attempts to contrive an arguement that he has consensus by naming various account all of which are just today's new sockpuppet anon ip or account such as (70.114.220.115) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

another such as (72.182.49.254) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

such as (128.62.31.0) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

such as (2605:E000:AA0C:F200:443A:C372:B7D9:A32E) a three edits were made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

such as (174.88.203.17) a double edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the "wording" of the above edit to the daily events section - the exact item can be viewed at the citation given and although paraphrased (which is exactly what we are required to do) is what the any and all citations on the internet say that i could find according to google - that "A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crossed into Israel for the express purpose to stabbing people attacking up to a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street" and that HE ADMITTED TO EXACTLY THAT UPON QUESTIONING BY AUTHORITIES--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll depose that I'm not a sockpuppet, and that I reverted 70.190.111.213 for what appeared to me to be WP:NPOV problems. Wikipedia should strive to be dispassionate, even in extreme cases.

I propose a temporary WP:Block of the IP for edit warring and refusal to engage in dialogue, and an admonishment to all involved editors to be aware of WP's Arab-Israeli sanctions, particularly the 1RR. I think User:Slvofjstce does not need to be blocked, because they have shown themself willing to make repeated good-faith efforts to resolve the content dispute. FourViolas (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

almost certain that this is just another sock of the above person - how do i know this? - this person also says they just started at wiki (the acct was created just 3 months ago) and yet they are now giving advice to admins??? Further they dont address the issue of the rotating anon ip adove as if they are a magician - "watch this hand please" - no the endelsssly rotation of anon ips is irrelevant - yeah right?!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

further i see no possible way they could have known that this discussion existed and yet they are now following it--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

further i have just looked through all 1000 of this supposed new persons edits since the three months ago creation and yet HERE IS THE BEST ONE YET they have EXACTLY ZERO edits to the daily events page (except the one edit they made there in support of the sock above) and yet suddenly they are an expert about what belongs there to such a degree that they, again i say, are ready to give advice to admins about blocks!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe you have credible evidence of WP:SOCKpuppetry, please open a discussion at WP:SPI. (Note that Slvtojstce already claimed most of the IPs you mention above.) On this page, please WP:KEEPCOOL and respond to Slvtojstce's specifically enumerated concerns about your edit warring and refusal to discuss the problem. Your contribs demonstrate good faith, but edit warring is simply not a good way to generate consensus. FourViolas (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, all. By Wikipedian protocol, would I be unreasonable to make my (repeatedly) proposed edits now? I don't want to unduly pour gasoline onto a fire, but I also strongly believe the current headline to be unacceptable to Wikipedia's standards. I hope we can move forward (whatever form that takes) by 13:00 GMT. Peace. Slvofjstce (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your discomfort with the present version, but I think it would be better to wait either until 70.190.111.213 agrees to discuss or until they are blocked for refusing to do so. WP:There is no deadline, especially because very few people look at "current events" more than a few days old. This noticeboard is for the resolution of WP:User conduct problems, not content disputes, and in this case it doesn't look like we can reach content consensus until we resolve 70.190.111.213's reverting-without-discussion behavior. FourViolas (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin action: 70.190.111.213 has been active recently, but has chosen not to add anything to this discussion since their spurious WP:Socking allegations (a characteristic attempt to deflect criticism: [258] [259] [260]). This has gone on long enough, and if 70.190.111.213 doesn't want to offer apologies or assurances that they will stop edit warring, or attacking other editors, they should be prevented from doing so. FourViolas (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I've never been involved in an AN/I discussion, and looking around I realize incidents usually take a while to resolve. Sorry to sound pushy. FourViolas (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin action: In the 90+ hours that have passed since FourViolas and I last requested 70.190.111.213 engage us in good faith regarding his Jan. 21 Tel Aviv stabbing attack headlines, he's found time for dozens if not hundreds of edits, but has neither opted for a more neutral/accurate reading, nor given us a word in response. I have no reason to believe that, if I make my proposed and moderate changes, he won't continue to edit war and make baseless, offensive claims of sockpuppetry. I'm new here, someone please help this move forward productively. Slvofjstce (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Clinicallytested and Electronic harassment

I'm not certain if this is an ANI issue or a RFC/U issue ...

Edits by Clinicallytested (talk · contribs) on the article Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appear to go against community consensus at talk:Electronic harassment#Incidents. The user has dismissed this consensus simply stating: "it doesn't look like there's any thoughtful consensus". Since the time I started writing this ANI post in another tab, they have also begun edit-warring over the material (now warned on their talk page).

This same user had previously edit warred over comparable material in their now deleted article at Targeted Individual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It appears that their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to soapbox over this issue, trying to shoe-horn the data in where it's at best only tangentially related. While I'm all for assuming good-faith, it's being stretched to the limits for me, so would appreciate others looking over the behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, the user is now blocked for edit warring after commenting on their talk page: ""There's no point in discussing with a wikipedia disgusting troll". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the page for a similar length of time. Any more misbehavior from them, and an indefblock is on the cards. -- The Anome (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki attack page created about a Wikipedia editor

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

---

While lurking on an administrator's talk page, I ran into this post about what was apparently an attack page against User:Johnpacklambert. The page is already deleted (see here). However, if the rationalwiki user ([261]) who posted this is also a Wikipedia, then we have a serious problem. I'm not sure what action, if any, needs to be taken here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's off-wiki, so there's nothing that can be done. ansh666 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia Berrell

Could an admin look at this. It's being swarmed by obvious single purpose editors, possible socks as they are all signing off in the same unusual style. Thanks LibStar (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janine Thompson, based on the contributions at the AfD and the article. ansh666 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)