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

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [1] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [2] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [3], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [4] [5]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [6], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [7] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [8] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [9] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [10] which I restored [11]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[12] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[13] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [14], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [15], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [16], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [17]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[18] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [19] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [20], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [21]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[22]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon ^talk 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What a dumb idea. I've edited quite responsibly in the SCW&ISIL area for several years. I have started and built out a number of good articles there, have no record of edit warring sanctions there, and regularly patrol changes and revert vandalism in this area. Large parts of both the text and organization of the pillar ISIL article still stand as written and organized by me last year. Some people don't like my cleanup efforts but targeting my participation in ISIL topics is wrong headed.

I'm also surprised to see WV still posting in this thread after he failed to answer for his own behavior just above, claiming he was too busy. Someone should look at his falsifications and act on them. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Within the context of the behavioral issues that have been raised, starting a response to another editor with "what a dumb idea" may underscore that this is not such a dumb idea after all. Just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. [23] kettles, pots and all. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The formal proposal is in revisions history. Feel free to use it. But it won't have my support until any of the sides properly establish their viewpoints. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you providing a better worded proposal QEDK. I agree it's preferable to the current version, as it's more precise and fairer to Legacypac as it leaves less ambiguity, but I'd rather defer to another editor to introduce it as I'd rather not become more involved in this than I am already. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can introduce a proposal, however only uninvolved editors can close it. That's how it works. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, I've noticed that you've nominated a bunch of redirects by Neelix for speedy deletion, branding them as nonsense. Why? They seem perfectly fine to me. Neelix is an experienced editor who clearly knows why such redirects are required. I therefore support the CBAN proposed by LavaBaron as I think you need to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Chesnaught (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You do know that Neelix disappeared up his own orifice in a blaze of self-failure, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If Ches doesn't know it, he must be living under a Wiki-rock. Even so, it does seem at this point, from the edit summaries as well as the fervor behind the deletion nominations by this one editor, that there is an unhealthy flavor of vendetta afoot. Just my observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

'A bunch' of Neelix redirects is a very unfair characterization. I processed (CSD, RfD, AfD, or cleared as ok) over 2,200 Neelix redirects just this weekend on list 5 so far [24]. [25] plus some on lists 1-4 too. You must have missed the community decision that any Neelix redirect can be deleted G6 housekeeping if an Admin thinks it would not survive RfD.

Also Someone should look into WV's false allegations above since he keeps spouting nonsense about me here please. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite Legacypac's incessant breast-beating and pronouncements of their editing's importance, their efforts are proving indiscriminate, disruptive and spiteful. Just a few minutes ago, Legacypac reinstated a pair of speedies I declined without substantive explanation, without bothering to check out the reason I gave, with a snarky (at best) edit summary. It's one thing to whack Neelix's hundreds of synonyms for female mammaries; it's quite another to aggressively try to delete redirects like "possession of a firearm", when the simplest Gsearch would shows several million uses, included frequent references in US statutes and court cases. Their jihad is more disruptive than the problem; the reason that nobody noticed Neelix's crap for years was that it was mostly harmless. That can't be said about Legacypac's behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the reinstatements and thought of coming here to mention them, but am glad someone else took the initiative. At this point, yes, the Neelix-related deletion requests by LP do seem spiteful and disruptive. As I noted above. Is his war on Neelix really doing any good at this point? I submit, "No". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just a gentle reminder, this isn't the place to "pile on" against Legacypac. Please clearly state whether you Support or Oppose the Community Ban proposal, preferably with a bullet point and bold, in the main threadline, for ease of bookkeeping. LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply. Lugnuts, of course I am aware of Neelix's departure, but as Winkelvi was saying, LP does seem to be on a vendetta against him for some reason. Chesnaught (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no vendetta - there is still a BIG cleanup job to do. Neelix created thousands of fake words and other misleading redirects. It remains easy to pick off dozens of these in minutes. Editors that are spending their time bitching here instead of cleaning up or doing something productive should be ashamed of themselves for they truly are the proverbial peanut gallery. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That sort of language won't help you out at all here. Furthermore, these redirects that you are nominating for SD aren't always the malicious ones which Neelix created; some of them were actually fine. Chesnaught (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The VAST majority of my noms are deleted. Sometimes others see stuff that can be retargeted or think something should be saved. That is why we have Redirects for Discussion. I don't see a result of not delete as a failure.

• Regarding Legacypac's apparent "vendetta" against Neelix redirects, there are some 80,000 nonsense creations by that one editor which the community agreed needed to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion (rather than mass-deleting all of them, and rather than keeping all of them as good-faith contributions). To support this, the community also passed a special criterion for WP:G6 to allow admins to speedy-delete them. Both of these discussions were large threads with broad community support, not just one or two editors deciding to go rogue. This was happening entirely in the background until about a week ago when a handful of editors began executing their own vendetta against Legacypac, following him around removing his CSD notices, and that's the entirety of the reason that these masses of obvious-delete redirects are getting dumped at RfD again (and then speedy deleted anyway). So if you want to end the disruption entirely, stop removing the notices. I have no comment on the proposal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This edit, with the summary "the peanut gallery can choke on their nuts" is probably enough to convince any rational editor that a CBAN is necessary for Legacypac. The pattern of abusive personal attacks and provocations has gone one far too long. An editor that has no qualms dragging any and every editor who differs wih him to ANI or Arbitration Enforcement on a daily basis should realize that he has been hit by a long overdue WP:BOOMERANG. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Alansohn. Despite the issues being brought to the attention of the user, they continue with the same behaviour that brought their habits to the attention of ANI. And Legacypac should count himself lucky it's not a block/lenghty ban/indef. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors calls other editors SCUM and FUCK on the top of their talk User_talk:Lugnuts should not be talking about bans over civility. Anyway I was already blocked for complaining about Lugnuts rudeness, so punishing me again because he is still annoyed at me taking him to AE is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling any editors scum, if you take your head out of your arse, you'll see it links to a highly funny TV show. Yes it fucking does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ban block of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, but topic bans are NOT a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a proposal for a topic ban, but rather a community ban. Ches (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a proposal for a WP:CBAN topic ban from pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as I quoted above - you may find it helpful to review WP:CBAN. This raises the question of what it is that you are supporting. Is it a topic ban from WP:GS/SCW&ISIL pages, or a complete ban from Wikipedia for continuing to clean up Neelix's redirects? NebY (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The former, sir, although given LP's recent bullying of other users, I would be in support of the latter should it ever be proposed. Ches (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose LP is on the right side of the Neelix redirect issue. He is explicitly carrying out the stated view of the community. I've had occasion to see Legacypac in action over the last several months because of our mutual interest in pruning the WALLEDGARDEN of "World's Oldest People" articles. LP is often brusque and snarky but generally right. His contributions are a boon to the project. It is not a violation of civility to call dumb ideas dumb, nor is it unconstructive to ridicule the ridiculous. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.***

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

Dishonesty is on display above, where Jytdog, for the umpteenth time, attempts to reframe a straightforward situation as something else convoluted and 'out of bounds'. The straightforward situation is that I replaced what I perceive (per the ¶ above) to be an "unfounded personal attack" on me with that phrase. I could have used {{rpa}} but wanted different wording. This straightforward action was reverted by Vanjagenije and I was threatened with an immediate block if I removed his personal attack on me again. This is bullying. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether that was a personal attack. I don't think reasonable people would disagree that threatening someone with an immediate block for removing what they feel and can reasonably seen to be a personal attack is reasonable. And its particularly inappropriate of an admin, because we expect them to behave better than average editors and not to act when involved, and here, the attack was by the admin, Vanjagenije. SlimVirgin agrees that he should have considered himself involved.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

1. that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
2. Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you, The Bushranger? I thought this was ANI. Would you be willing to answer my questions: "Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?"--Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And what about the main issue: If I'm in violation of my TP ban because I discussed Formerly 98, as Jytdog claims, then Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban for doing the same. If not addressed here, it becomes ripe forWP:AE. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK for admins to enforce policies on the folks they don't see as sharing their POV, only, and call requests for evenhandedness "disruptive"? Seems to be.  :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I renew my request that Jytdog to acknowledge the violation, or dispute it. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your claim is without merit. Discussing an editor and his reasons for his behavior around his username/account, and what the community should do about that, have nothing to do with my TBAN. I have not touched on the topic of my TBAN since it was imposed, except at Arbcom. This is a transparent and weak effort at retaliation that is yet more evidence of your generally disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?! That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI [26] (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: [27], at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively [User:X] demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016. P.S., there's more at Talk:Fluoxetine#Kapit et seq.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, Geogene astutely observed that this case might test the community's collective intelligence. Unless a clear line is drawn to indicate that Elvey's conduct will not be tolerated, then I guess that the answer does not reflect very well on us. No, I'm not going to ping anyone, but I think that it is ridiculous that editors are conflating the legitimate investigation of COI with the dishonest tossing around of COI aspersions without any intention of backing it up with evidence, because the aspersions are being cast in a transparent attempt to discredit editors pushing back against POV pushers. The comments that led me to write the sentence just before this one were subsequently redacted by the editor who made them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe ANI is incapable of dealing with this and it will end up back at ArbCom, I don't know. But I will say quite clearly to Elvey that you have used up all of your rope, and any continuation will be treated very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to draw clear lines against a lot of kinds of behavior to show that they will not be tolerated, to ensure neutrality of articles. If the polices and guidelines were actually enforced across the board, without prejudice or bias, then things would work around here. Also note that it is a relative judgment as to who is a POV pusher and who is an editor pushing back against POV pushers. Conjectures as to motivations are also subject to error quite often. The policies and guidelines are clear. We need them to either be enforced equally, or ignored equally. Otherwise, we have biased enforcement, which of course leads to a bias in empowerment of editors, which of course leads to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If problems with Elvey's editing are under discussion here, then I may as well draw attention to this unfortunate comment by Elvey, which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of or respect for copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT: I am an unregistered editor, but would hope that my comments here be allowed to stand: "WikiPedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Last year, I, amongst other IP editors, was involved in a so-called 'content war' with User:Elvey at the Carlos Castaneda page. I and others had tried to edit erroneous information and spurious references therein, also to post new information that had come to light regarding Castaneda's personal history and regarding some of his critics, only to have User:Elvey continuously revert with a distinct POV bias. In my opinion, I followed Wiki procedure to the letter, explaining my edits in the edit summaries and expounding on the TalkPage, waiting for due diligence before editing, only to have User:Elvey arbitrarily and disruptively revert every edit, whilst accusing myself and others of 'vandalism' and disruption. The culmination of all this was that User:Elvey, together with User:Shii (now inactive) managed to implement a year-long IP editor ban on the Carlos Castaneda page. All the evidence is there on the Carlos Castaneda page and Talk Page and I would like to think that a responsible editor (of whom there are many) would look at this history that I have outlined and revert the ban, which I feel was completely uncalled for. Thankyou for your time. 80.44.144.26 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added linkage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued

• Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Wikipedia and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• just a note. As he did in the last ANI that led to his TBAN from COI, Elvey has mostly gone to ground, per his contribs (although there is this strange bit of activity with a doppelganger account per Special:Contributions/Elveyzilla). I am grateful for the (mostly) lack of drama but this matter does need closing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am concerned that the Elveyzilla activity looks like a possible attack/research page, because it seems to be a copy of the talk page of another user (with the use of a transparent "zilla" alternate account to disingenuously deflect attention from the main account). I am going to ping Alexbrn, and perhaps take the page to MfD. This is yet another concern that I wish administrators would pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am currently on a public computer and I don't have access to my account. Back in November I noticed that after a self-imposed 2 month break Elvey immediately went back to editing against their ban. I compiled a draft ANI proposal in my userspace here. I will add further comments when I am back at my home computer. I will also bring the links from my sandbox to this discussion with commentary at that time. Adam in MO via --75.132.99.164 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I've spent half an hour reading but i still cannot figure out the reason for the initial ban, and it strikes me as over-reach. Anyway, i'm not sure what to make of this but continuing to watch and try to understand this inscrutable case. What's it about in a nutshell? Is there a summary anywhere? SageRad (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I brought the intital case (linked in my OP) because Elvey was disruptively interacting with other editors here over COI issues. I asked for a topic ban and he behaved in such a way that he came within a hair of more serious sanctions, but came away with that. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following resolution:

• Elvey is reminded that accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. The "pharma shill gambit" has no place on Wikipedia. Any future accusations of COI must be made at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:COIN, must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with that Guy but thank you for commenting! has been wind whistling here...... Elvey was already TBANed by the community for acting disruptively in COI matters, and he went right back to it, behaving inappropriately yet more. Your proposal in response to that, replaces the TBAN with something weaker... how that is consistent with anything we do here? Or maybe you think the original TBAN was inappropriate? These are real questions. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Against Sorry, Guy, but that is a terrible idea. We need to move toward stronger action. A community ban is needed here. If we aren't going to give our TBANs any teeth then why have them. Elvey has walked through this COI Tban on multiple occasions and a community failure here would endorse more disruptive behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as a step backwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Inadequate. While this discussion arose out of violations of a specific topic ban (re COI), the general problem, as stated at the TBAN, is hounding, and, as noted in this discussion, general behavior across serveral topics. If Elvey only needed reminding of proper behavior a few words would be suffice. That they haven't shows that the problem is deeper than addressed by a mere reminder. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose user is in clear violation of an existing community sanction. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I "do not know and cannot claim to know" [35], [36] whether you're lying. But if I were to repeat that phrase twice in a thread, in consecutive replies, it might look like I was calling you a liar, merely by calling attention to the question of whether you're lying. I think that you would be justified in interpreting it that way. However, SlimVirgin and Drmies might not agree. Likewise, by drawing attention to the fact that Monsanto has deep pockets in three consecutive replies, right after mentioning an editor that was ostensibly protecting their interests, doing this three times,[37], [38], highlighting it in a nice green color, and especially juxtaposing it with a statement that it's some kind of mystery why that editor supposedly protects someone's interests, it certainly looks like you're calling that editor a shill. This could be some sort of accident on your part. Maybe those particular keystrokes are soothing in some way. It could be that this "deep pockets" thing is some kind of tic or compulsion or some sort of poetry that I'll never be able to appreciate. Whatever. I also don't know why the admins don't see what I'm pointing out here. I know what I'm seeing, but all that can be done is to point it out, and then shut up about it if it doesn't get traction. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I believe accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. Any future accusations of COI must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. No one claims COIN has no issues that hinder its effectiveness and evenhandedness.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Support per prop prokaryotes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Proposal Elvey is community banned for 3 months with the standard offer for failing to abide by community consensus regarding their COI related edits. In addition to a continued ban on COI, Elvey is banned from participating in SPI related discussion, broadly construed. Elvey can come back to the community after 6 months and make their case for the TBANs to be lifted.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To be clear, I understand this to be a community-imposed site ban for 3 months, with topic bans about both COI and SPI (I assume that meant SPI, not SPA), both broadly construed, with the option to appeal the topic bans in not less than 6 months from now. I believe that this is the proper response in the context of the previous community topic ban and the subsequent conduct, and a necessary step to let the rest of us get back to peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited the proposal to SPI. My mistake. Good catch. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support the next step. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - given this, a reasonable action for clear violations of current sanctions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am the OP, and I am fine with this. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's impossible to respond adequately while I'm under the ban. However, I've apologized - on this page - for the COI related edits I made. Jytdog claims I didn't even acknowledge them; that's another in a long line of false accusations by Jytdog, which seem to work so well. I was topic banned largely for objecting to misleading presentations of evidence regarding my posts on COI matters. So objecting to the flaws in evidence in this case seems likely to be similalry futile or counterproductive, irrespective of the flaws, anyway. Feels unfair to be facing such a perfect storm.

I have a history of conflict with voters J. Johnson (at Earthquake prediction, where he is very frequently in conflict with other editors), Jytdog, Adamfinmo and Tryptofish. Some of them regularly work closely to support each other or the same status quo POV (which I'm sure they will all agree is a NPOV.)

I see no discussion here justifying the a ban from SPI related discussion, broadly construed. I object to that as unreasonable. I responded, as did SlimVirgin; see ***, above.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When you say that we "regularly work closely to support each other", , you are just continuing the conduct that brought you here. Editors can agree with each other without actually editing in a coordinated way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey certainly does have a history of conflict; that is why we are here. His statement that "some" of us (who, precisely?) "regularly work closely to support each other" is not only false, it is prime example of where he attacks editors rather than positions, and a manifest violation of WP:AGF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fact is, I didn't say and don't think that you regularly work closely to support those other users, but could have been clearer. I said you are very frequently in conflict with other editors at Earthquake prediction.

I ask the closer of this (and others) to make note of the way these three users ignore the words "Some" and "or" that surround that misquote. Context matters and yes, I could have been clearer. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you could have been clearer, but you were not, and I think that was deliberate. To avoid making an actually false statement you imply that I am part of some cabal, which amounts to deception. If part of your defense against the charge of a TBAN violation is that you are being oppressed by cabal you need to provide specific evidence (such as diffs), not disingenuous aspersions. BTW, which "misquote" are refering to? Tryptofish and I both quote exactly your very words some half dozen lines above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal adds confusion to confusion. I've tried to read the August 2015 discussion in which Elvey was topic-banned, following a proposal by Jytdog, but I can't understand it. (Pinging Drmies, who closed it.) It appears that Elvey was banned from Wikipedia discussions about WP:COI. Now Jytdog is back, asking for a total ban because Elvey allegedly violated the topic ban. But he wasn't banned from editing articles about physicians who have challenged COI within the drug industry, etc, which it seems is being used against him. And this comment, which is being cited to support a ban, is ambiguous; I don't read it as a COI accusation. When a comment is ambiguous, we ought not to rely on it to ban someone from Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The proposal here was not proposed by Jytdog, so he should not be made the issue. It looks to me that there is a pretty strong consensus in these discussions that there was nothing ambiguous about the glyphosate comments. Artful, perhaps, but very clearly intended to paint Boghog, a good editor, in just the way that ArbCom has said is unacceptable. It's fine if you have a dissenting view of those comments, but it is a dissenting view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog opened the thread and proposed a six-month ban here. When that wasn't supported, someone else proposed a three-month ban instead. But that Elvey should be banned stems from Jytdog, as did the topic ban in August that Elvey has now supposedly violated. A better solution, if one is needed, might simply be to ask Elvey and Jytdog to avoid one another. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't we tried asking Elvey to abide by his TBAN? I provided nearly half a dozen diffs of Elvey blowing through their tban. Asking them to follow the rules doesn't work. It is time to give teeth to the community consensus and let Elvey cool their heals somewhere else for a little while.--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't have much of an opinion on the ANI thread I closed--just doing my job, I suppose. However, I agree with you that the one comment on Talk:Glyphosate isn't as unambiguous as it's made out to be. There are more diffs listed below, in a post by Adam in MO, and I don't see it there either. Maybe there's violations in an extended context, but that's too extended for me. I see the violations in the edits to the COI template, sure, but those are from October and the editor was warned. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for the reply. If we ignore the diffs from October, where he was warned, we're left with him having edited David Healy (psychiatrist) (who writes about COI in the drug industry) – and I believe mainspace editing isn't covered by the topic ban – and the disputed, I would say ambiguous, diff. Also, Adamfinmo, you seem to have focused quite a bit on Elvey recently, and Elvey doesn't respond well to that. His responses attract more attention, and so on, and here we are. If Elvey and the editors in dispute with him could minimize their interactions, that might be all that's needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: You will remember that I commented recently that you might be finding GMO-2 on your plate sometime. Let's try not to let things go that far. I'm not sure how much you read of the diffs that I posted, but please let me run this by you: "You, Drmies, must have atrocious reading skills, because we must not excuse Elvey simply because we want to cast aspersions on big companies with deep pockets." OK, I don't actually mean that, but I suggest that you look again at the diffs I posted, with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs you gave earlier--it's a lot of diffs, but it's just one discussion. I do not see there what you want me to see, which is a violation of a topic ban. Also, I cannot really parse your hypothetical insult; too complex for me. There are reasons, I suppose, why one would want Elvey chastised--rudeness, a poor sentence here and there, an obsession with a particular former editor--but I don't see evidence for this particular charge. In addition, the way to prevent ArbCom from having to deal with this or that is not to ban an editor. If there is consensus that Elvey's behavior make them impossible to work with or whatever, propose that--but I cannot see evidence of a topic ban being violated in the Glyphosate discussion (which, by the way, does not lack editors who act like what in worms is "a pore on the worm's side"). Drmies (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies I am pretty confused by what you write, as Elvey has continuously violated his topic ban since it was imposed. I reminded him of his TBAN when I am saw him violating it and that led me to go look for others. I haven't posted this before, but his response to my warning was typical - he basically copied/pasted what I wrote and thew it back at me with regard to my TBAN. When he blew of my reminder (as he had the warning from the admin before back in November) and continued dealing in COI-related matters in WP I gathered diffs going back to October and presented this case. He has clearly blown off the TBAN on a regular basis, and more recently his pursuit of an editor for socking (whom Elvey was convinced was editing under a COI), disrupted things at SPI so much that Elvey was barred by Vanjagenije from participating further. Elvey's continued disruption around COI matters and his ignoring of the TBAN is so clear... Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. Tryptofish asked me to look at some diffs, and I did. I see no violation in those diffs. Their throwing your accusation back at you--that may be rude, or maybe it's appropriate, I don't know, but it's not a violation of this specific topic ban. Now, you all should really leave me out of this: I have nothing to add, I am not aware of these conversations, I don't know Elvey from Adam (I think--certainly from Adam in Missouri). It's not me you need to convince; it's other editors, and you'll need some diffs that are stronger than a rather cryptic comment about deep pockets. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to let it go after you told me that you don't see what I see, and I agree with you that this isn't about convincing you. (And I think I parsed that thing about worm anatomy.) It's a tough thing about Wikipedia: one of us can feel like they see something as plain as the day, and someone else just doesn't see it at all. And I wasn't simply talking about the community topic ban, but also the DS from ArbCom, so see: this. But for the benefit of whoever it might clarify things, here is what my pseudo-insult was intended to convey: Elvey shouted, repeatedly, that I and other editors lack simple reading comprehension skills, on a page where ArbCom imposed DS. Set aside anything about the TBAN on COI, do we really want that kind of editing environment? Did anything I said or that Boghog said justify that? It's an understatement to pass that off as "rudeness". And I cannot imagine how anything about "protecting companies with deep pockets" means anything other than editors who are "shills" per that ArbCom link I just gave. Do editors protect companies with deep pockets because of editorial judgment? Perhaps someone would protect companies against inaccurate negative material, but the "deep pockets" stuff is clearly an appeal to think that this is paid editing. What is happening is that editors learned from GMO-1 not to say outright that an editor is working for Monsanto, so they have cleverly figured out that if they say it more vaguely, then folks like Drmies won't get it. But that is clearly what happened. And I sure hope that we will nip it in the bud. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. Drmies didn't review the case from the very top. Makes sense now. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• That is correct: I looked at what I thought I was asked to look at. I see your points about the "deep pockets", of course, but it's vague--that companies have deep pockets is no secret, but a COI allegation should not be about who has the pockets or how deep they are, but about who receives what allegedly comes out of certain pockets of a certain depth. And I am loath, in this case, to impose a harsh penalty on a phrase like that. Again, I understand some of the frustration, I think, and it is entirely possible that some kind of restriction needs to be imposed, but I can't impose this restriction for this offense. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Drmies. If you are willing, I would appreciate it if you would review from the top, and I think that given the context what Trypto is saying might make more sense to you. Thanks for tolerating the request, even if you don't want to. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Watching this from a distance, i am happy to hear this sentiment from Drmies. A specific accusation of COI is one thing, whereas a general statement that there may be an industry agenda at work somewhere is another thing. However, in the course of a dialog about article content there is no place for either, i would think, except for general comments on the shape and trajectory of an article through time. Same would go for saying that "activists" are working on an agenda, as well, for accusations and aspersions of these kinds definitely go both ways. Whether or not the accusation involves money, it still refers to motivations other than good encyclopedic work. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, Tryptofish, I see the problem with the three or so edits from early January. I do not agree that the Healy edits are a violation, and I do not see the problem with this edit and this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll try to provide more context.

First let me just note on Elvey's perspective on his topic ban, here:

And Jytdog got me topic banned because I kept on accurately describing what a policy said and people who didn't want me to do that called that disruptive.

So in his view, he did nothing wrong. Which is why, I reckon, he has ignored the TBAN.

One set of his TBAN violations (not all of them) arise because he thinks Formerly 98 (who no longer edits here, for reasons external to WP that affected his ability to be present here, and led him to try (badly) to "vanish" - he ended up violating SOCK) Elvey pursued an SPI against Formerly fiercely, driven by his conviction that Formerly (and I) are pharma shills. Elvey brought up COI matters explicitly in the SPI: dif. As I linked above, Elvey pursued the SPI so fiercely that he got banned from the investigation by Vanjagenije. The discussion where Elvey became disruptive is mostly on the Talk page of the SPI, here.

• in this dif at the SPI he makes it clear that he is movitated by fighting pharma shills, which in WP is all about COI.

• and here again on SlimVirgin's Talk page where he wrote:

  What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic.

• and that leads to the first dif you said you don't see as relevant, where he wrote:

  I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added.

  The PARADIGM-HF trial made big news, and is the trial that was eventually used to get Valsartan/sacubitril approved as a drug. There was ~some~ controversy about the design of that trial, and the anti-pharma brigade tried to make a big deal out of it in the WP article about the drug. Formerly and I tamped that down. Elvey later came by and opened a section on the Talk page called "This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug (that is a dif to the Talk page) - it is the only thing there. And you can see that Elvey is in pursuit of pharma shills - in other words, COI editing in WP. So that is what the first dif is about. btw The material I added that Elvey called "promotional" was a quote by Steven Nissen, a fierce critic of the behavior of pharma companies, who said the drug was a "a truly a breakthrough approach" and its approval was the most important event in cardiology last year.

• about the second diff, he wrote there

  The way in which Jytdog stubbornly refused to acknowledge, well, anything, at the discussion you linked to (that he, oddly, excised from an article talk page!!!)) shows how extreme his editing is. ....“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
  — [[User:Upton Sinclair]]

  With what I have written here, can you see that he is accusing me of being a paid editor, on the pharmaceutical industry's payroll? I struggle to see how that is not within his TBAN.

• About Healy... that is arguable. Elvey's TBAN is for COI, broadly construed. Healy writes about COI in medicine all the time, and thinks that is why SSRIs are still on the market. Elvey's edit to the Healy article was adding a "bombshell" (his words) article by Healy about COI in medicine. The exact thing he has been focused on here in WP for the last month. In my view it is all of one piece.

• Finally, here is a random diff (of the many that exist) of Elvey stomping right on his topic ban, addressed to me, ironically, under the section header "Paid Advocacy Editing by SPA HealthMonitor":

  Jytdog - Belated ping. I bet you can't get the community to take action against SPA HealthMonitor, who has a disclosed FCOI and blows off that "should not"

Do things look at all different now? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (note, added a bit. not REDACTing since no one has responded Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

Oppose Unclear why SPI ban, and 3 month ban for 2 talk page comments, after warning, proposal to far reaching. prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't done your homework. Here is Elvey's very first edit upon coming back from a self imposed break, a violation of the TBAN. Here is another. Three more times, in the same conversation. Then I warned them. An Elvy continued. How much evidence do you need that Elvey doesn't give a hoot about their TBAN or the consensus of this community? --Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Jytdog who brought this here, gave E a warning on Jan 14 2016, after this i saw two comments on a talk page, as discussed above. After this i am not aware that he/she continued. prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote in the original post, Elvey blew off the TBAN early and never stopped - not after he was warned by and admin and not after I reminded him, and even just a few hours ago per this. He cannot let it go. 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

While there are gabs, [redacted, do not link to external archives of deleted content this here is evidence for COI], which should be investigated by SPI, see also this IP edit. also i see that you seem to be involved. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact many of the people who are involved here are also very much the same people involved in the related ANI/COI thing. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic from Elvey's behavior and this proposal. You are not addressing his behavior. Of course I am subject to boomerang; please address that above if that is where you want to go. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't "many" of the people here come from the COI venue? That is his most recent area of activity and where the topic ban came from, and it is to be expected that the people there are most cognizant of that situation. (I note that one of Elvey's frequent complaints is being judged by editors and admins who are "involved", as if any kind of adverse interaction with him should preclude future comment.) On the other hand, I have absolutely no prior involvement with any COI or pharam topic. My involvement here arises out of similar behavior by Elvey in a totally different topic. Note also the new (23:20) comment by 80.44.144.26 at the bottom of #Related problems, alleging similar conduct at Carlos Castaneda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ), I went to the page and guess what. There is this edit which seems to have been contested by 2 IPs. And then wasn't contested later by other editors, talk is only brief, and besides that appears to be a valid content addition. That people are involved here and in similar disputes is foremost an observation. I value the judgement of uninvolved editors more, given the conflicts and degrees of involvement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Is uncivil behavior acceptable if one happens to be "right"? I take no position on the content disputes at Carlos Castaneda, or on the clean-handedness of the editors involved, but point out that on the talk page there Elvey exhibits the same uncivil behavior that got him into trouble at COI. I quote some of his comments: "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."; "There is no excuse for your removal .... What blatant example of bias that is. Thanks for making it so blatantly obvious."; "What part of ... do you not understand?"; "I don't believe a word of what you've said, either about the article or Sampson and I don't care to spend the time to verify it."; and (again) "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."

Your position has a tautological exclusion problem: totally "uninvolved" editors, having no interaction with Elvey, likely have no basis of complaint, and thus no reason to be here, while anyone who has been "involved" is (in his view) tainted, and shouldn't be listened to. While most of the people here might have a bone to pick with him, that is very the point: the community finds him to be very aggravating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, prokaryotes. All the misrepresentation makes the closer's job a lot harder and a lot more time consuming. I don't envy their position. I ask the closer to speak about the accuracy of the accusations each participant has made - where did and didn't context make what seemed like a valid accusation turn out to be invalid, when investigated? I see allegations by supporters and opposers being challenged on this front. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What misrepresentation? The quotes are accurate, and your comments are prima facie uncivil. If you think there is some context that justifies such language you are free to demonstrate that, but you have not. And without that you are just blowing more smoke. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The above conversations show continued poor behavior across the board even being under topic ban. That this has occurred in multiple topics drives that point home. In the instances pointed out at the glyphosate article, their behavior also violates the spirit one of the ArbCom principles related to aspersions.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions. Issues in other topics unrelated to that only compound the issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I find the wording community banned for 3 months with the standard offer confusing. I can interpret it in two ways:

1. The user is banned for three months. During that period, accepting the standard offer may result in the user being unbanned immediately. If the standard offer isn't accepted, the user is automatically unbanned after three months.
2. The user is banned indefinitely. After a period of three months, he may be unbanned if the standard offer is accepted.

If the original topic ban conditions are unclear, then it would be good if this discussion clarifies these conditions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2, Case number 1 was my intention. When Elvey was initially TBAN they placed themselves on a voluntary block for 2 months. It was my intention to mirror this.--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The standard offer is that, after six months with no socking, the user can return if they "promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban [and] [d]on't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." The six-month period can be adjusted, but what does it mean in the context of a three-month ban proposal? If he says after 12 hours that he promises to avoid, etc, could he be unblocked? And given that he has already said it, can the ban not be avoided altogether?

Adam, it seems to me that, if Elvey says "I did not intend to violate the t-ban but undertake to make stronger efforts not to appear to do so in future," and if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well, and we can close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV that statement would not be an accurate representation of his past behavior. He has disregarded the ban, clearly discussed and brought up and tried to address COI matters, and in addition has disrupted SPI while doing so - and disruption when dealing with COI matters is what got him banned in the first place. The community might want to consider closing this without action if he wrote something like: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I disrupted SPI while trying to get an editor blocked who I am convinced was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward, and I will not argue about the community taking action if I violate my topic ban again." And by the way I do not seek Elvey out - he came after drug articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, applying or reversing blocks are always up to the administrators. When Elvey first received their TBAN they went on a self-imposed 2 month block. The 3 months, here proposed, were mean to mirror that. I have no intention of interacting with Elvey going forward, as long as their edits remain within community consensus. That consensus appears to be that Elvey should not discuss, comment on, or edit anywhere near COI issue, nor should they be involved in any SPI related discussion, at all. Elvey is a good editor. They have a contentiousness and attention to detail that I'd like to see more widely utilized. But until they are willing to work collaboratively and to stop the contentious edits, it won't be possible for them to utilize their full potential.--Adam in MO Talk 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, he didn't (so far as I recall) mention COI during the SPI, and indeed didn't at first realize who was behind the IP addresses. The concern was advocacy and the use of several accounts/IPs.

Adam, quite a lot of your edits seem to be related to Elvey, so it would be a good idea to reduce that interaction. At Clear aligners, for example, Elvey added a section on price, which was helpful. You arrived shortly afterwards and removed it, along with a section others had added on the same issue, even though you hadn't edited that article before. [39] (I noticed this only because I've edited that page too, so there may be other examples.) If Elvey sees himself as being pursued, even if you don't intend that, he'll respond poorly and we'll be back here again soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah: doesn't your suggestion that "if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well" also run the other way? That is, why not have Elvey reduce his interactions with others? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson, yes, indeed, it works both ways. The diffs I've looked have involved people arriving at pages Elvey was editing, but if he's doing the same thing to others, that should stop too. If everyone involved in this keeps interactions to a minimum, things will improve, and if problems continue despite that, you can always raise it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

He does, where he typically charges the other editor(s) that object as WP:OWNing the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Elvey brought up COI matters in his pursuit of Formerly (I just mentioned these above, but am repeating them here as this has become a sprawl):

• dif. That one is dead on:

  This person has claimed to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet recently claimed working (per User_Talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts AND has claimed to have never been paid for editing AND have no COI with respect to pharmaceutical companies.

  Elvey's focus on what he believes to be a COI issue with Formerly is explicit there.

• in this dif he brings the "pharma shill gambit" which in WP is all about COI.

• and here again on your own Talk page where he wrote:

  What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary".

  That is also pharma shill gambit, which is about COI. I know you agree that Formerly was a pharma shill, as you wrote here at the SPI. But you are not topic banned from COI matters; Elvey is. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, my concern at the SPI was the combination of advocacy and avoidance of scrutiny. Whether COI was behind it, I don't know ("editing in the interests of" was in the sense of "to the benefit of").

Regarding Elvey's diffs, I don't see it in the second or third, but I do see it in the first diff. That seems to be a topic-ban violation, if the ban was on discussing Wikipedia and COI. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Support per OhNoItsJamie. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of this IP's 2 dozen edits (edit summary "Warning of copyvio" using {{Copypaste}} and then many ANI edits) suggests this may be an experienced (banned?) user socking and performing administrator -like tasks. But my hands are tied; I'm banned from opening an SPI case. Can someone do something? (Also, voting in an archive!) --Elvey^(t•c) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boohoo. Complaining about an IP who likes to help out across this encyclopedia. Not connected to any accounts whatsoever. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - it's all the community can do in the face of the TBAN violation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - per SarahSV. I see serious issues in this case, with many of the same editors in the recent ArbCom GMO case in alignment here to "punish" an editor they don't like. I call on a completely uninvolved admin to close this, and dispense trouts as needed. Elvey has issues, but those casting the stones are not without their own. Jusdafax 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This appears to be personal for Jytdog. Look at the way he attacks here just now, where he joins a discussion where I am mentioned just to spend nearly 500 words on an ad hominem attack on me. Opening and pursuing the (valid!) SPI on his banned friend, Formerly 98, was appropriate; 99% of my edits in that regard are not a violation of the TBAN, as I see it, but I acknowledge that my discussions with V in and about the SPI, I pointed out what I saw as numerous policy violations by him and that he saw those as disruptive and he used the mop to ban me from SPI. (I opened #Questions, which I urge the closer to address, and later realized V doesn't have the authority to make that unilateral ban there, though I'm still respecting it as he could probably still get away with enforcing it.) Here is the comment Jytog proposes I make, corrected for accuracy: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I opened an SPI (on a user Jytdog is so close to he shares their private communications) and that at one point (this was a very long discussion) mentioned, in a quote, that another editor was convinced Formerly 98 was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward" --Elvey^(t•c) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

elvey, this ANI thread is about your behavior violating your TBAN. Bringing evidence of your behavior, is not an ad hominem attack. About the SPI case itself - there was a valid SPI case against Formerly as I have acknowledged; however your pursuit of Formerly was due to your conviction that he was editing under a COI - that he is a pharma shill. Could you have done all that work on the SPI without explicitly violating your TBAN? Probably.... But would you have launched that SPI to shut down a "pharma shill", if you were really honoring your TBAN and not dealing with COI in WP? I don't think so.

None of this is "personal." You are disruptive when you try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. You have shown that yet again by disrupting SPI - and you are still not accepting that you were disruptive at SPI. It is not good for the project for you to try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. That is why the original TBAN was put in place by the community and why the community is proposing to extend the TBAN to include SPI. You have not heard what the community is telling you. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

I don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Does that observation actually add anything to this case? I've heard it before, and I wonder sometimes if it doesn't rather work the other way. I would agree that threatening ANI is not generally appreciated, but what I actually did was told PepperBeast it was certainly going to happen.. but when I could find the time. Perhaps not the best way of doing it in retrospect, but he could have just backed down and apologised you know - that can work wonders in situations like this. What is certainly a fact here is that I got quite upset and I let it show. I had nothing to gain from creating an ANI in terms of the article or anything - ie it couldn't have been pitched against PepperBeast doing anything, except perhaps apologise. Please don't assume that it was. My personal ANI would have actually centred around a point that I am raising below instead... Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BMK that there are various flavors of the month that are yelled in order to try to "win" a dispute. It is also popular to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling usually doesn't help, especially when what is being yelled is wrong. There are a few editors who like to yell "bullying". Sometimes yelling "bullying" is done by bullies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding it all a bit mysterious in how much I'm supposed to have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt Lewis does not appear to have edited since this thread began, but I concur with your read - his reaction is not acceptable conduct. I worry about the response we will get when he does come back and comment here - it may likely be more of the same. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I think you are just wrong to voice that here. It’s negative speculation and I find it somehow prejudicial. I haven't said anything yet...

Ok, I am a person with very strong values, and I feel that needs to be said first. I’m not particularly good at interfacing and making friends here etc, but I am normally very collegiate I promise you. I can get into occasional scrapes though and I'm probably not particularly liked. I certainly don't scrub my personal pages enough. When will I learn? But I promise you that I do not look for incidents like this, and I do not ever want to see them. I come here either to read or to edit. Looking at some comments above, I've seen some advice has already been given for some kind of punitive ruling towards me. But before people get ahead of themselves, can anyone here tell me how bad my conduct has been, and actually provide actual examples of the areas I have been unfairly or even unduly upset? No one has yet addressed my position in this case, or my point. It's actually a weirdly pre-emptive ANI. But I will accept any point where I have personally gone wrong. Why would't I?

A few days ago on the Sat 17th I made one [edit] (ie nothing to wave sticks at), in an article I’ve never edited before or since (so absolutely no reverts etc) and the next day it was removed and I was basically Warned for making it. It could have been the case that Delta13C thought I was a sockpuppet. If so, he or she was wrong - and that would be a simple AGF matter, soon resolved hopefully. The problem is that I felt that the Warning, combined with the "No." that Pepperbeast gave me when removing my single contribution, meant that ‘a Level 2 Warning’ was on the cards for anything similar that I may have contributed. I felt I was being told to 'back off' basically, and I didn't like the feeling at all. It felt threatening, and that is why I reacted as I did. I saw a very valid improvement to make to the article here. I made one decent-enough edit (better than what was there for sure), and am always willing to work on things when people treat what I’ve done with due respect. It’s not the removal of my contribution that is the problem here (or 3rr or anything like that) – it’s how my contribution was dealt with.

In terms of ‘harassment’(!) of PepperBeast (who I do find very cocky and rude I'm afraid), I made one admittedly-upset and fairly-long comment on his Talk page, and then left one very short reply after he responded to it. I admit that I am prone to longer comments – I can’t help that, and I’m sorry. But please people - don’t be too rude about that, it’s just the way it is. It's partly a time thing - I don't really have the time to shorten myself, and I always begin big. But yes that was all it was – two comments to him, one long, one short. How can that be "harassment"? PepperBeast has also suggested that he’s started this ANI because I said I would make one myself (which was to be in part about patrollers in general). Is this really the right way to treat ANI?

I wasn't going to create my own ANI today (I suggested I was too busy at the moment to PB when I gave him my timeframe), but I have to find the time respond to this particular ANI now. I accept he wasn't going to be ecstatic bout having a pending ANI hanging over his head, but I'm really busy (as a carer who works all hours) and ANI's like this one really do force people's hand – as mine has been forced here. So I don’t think it was right of him to do this for a number of reasons. There were plenty of other options for him. Certainly no harassment was around. I think this is all about respecting the real-life lives of the various people who make edits to this place.

Now please - I genuinely would appreciate knowing what exactly I did wrong in the first place, including regarding Civility in my reaction to the very-antagonistic reception my single contribution received. I can’t always help being annoyed, but I do want to help being “uncivil”. I believe I have a very clear point indeed here, and as I suggested on [talk page], my own ANI was actually going to question the correct attitude for 'patrollers' in general, and whether there shouldn’t perhaps be a ‘code of conduct’ in their behavior to people - including new accounts, returning users (like me), IP's etc. Basically to avoid upsetting decent well-meaning people, and especially in delicate areas surrounding health. I think ‘curt reverting’ (to give it a name) can be an extremely negative thing for Wikipedia. I’ve already explained this to Delta13C, after he apologised for his Warning upsetting me. I accepted that apology and moved onto discussing content, as he suggested, and as can be seen. I wanted this level of conversation to be on my talk page really (or the article's), but it ended up on PBs as Delta replied to me there instead of on my own. I couldn't do anything about that, obviously. I'm entitled to respond to someone under their comment, and I already told Delta that is what I always do - but he says that he missed me asking for that. So there was two conversations going on PB's page. I didn't personally see any bother though. I did feel these two people are a bit too connected with each other, though.

Yes I'm sorry, but I did originally see PB and Delta13C as ‘tag-teaming’ in some sense – because it was the only way Delta’s out-of-the-blue Warning made any sense to me. I simply assumed that one of them says “No.” to an edit he doesn’t want, and the other “Warns” the user. You have to admit that is basically what happened, with no policy-based reason behind that I can see at all. Isn’t that the basis on an ANI issue? ie unless it got sorted out otherwise?

I have to say that if Pepperbeast simply apologized as Delta13C quite-easily did (though he is rather rough on me here), it would have all been fine. I have never turned away an apology from anyone on Wikipedia. But I began quite upset and I think I had a right to be. My edit was in good faith and ALL content edits take some time. Removing text takes only seconds. People really do sometimes forget that here – the actual time that ALL content-makers put into this place. I believe it is wrong to be curt to people who have taken the time to make an edit like mine. Especially in areas like this to be frank. I’ve felt in that past that Wikipedia somehow tolerates rudeness to people in the area of alternative medicine. It that right? The oft-maligned ‘Wikipedia is Not the Truth’, general Policy, AGF etc – it all points to the same thing; find the right balance because you do not need to judge. I can tell you from experience that these people are usually ill, often with cases where conventional medicine is sadly not really working for them. You’ll be surprised how many people turn to herabalism especially. In certain cases I've even seen them pointed there sometimes (with the usual provisos), when doctors reach the end of what they can do. Placebo? Who knows. When the results are really good they are soon taken up by the pharmas. But those are still used by the herbalists though. Why don't we give thse vulnerable people a break and stop being so cold and nasty to them so often? I’m not personally associated with any alternative health, nor do I lean towards any of it really - though a chiropractor did once manage to sort my back and I'm a big fan of 'good food'! I think it's just wrong to assume that people are ‘involved’. All I did was make a simple edit. I didn’t deserve to be effectively warned away. I think I just editied perceived 'protected content' that really didn't deserve to be protected, that's the underlying story here. And it was protected far too overzealously - that's the bottom line.

Regarding this ANI, the obvious question for me to ask is where is the actual "harassment" I'm accused of giving? I haven't harassed anyone, I never will and never have. It’s a particularly bad thing to do in my opinion. PepperBeast has also suggested he created this to ‘pre-empt’ my ANI, and he seems very confident about it doing it too. This confidence really concerns me to be frank. Do I not have a right to be concerned about him? I personally think that the over-exuberance of some change-patrollers can actually be a negative thing for the act of encyclopedia building. I certainly don't feel like I made my edit on a level playing field in this case, or that my edit was valued in any way at all. I think there could be a problem that some editors with particular 'jobs' can see themselves as being on a higher plain to others, and perhaps even subject to a slighly different ruleset. I think it's a problem for this place: a place I can promise you that I've always tried to help improve.

If this response is seen as "more of the same" (I'm at a loss with that one I’m afraid), it's because I actually have a point isn't it? I won’t be making my personal ANI now though - and actually, how can I? My question regarding patroller conduct is raised here instead. Someone perhaps could think about it if they want. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to apologise to you because I haven't done anything wrong. Your edits are not sacred and I did my best to explain to you what I thought was wrong with that particular edit.
• I don't know why you keep saying "harassment", when, in fact, I deliberately avoided what I think is kind of over-the-top language. I said you were hassling me and threatening to take whatever your big problem was to ANI. Well, here we are.
• Actually, you made two long comments, the first, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700317501&oldid=696396936, starting with If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Wikipedia's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. After I replied to that, you came up with a second, much longer rant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700373035&oldid=700356227, and finally, you repeated your ANI threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700851858&oldid=700407744 I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it.
• I am not responsible for Delta13C's warning, or anything else that Delta13C does. I have no idea why you think I am "too connected" to Delta13C or even what "too connected" means.
• My talk page is not a place for you to rant about everything that's wrong with WP.
• Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, you made this ANI a lot more personal than I was intending to do with mine. Yes I did make a mistake above, missing the my middle response to you. You called my angry reaction a 'personal attack' (does that ever make things better?) and said my edit contained Weasel Words, which doesn't make sense to me in this case, as I explained. In my opinion the reading of the term and the refs contains Original Research. I mainly addressed the content of the edit and my feelings surrounding it. If you feel that my explaining my own views over a content issue that you've addressed yourself constitutes a 'rant' and a point of harassment (or 'hassle' as you actually did say, but in terms of an ANI people are obliged to see it as the same thing), I would say that's very subjective, and hardly an issue for an ANI complaint. Btw, your point about the Intro needing to be so decisively negative because the rest of the article is so singularly negative (or has become so perhaps), is actually a very complex one. And as I've said, I've always felt that imperfect improvements should be improved upon, not given a straight denial. 10 years ago I think that was far more likely to be the case. As I remember it, people were much more inclined to edit or hone things out in turns, and the general atmosphere was far more productive. I’m sure that articles like this one contained more balance then too – albeit with various issues surrounding weight and wording. It's quite rare to see a perfect first edit anyway, isn't it? What you've got to ask is, does the contribution improve and progress or advance things? I think that over the years Wikipedia has become too much of a static shop front, but these kind of articles are nowhere near good enough yet. Very often when I use Wikipedia I see broken or misrepresenting links and failing statements, and they certainly exist in this article still.

So yes I can see that I fully responded to you twice, and not just the once as I said above - but with this ANI you really forced my hand here when I effectively said I wasn't ready yet. And it's an awkward hour right now. I can only find pockets of time, and in no time some people call for beheadings in these places - ANI's can be quite OTT at times they really can(!) I've got someone now asking for sanctions over my supposed "screeds". Look, I apologise if I got it wrong about you and Delta13C being a 'tag team'. But you did manage to appear like one, which I am sure you can see if you really looked at it. Look at your sharp and conclusive 'edit note' followed by his completely out-of-the-blue warning. But that was just an unfortunate sequence perhaps. And also unfortunately, Delta13C did make his reply to angry-me not on his own 'Warning' section, but on your Talk page instead - even though I clearly asked him to keep it all in the same place. It was wrong of him really, and it was another thing that made it look like you were 'combining' to me.

I do think my points on patroller etiquette are very much still valid though, and that is what my own ANI would have focused on. If you simply apologised for being so 'owny' (saying "No." to me over this Intro basically, as you did to the other guy on the discussion page) I would never have gone onto make an ANI of course - as I said. I think most ANI's can't really be done when someone's apologised. I may still have dropped-off my thoughts on patrolling in some relevant discussion page somewhere however, like I used to do with these things (the Patrollers page or whatever). And finally, surely no one should ever be above apologising here, but you will know that I'm sure. And it's especially the case when you know someone wants to hear it surely. It should be just standard practice when you've done something 'off', and you can surely still make all your points after doing it, and in whatever way you choose. It worked between Delta and me (though he hasn't quite continued the sentiment here unfortunately for me) and it would very-easily have worked for us. Sorry I called you cocky and rude above, but I do think you could perhaps come down just a step to my humble editor level. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought your comments on my talk page fell a little short of being personal attacks. Calling me rude and cocky here, however, does not. I'd accept your sort-of apology, but you're still haranguing me for some kind of mea culpa for undoing a single edit, and it's not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did call it a 'personal attack', and I took you up on it and talked of ANI if you didn't apologise for your attitude. I was pissed off! It was purely the way you made the revert that upset me - curtly saying "No" (the rest of the edit note is more complicated to deal with, and this isn't the right place to talk of article-balance or strict Intro rules re the rest of the article.) You'd never seen me before, and I'd made one single edit! And of course I was immediately Warned by Delta too, which doubled my anger to the "pissed off" level you saw. It was not the fact you reverted that really angered me at all. As I've said below, you have to expect quite a lot of full reverts in Wikipedia these days. I've certainly never asked for an apology from someone for doing that. It was the way you reverted, and the way it all happened wasn't good. It felt like I was being warned away. Surely you can both see that now, to some degree at least? ie after it happened - though not at the time perhaps. I admit it was bit paranoid of me to see you as 'tag teaming'. Tbf, I think you should have seen my point of view, and maybe apologised the way Delta did instead of making this ANI. I'm sure I wouldn't have done anything then, despite the point I wanted to make on patroller etiquette and the need for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sanctions may be needed Matt Lewis has made it clear that he is unwilling or unable to take on board the criticism of his conduct that has come out of this thread. The huge rant (10 KB!!!) he posted in this very thread is combative, suggests his prior combativeness was a desire to prove a point (?) along the lines of WP:DTTR, and in general displays an attitude reminiscent of the Wikipedia of eight or nine years ago. Wikipedia does not need to drive off new editors, and I question whether someone who snaps at established editors over a templated warning would react much better towards an inexperienced user who actually does post an unfriendly message at his user talk page. I just get a terrible feeling about Matt Lewis at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

10KB!!! Huge rant! Oh come on Mendaliv. It's takes about 2 minutes to read out loud. I write the length I write and I apologised for that when I wrote it. If you don't like it, don't read it, or just don't read it all perhaps. Don't you think you are being bit over the top yourself here? If you really have a "terrible feeling" about me, maybe you need to take that "chill pill" you recommended to me above over another 10k post! They are just a long posts. Give me any amount of longer posts over a typical group of sometimes completely needless comments and I'll show you which take up less k. Some Wikipedia pages can seem to go on forever, but it won't often be down to the longer posts. As anyone who knows me on Wikipedia will tell you, if I ever write anything at any real length it's always constructive. I really do feel that Wikipedia risks driving off new and even old editors at times. I don't see how you can categorically say it doesn't. It’s just my opinion, and it's not a crime to have one surely (unless I've missed anything truly radical the past year or so). As I just suggested to PepperBeast above, I think that 10 years ago in certain ways Wikipedia was actually a more productive place. Not in every way of course not, just in some. And I never said any solution was easy did I? Discuss, absorb.. or ban? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you being so aggressive? I seriously think there's something wrong here if you think this is an appropriate way to respond. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not really 'aggressive' is it? Look at your comment towards me again please. Is it really the right way to approach this? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree the reaction here seems OTT. And I'm someone who does often write long posts and can be quite aggressive in defending myself. Probably the warning wasn't necessary, but I imagine an article like Naturopathy does often have problems with well meaning editors who support naturopathy but don't understand our sourcing and other requirements. And while looking at the long term contrib history or perhaps the long talk page of Matt Lewis may suggest that they are not new and didn't need such a warning, a quick look at the contrib history may not clear things up so much. Ultimately I guess, if you are an experienced editor and don't need a warning, then it's not like there's some harm in receiving one. If you're not an experienced editor, then receiving a warning served to inform and also makes it difficult for the editor to claim they weren't aware of our policies and guidelines.

I do agree improvements with mistakes that can be easily corrected should be corrected rather than simply reverted. In fact I got in to a minor dispute with another editor over this about a week ago (not much about my edits). But on the flip side, sometimes edits are problematic enough that even if you think there is some minor improvement in some area, it's better just to revert and require the improvement to be far better. Colloboration can sometimes mean "sorry that's just too bad" rather than just "I see what you're trying to do but there's a problem so I'll fix it". Also, sometimes editors may just genuinely disagree about whether improvements are necessary (or perhaps they will agree, if they say proper improvements but can't see it until they see them), in that case, there ultimately needs to be consensus on the best wording so you're going to need to initate discussion.

And while editing in situ can be easier, other times for a variety of reasons it's better to come up with some draft on the talk page. The biggest confusing thing about this is if it's such a big deal, why is there zero discussion on the article talk page? Does that mean Matt Lewis now accepts that improvements aren't necessary and if so, why is there still so much fuss?

P.S. Just a quick reminder that edit requests are only intended to be used for simple changes that already have consensus (whether from previous discussion or which can be assumed). A simple "no, please establish consensus for your change" to an edit request is fine although that doesn't seem to have been what happened anyway. If editors are using edit requests incorrectly, it would be better to educate them on the correct usage of edit requests not to require long discussions when rejecting an edit request. Admitedly I'm not really sure what discussion page is being referred to anyway, since there's no comments by Pepperbeast on the Naturopathy talk page (perhaps in archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I explained in great detail above. This is all happening on my talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read all you said, but I see zero chance you can come up with a good explaination of why the discussion should be held in your talk page. If you want to modify the article and get into a dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. (There are some exceptions where it may be fair to hold some discussion on an editors talk page, but I won't go in to detail except suffice to say if there is actually going to be any change, the primary point of discussion should be the article's talk page.) This means if you haven't discussed it in the article talk page, it's pretty much impossible to make the claim people are being unresonable or rejecting any changes. So either you care about the changes and they are a big deal and there is a discussion in the article talk page, or you don't really care about the changes and this whole long discussion is largely moot.

And BTW, you've made a big deal about how you're an experienced editor who didn't need warnings, but then seem to be giving us an example showing you still don't understand how wikipedia works (if you do think the changes are justified but are not discussing it in the article talk page), so perhaps the warning was fair. (I'm assuming you do at least understand people can give you as many level warnings as they want. But nothing is likely to happen to you unless you violate some policy or guideline. And some resonable comments in an article talk page proposing changes particularly if you've taken on board what has been said before and our policies and guidelines, carries almost zero risk of being blocked simply for these comments, unless you're either a sock of a banned editor or have a topic ban.)

Also one thing I learnt from the above discussion before my first reply was that other people had told you to take it to the article talk page so I see even less chance you can explain why there is no discussion in the article talk page.

Your rants about how poorly your proposed changes were handled is of course offtopic on the article talk page. However such rants are rarely going to get far if they're over a nonissue (i.e. there was no change needed for the article anyway). Come up with an example where good, or nearly good changes were rejected (or perhaps it was impossible to know if the changes were good because they were reverted for a trivial error which could have been easily resolved to allow proper assessement), and you may achieve something productive.

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all [40]. Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

TL:DR version; no discussion in the article talk page = no evidence you really tried to collobrate on improving the article = almost impossible to establish people are being "owny" or rejecting resonable changes = no issue for us on ANI = don't give warnings about how you're going to take people to ANI over such non-issues = if people come here because you gave such warnings, just say "whoops, sorry my bad" not write out long replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I can't disagree with you more. Matt Lewis's explosion in response to being reverted and templated is flat out disturbing. First of all, Pepperbeast's revert was perfectly in line with WP:BRD, insofar as Matt Lewis introduced new material into a stable article without discussion. Matt Lewis, being a regular, should know well enough how BRD works. It might've been courteous for Pepperbeast to then let Matt Lewis know why he was reverted in a more lengthy explanation somewhere, but not strictly necessary. Now, Delta13C templated Matt Lewis with {{uw-unsourced1}} for that contribution, which would have been the appropriate warning otherwise. Last I checked, WP:DTTR hadn't become a guideline—with WP:TTR still listing good counterpoints—and, honestly, I'm not sure you can even call Matt Lewis a "regular" in the sense of DTTR considering his level of activity in recent years. Perhaps article talk discussion was lacking, but that's on Matt Lewis within the BRD framework. You can't just go and blow up, threatening to take everyone to ANI in response to what is, in the scope of things, the tiniest slight. If we take Matt Lewis's conduct as indicative of his general attitude, which I believe is reasonable, we have a person who is very rapidly demonstrating himself to have a civility problem. Loquacious threats to drag unsuspecting editors to the dramaboards have a distinct chilling effect, particularly against inexperienced users. It's disruptive, and the fact that Matt Lewis immediately leaped to that level leads me to believe we need to take a much harder look at his user interactions if there's no indication this was an aberration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Will you stop calling me 'flat-out disturbing' etc please? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find the phrase upsetting, but I've got to call a spade a spade here. You need to understand that your conduct here has been inappropriate and disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nil, I find this a bit hard to accept this when you admit you haven't read all of my defense. I don't want to repeat too much for you, as long-post repetition is not well-liked is it? But I will say this (as I've already said I think in two different places)... I didn't discuss the edit first as I saw PepperBeast's "No" to someone else on the article Discussion and I didn't find it very welcoming. So I was bold. I’m always prepared for anything I contribute to be removed by someone on Wikipedia, especially as the years have gone on. I expect that era of 'can I improve?' has simply gone, for these kind of articles at least. I have said very-clearly that my anger towards both Delta and PepperBeast (but was it really "hassle" from me, though?) was NOT about my contribution being removed! And I did NOT make one single other edit! I am very HAPPY to work with anyone who isn't rude to me on content. It's was ALL about the very particular way I was 'received' by them. Deta's Warning seemed to just appear out-of-the-blue, straight after PepperBeast said "No" in removing my edit. And when Delta14C moved his 'Warning' discussion from my Talk onto PepperBeast's Talk page (even though I asked him to keep it on mine), I felt even more sure that they were 'team-working' together on protecting this essay from certain unwanted edits. However I accepted Delta's apology re the Warning 'iking' me - though he didn't seem to accept that a warning was completely unjustified here. I then discussed a content issue in the whole article to him (as he suggested I do, though perhaps not there obviously) and then PB said “take it elsewhere”. Ok, fine. But why was Delta even on PB's Talk? And then this highly unconventional ANI suddenly happened.

I'd actually like to know if Delta gave me the 'Warning' (which of-course many people will find intimidating however you say they don’t all matter) because he thought I was a sockpuppet of the IP who also got a "No." from PepperBeast regarding a similar type of Introduction change? And maybe also if anyone really thinks that this ANI was a particularly good idea, and was made quite in the right spirit? Readjusting the track with me might have been a better idea I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Some real advice for all you guys out there, please do not post essays, it doesn't make your argument a pinch more believable than what it'd be without all the fluff. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I get this. In the sense that Matt Lewis has been all but screaming "Don't Template the Regulars" from the git go as though it's policy, I agree that it hamstrings his credibility. In the sense that I'm calling him out on demanding other editors follow nebulous essays by linking to the essays, then I don't really get how that hurts my credibility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay. And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Silly me, I should've understood that. I agree wholeheartedly. Essay-length responses on any talk page, let alone ANI, are really counterproductive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping not to comment here again, but sorry... you've been given a 500 word English essay to write? That's less than 20 lines on my monitor, which is about 2 average paragraphs surely? My 1,600 word post (if that's what it was) was my main defense to an ANI. I've got to ask you what your English essay it was on? English is my 'subject' (I'm 45 btw, I'm not still studying it) and I am really interested in what they ask of students now. Tbh, I don't see how anyone can practically request this kind of thing of Wikipedians. If a long post is too much for someone to personally to manage, surely they can just leave it to someone else? My defense wasn't made to anyone personally - and people's hands are rather forced in these situations. I think you can look at this both ways really - ie some people find it a bit of a chore to read more than a longish paragraph or so (and presumably do all they want to do), while others have real difficulties keeping their comments to a single paragraph. But Wikipedia is a big place and is supposed to cater for a broad spectrum of people - so what's the bother? There is no great hurry here, or a shortage of staff is there? I've not been repeating anything over and over, which can be a real pain over many long posts I'd agree. Surely you wouldn't say this to anyone outside of ANI, so why say it at ANI? And isn't it rather picking on a defendant? You probably don't see it as being rude when in here, but I think it is. I'm a decent human being who has already pre-apologised for writing the length that I have (and often do). And I'd like to say that in 10 years I've never once complained about anyone's writing needs or style, nor ever made suggestions for anyone to be punished in any particular way either for what it's worth (I've never personally seen that as my role). And believe me, I've wrestled with some notorious sock-farmers and article disrupters over my really active years here too. I just do not like being totally-needlessly needled at, with Warnings or whatever. And I really do not think it's good for Wikipedia. (380 words). Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. The shorter the speech, the happier the audience. I didn't critique your writing style, just the need of writing 1.6k words to defend yourself. Since, I probably have some informal kind of ADHD, I went through the first three paras of what you said and it has missing commas, periods and uses words that are not related to the context. Undue exclamation marks, a display of battleground mentality and no quotations from policy. And you thought was I said previously was critique. Ha. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What are "words that are not related to the context"? You mean I went off topic? If I opined over an area of Wikipedia, I assure you it is related to all this. And "missing commas" indeed! How does that work out? For people like yourself, I've actually taken to using as many commas as I can these days - eg placing them before and after using 'and'! I use them all over in fact. Your list is just wrong, and is totally needless too.

I just can't believe that I actually said above "there isn't exactly a staff problem here"! Attending to ANI must be a nightmare for Wikipedia in general, and it's always been full of passing poppers posting pointless comments. I should have told PepperBeast I'd be taking the whole 'patroller etiquette' issue to a noticeboard-type place, or ask a decent admin or something - ANI is a crazy place to take anything that isn't clear disruption or abusive 3RR or something seriosuly article-effecting like that. I was just rusty that's all, and really cheesed off, and ANI is the place that came to mind. I don't know what PepperBeast was thinking of either in counter-reporting here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking "fercrissake, I'm getting blasted and ANI-threatened by some guy I've never interacted with before because I did something perfectly normal. It's going to be ANI'd anyway, and I don't know what else to do about it". PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

PepperBeast, you just to understand that there was nothing perfect about the way you began our interaction. Or with that other person too. Because (aside from imo non-policy-related article 'ownership' issues) this 'tough' "No." approach is just really unsuitable for a communally-built encyclopedia. You still argue that this manner of reverting someone's contribution is perfectly normal. Nobody is supposed to have an elevated editing position on Wikipedia, and it seems to me that even this ANI suggests you likely feel that you have some kind of special position here. We all should know that everyone is supposed to treat complete strangers with civility, equality and respect, and especially in this controversial area - an area I think too-many people think they can be rude by default.

Nobody is going to support any of that here though, and I don't even know why this ANI is still open. I'm tired of coming back to check if it's been archived yet, or if something has happened. And I expect you are too. I wish I never even thought of the bloody acronym.

It's all about the attitude. I've just had a quick look at that frankly-unwelcoming article talk page, I can see even-now Delta13C is being intimidating to someone who had questioned the article's neutrality. He's asking if he/she has a "a conflict of interest with naturopathy in any way?" I don't think you can just ask that kind of question out of the blue at all. Not without a very good reason stemming from the actual editor, and not purely the subject matter! It's all too intimidating. Delta14C was the editor who 'Warned' me for making one single edit - so yes that does relate to this ANI. And (before you complain again) I was obviously going to bring him up in here, as he was entirely following your lead, and some of you do seem to work as intimidating groups. What did you expect when you made this ANI?

It's ALL too intimidating, and I worry that all this is typical in complimentary medicine (ie 'CAM') areas on Wikipedia. I think you both feel too empowered and neither of you have any right to lean on anyone. The angry way I reacted to you both? Well, that's a separate matter. It's a reaction, and a really pissed-off one. I just hate seeing bullies. I am certain that you both feel you are fighting some great 'war' against pseudoscience, and set out to be tough guys toward every fool you feel you come across. Can't you just edit Wikipedia like you are supposed to for pete's sake? Using core policy properly should make these articles work - avoiding your own 'POV' is always the key. The idea of WP:NPOV has to work both ways to work properly. When people think they are somehow exempt from POV (in this case partly due to this highly unscientific ill-defined, super-conclusive, fits-all, and ultimately-unsourced and 'OR' idea of "scientific consensus" for everything to do with whatever alt-health is supposed to cover at any one point), you end up with articles needlessly reading like they are hatchet jobs. That is the net result. Wikipedia should not have that vibe, nor give that impression. It's highly unprofessional, and no doctor or scientist would approach it like this. You can tell the real story here without being macho about anything. The only reason that a reasonable probably rarely happens in these articles is because it's made so unwelcoming for moderate editors to step in and help. The hardliner ethos seems to be so completely entrenched that changing to more typically encyclopedic approach is pretty-much met with ridicule and/or distrust. Regarding my own single edit, it's pretty obvious that I was seen as a 'possible' sock puppet frankly too (ie if not just some silly-billy alt-health proponent) - but ignoring AGF like that is just not on either. It's just not the rules.

Please, just show some basic respect to normal people please. Behind all this is actually just a carer asking you people to offer a level field of respect to perfectly-decent and perfectly-intelligent people who often just happen to be (sometimes quite seriously) ill. It just happens to be a group that deserves basic respect. It's all about your approach. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can add to this discussion. Any comment I make seems to elicit an increasingly grandiose rant. Matt Lewis, you're hardly in a position to lecture me about "basic level of respect". PepperBeast (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well we all know the mechanics Wikipedia sometimes operates under. It's like a simple but effective machine; from the article interaction to the notes to the responses. Shorter criticsm gets advisory wikilinks including on 'personal attacks', longer critism is always dismissed to as a 'rant'. Just add a small array of colourful cliches to release in turn. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a patroller's 'bot' around that effectively automates every form of human interaction. Is this done yet? Matt Lewis (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

The editor keeps adding Bubbling Under chart peaks at Rick Ross discography, which cannot be verified through sources provided. I tried to explain to the editor that those peaks s/he adds cannot be verified at his/her talk page. But s/he removed my explanation, and reverted the page to his/her revision 1, 2. S/he keeps saying in the edit summary that These are routine calculations. Very much allowed. I'm not sure what routine calculations have anything to do with the fact that the peaks aren't verifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So very happy you chose to involve other editors in this issue. WP:CALC, a sub policy of the WP:No Original Research policy, states specifically that:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."

The Bubbling under charts act as extensions of other charts. For example, if a song charts at #5 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart, which serves as an extension to the Hot 100, one could most certainly deduct that 100+5=105. This is simple addition, and to argue that this doesn't qualify as "simple arithmetic" is asinine. Additionally, this user has began edit wars on the pages Rick Ross discography (as well as my personal talk page), without adding any further explanations of his edits other than the argument made in his original edit summary, despite the fact that I presented a policy that specifically countered his argument. Though I personally feel that Harout72 is guilty of disruptive editing, I'd personally prefer that no repercussions are given to him and someone just simply explain to him that what he's doing is incorrect and violates WP:CALC. Funkatastic (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You simply do not want to hear what others are saying to you. You were not brought here because you added Bubbling Under peaks, you were brought here because you kept adding peaks that cannot be verified through the sources that your edit here adds. This here is one of the sources that supposedly supports those chart peaks, which does not list any chart peaks for any songs whatsoever. The issue here is about the fact that you're either not familiar with WP:Verifiability or you knowingly keep disrupting that page. Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section.--Harout72 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You literally just accused me of exactly what you're doing, you're not listening to counter arguments. I did not add a single source to this page, so if that's the argument you're switching to now that's great, because now you look even dumber. The only thing I did was take the Bubbling Under positions from the Notes that already existed on the page and reflected them to the tables. So if your new issue is with the references, you're not even talking to the right person. This is hilarious. As you added in the final sentence of your last argument, "Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section." is once again, completely ignoring the policy WP:CALC.Funkatastic (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your edit. You have copied and pasted an entire older revision of the page from which I had to remove all of those sources and peaks due to unverifiability. By doing that, yes, you are adding sources which do not support your added chart peaks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Except the proper move there, isn't to completely remove all of the content. It's to add a notice at the top of the section & article saying that the article is unverifiable and it's sources need to be updated. So once again, you made a mistake. Funkatastic (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this at Rick Ross discography and I'm not getting involved beyond this except to point out the fact that Funkatastic, you don't seem to understand it is not "basic arithmetic" because the Bubbling Under chart only tracks songs that have not yet reached the Hot 100. Therefore, a song that falls out of the Hot 100 will not reappear on the Bubbling chart. Thus, that particular song might be #101 in Billboard's calculations in a given week. To then list what is #1 on the Bubbling Under chart as #101 is inaccurate, because in reality it might be #102 or even #110; without actual figures, one cannot know. I've noticed what you've done at Meek Mill discography with Azealia911 (talk · contribs) with re-adding the Bubbling Under peak onto 100 and it's inaccurate, persistent and disruptive. Please recognise that you are misconstruing what the Bubbling Under chart actually is, and what it isn't is a simple extension chart (if it was, songs that fall out of the Hot 100 would reappear on it). This isn't anything personal, it's just that I've come across this misunderstanding many times over the years and it's frustrating to see it all over Wikipedia. That's why the note should be placed next to an mdash, because in the end, it did not chart on the Hot 100, its exact position outside the top 100 is not known, and the Hot 100 and Bubbling Under chart are two different charts. (Also, WP:CALC was not created for this reason and the cited passage indicates there must be consensus about said "calculation" for it to be added. There clearly isn't consensus among users about this, even beyond the scope of this.) Ss112 10:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Echoing what Ss112 has just said: the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension of the Hot 100 because it only includes songs that haven't yet reached the Hot 100, and does not account for those that have fallen off yet might still be just below 100. WP:CALC does not hold here, because the criteria are not the same between the two lists. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears Funkatastic has either not seen this or still does not care, having just edited 2 Chainz discography, still operating under the assumption one can add the Bubbling Under onto 100 and citing WP:CALC in his edit summaries. It needs to stop; it's disruptive, persistent and inaccurate. Disruptive because he will restore his edits if anybody takes him up on it. Ss112 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if the user in question had indeed seen the above explanation on why CALC does not apply here, not been bothered, and carried on doing what they want regardless. I was originally wary about partaking in this discussion, as all attempts to contact the user via discussion or their talk page usually result in them blanking any attempt of communication, usually accompanied by an insulting statement in the edit summary (see their talk page history). I was also reluctant to add my thoughts as I didn't want the conversation to completely derail (see this discussion about a content dispute, which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up. If the user is simply ignoring what Ss112 and BlueMoonset are explaining here, then further action may be a possible route to take. Azealia911 _talk 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Funkatastic hasn't been pinged here lately, so I'm doing so now to ensure that the conversation is being followed as well as the explanations as to why the calculations are producing invalid results, rather like adding apples and oranges. (WP:CALC simply doesn't apply when the numbers being combined are determined based on differing criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that unlike other policies and guidelines that instruct users to be bold, CALC specifically states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious" I have yet to see one discussion in which there is consensus amongst multiple editors that CALC can be applied in this manner, rather the opposite. Azealia911 _talk 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

*@Harout72: You've forgotten to notify Funktastic about this ANI complaint. I have done it for you, but given the fact it pops up in a big orange box every time you edit the page, I fail to see how you have missed it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Ignore this. I noticed he removed the ANI notification. My bad. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

LMAO, that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. If a song reaches the Hot 100 then any charting on the Bubbling Under charts wouldn't be the peak. I understand the concerns, but not a single one of you has raised a valid argument as to why WP:CALC doesn't apply to the use of Bubbling Under Charts. If you'd like to try and start a discussion on any of these pages to try and create a consensus that simple addition doesn't qualify as basic arithmetic please go ahead, but because that claim is so farfetched I'll continue to make these edits. I've yet to do anything that qualifies as "disruptive, persistent or inaccurate". Two more things I'd like to point out, I have never stated that the sources on these discography pages, nor have I ever personally vouched for him. Secondly, the above user says "which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up" is completely irrelevant as it happened over a year ago, the only reason to bring up this dispute would be an attempt to personally attack a user instead of discussing the contents of the topic. Don't know how you could still deny these as personal attacks when in this scenario the content isn't the slightest bit pertinent to the current topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's valid because it's proof that, as you have also just stated, you (will) continue to add what you consider "routine calculations" persistently to the point of disruption. As I and other users have just explained, it is not a routine calculation; they're two different charts and the Bubbling chart is no longer a simple extension chart, otherwise it would still be listed as such (#1 being #101 and so on--there is no proof this is the case today). Even pointing out that if a song makes the Hot 100 "the Bubbling Under position would not be its peak" demonstrates you still do not understand what any of us has just said. Claiming without proof you have consensus to make said edits is wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this now. Ss112 01:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Funkatastic still keeps reverting Rick Ross discography to the revision which adds sources that leaves all of his added Bubbling Under peaks unverifiable. He still chooses to do so even after he accepted that his edit adds sources that do not support those chart peaks. Even after being told that Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. Hopefully administrators prevent further disruptions by this editor. He even reverts edits of other editors at all discographies where he's told what he's doing is wrong.--Harout72 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The above two posts both claim I said things that I never posted here or anywhere. I never once claimed I had a consensus, nor did I ever claimed I added sources to the page Rick Ross discography, both of those claims are 100% fictitious and furthermore prove that these users aren't even aware of the point I'm trying to make, let alone the topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You cited WP:CALC here and in your edit summary, which claims you need to have consensus to add numbers together for it not to be considered original research. You don't have consensus on the matter of adding Bubbling Under peaks to 100 to be adding it anywhere. You are now reverting @Cornerstonepicker: and claiming their reversions of your disruptive edits are "vandalism". Also, do not change the heading of this discussion; that's not your place. You didn't start this discussion, Harout72 did. Most of your edits are also unsourced, as you don't have any proof Billboard considers #1 on the Bubbling Under chart #101, which makes it original research as well. Since you are the user changing dashes into inaccurate additions (inaccurate, as I and others have explained above) of numbers, the burden of proof is on you. Ss112 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially Kanye West discography with WP:3RRV. Since his explanation is invalid, not sure why the persistence with unhelpful edits. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Would a topic ban proposal be too extreme? One that would prevent the user from editing discography articles completely. It's evident that no matter how many users attempt to explain how CALC can not be evoked as a reason for their actions, they clearly do not want to listen. What do others think? Azealia911 _talk 22:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• If no administrator blocks Funktastic for those erroneous additions despite consensus to the contrary, which is the only other thing I can think of that might get said user to stop without going to a ban, then I would favor a temporary topic ban on editing charts and chart data in discography articles and discographies in regular articles, perhaps a month, to be made indefinite if the behavior is resumed after the temporary ban is lifted. A line was crossed with the claim of "vandalism" when one of the CALC edits was reverted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Saw this topic fly by: I can only add that I warned Funkatastic about this while I was an administrator, and, were I still an administrator, he would be indefinitely blocked until he acknowledged that his edits violate policy, guidelines, and that most horrible thing to mention, truth. As multiple editors have explained to him, the Bubbling Under charts do not function as an extension the main chart.

For those that aren't versed in charts, the Bubbling Under charts are a chart of the fifteen or twenty-five best-selling songs that have not made the main chart. If a song ever charts on the main chart, it cannot reappear on the main chart. Thus, if the 101st best-selling song used to be the 99th best selling song, it will disappear from the charts entirely, and the song showing a position 1 on the Bubbling Under chart is actually position 102 or lower. That's the reason that WP:CALC doesn't apply, and what Funkatastic is able unwilling or unable to understand. A WP:CIR block would be quite appropriate here: even if Funkatastic is well-intentioned, his edits are damaging.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

JoeSakr1980 is adding trivial information to leads of relevantly important articles such as:

• Economy of Ukraine
• Economy of Turkey
• Tourism in Lebanon
• Tourism in Turkey
• Economy of Suriname
• Economy of Argentina
• Economy of Venezuela
• Economy of Paraguay
• Economy of Colombia

...And many many more.

This has justifiably been reverted by a lot of users including: Hammersbach, SegataSanshiro1, Elie plus and many more. It also appears he works for the Lebanese government ([41]). And now he's edit-warring to get his way. Something needs to be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, there appears to be heavy disruption at this article by the same user: Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is also vandalizing several articles. Either that or they're not competent enough to be here (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecuador&diff=prev&oldid=701328645)142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of talk page messages to this editor. They haven't edited since then and I'd like to see how they respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Etienne, if they cannot abide by policy they should not be here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

JoeSakr1980 is still fairly new, so I've left a message spelling things out very clearly. Outside of the visa requirements article, he's mostly only at 1 revert, though on a variety of pages and usually for similar (if not identical) edits. His edits appear to be in good faith, if perhaps in the wrong part of the article or accompanied by other problems. I would not immediately dismiss arguments citing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself.

142.105.159.60: please read WP:NOTVAND. You are also edit warring just as much as JoeSakr1980 is.

If JoeSakr1980 ignores my warning, I will take further action. If another admin takes further action before then, whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: would you say this edit was likely in good faith? I can certainly accept that someone would mistakenly believe a wrong fact about English spelling, but the entire edit consists in subtly breaking the spelling of several words or changing them into different words. Also, what about the fact that JoeSakr1980, below, claims to never have known how to reply on his own talk page, yet he not only suddenly started doing so, but was as confident as to make a "cleanup" of it (i.e. deleted all the warnings)? To me, something about his good faith doesn't add up. LjL (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually could see some of my IELTS students making most of the changes in the link (particularly changing "two rivers" to "to rivers"). Those that I can't see my IELTS students doing, I know I've made the same mistakes in Spanish. I'd bet $10 he wasn't using ctrl+f. That link does support a potential WP:CIR argument, but doesn't quite spell out bad faith for me.

His first to his talk page was blanking the whole page with the summary "clean up" (not just the warnings). The next comparable edit (which was not labelled as a clean up) comes several hours after he said that he hasn't figured out how to reply on the talk page yet. Some less technologically proficient users get intimidated by the edit window, especially when English clearly isn't their first language. (When in doubt, imagine that the other user as that one elderly friend or family member who keeps installing toolbars, thinks Google "makes internets," and thinks that Facebook is a standard Windows application).

Again, all that could be part of a WP:CIR argument, but more edits of that type would need to be presented to overcome the fact that he's only been here a few months and that most of his activity appears to be repetitious or non-experimental. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

He's stopped his promotional posts for now, so I think this can be closed. If WP:CIR comes up again with this user or if he starts up his spamming again, then action can be taken.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the user who just reported me

EtienneDolet, Well I don't work for the Lebanese government. I work in the German representation office at Nicosia, TRNC. My edits were referenced and you may or may not agree with my edits. I revered the edits for some users and urged them to include then in a possibly new section. As a history or foreign relations topic. My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible. My main scope of edits on Wikipedia are concerned with Via requirements and Visa policies. I've been correcting those, updating them, and undoing every vandalism edit for some time now. Concerning the "Visa requirements for Tunisian Citizens". Me and a visa-policy veteran called TwoFortNights were undoing edits from a user who engaged in an edit war. His edits were wrong and he constantly denied our requests to discus it on the talk page. I have reported him on Berean Hunter's talk page for appropriate action to be taken. I'm not the one who imposes vandalism or engages in an edit war with anyone. I have previously reported many users for being sockpuppets on Wikipedia and the appropriate action was taken by blocking them. Check Vanjagenije's talk page. You shouldn't block me or take such action just because a user thinks I'm an article messer on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time and efforts in making Wikipedia a much better place. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You might want to try posting in the thread that's about this issue instead of starting a new thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved response to thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @JoeSakr1980: Please read and follow Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines and Policy on paid editing which says how to comply with wikiipedia's Terms of Use. Also please note Wikipedia is not for promotion and using it for such may result in loss of editing privlages. Thank you for your understanding and compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jbh^Talk 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• @JoeSakr1980: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, so when you say "My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible", that's directly contrary to a Wikipedia policy. Relent on this promotion and make your edits be about creating an encyclopedia, or you will inevitably find yourself in more trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, this is one of those instances where good English skills are needed when editing in an English-speaking forum. Yes, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", but it is obvious that (talk) did not mean "promote" in the sense of any of the 5 negative examples mentioned, bur rather in the dictionary sense of "to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further" as in the dictionary.com definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote?s=t In sum, I think too many people are hiding behind the text of some Wikipedia guidelines as opposed to understanding their meaning.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Leave me and my English skills alone already. You have been transparently trying to annoy me for too long and the game's no longer fun. You even randomly intervened on my talk page again after knowing very well that you're very unwelcome there. It's time to stop. LjL (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the user who just reported me

Jbhunley, you left a paid editting section on my talk page, as you said I'm still fairly new on Wikipedia. Been here for a couple of months and haven't figured out how to reply to a talk page just yet. I've felt I would be better to leave a section here and on your personal talk page too as you said I shouldn't edit before I clarify things out.

I state that my employer has no relation with my Wikipedia account and under all situations and conditions I take no compensation or financial gains from my edits what so ever. My edits are completely mine and I don't benefit from doing so in any possible way.

My edits were just to spread the info out in appropriate places and I have not an idea that it's prohibitted or would get me in such a trouble with dozens of admins. Sorry for everything. Please let me know about what should I do to end this mess up. Thanks. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: All you need to do is not "promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy", just do not do it. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional behavior. You should read our core policies about how information must be presented from a neutral point of view and that information must be verifiable by citation to reliable sources. (Click on the blue links they link to pages than describe the terms.) That said, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for being willing to contribute here. Jbh^Talk 16:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page

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

---

There have been multiple incidences of incivil behavior at Talk:Parapsychology, including the following most egregious examples by editors JuliaHunter and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701589880&oldid=701589805

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701403715&oldid=701403508

75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My evaluation of Brian Josephson's status in the academic community is harsh, but it looks to me to be fact and isn't really disputable. Plainly identifying the way a believer in paranormal phenomena is perceived by the WP:MAINSTREAM academic community really isn't a contradiction of the terms of WP:CIVILITY by my reading. jps (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with jps. Brian J. is no stranger to the mainstream view of his, shall we call them, beliefs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't often see the word "agnotological", does one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. could I send Brian some of my bent spoons?

How embarassing; I had to look it up! Keri (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Using this thread to make User:Brian_Josephson your punching bag saves me the time and trouble of copying and pasting diffs. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly log in to your main Wikipedia account? Or, if you are concerned about WP:OUTING (which is legitimate given that account's username), would you perhaps start a new one and privately declare your old one to arbcom? Thanks. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Those comments do not look civil to me. What happened to "Focus on Content"? One may disagree with a person but to say those things shows a level of hostility that is not welcome on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, similar incivility is simultaneously going on at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Weak statistical evidence?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:FOC.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:DENY. We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.jps (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in calling me an advocate - I am an advocate of civility, one of the 5 Pillars of WP WP:5P4.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, according to arbcom. Please read WP:Civil POV pushing for more on your tired tactics. jps (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to me as a POV-Pusher?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the shoe fit? jps (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give a direct answer. Otherwise, I will AGF that you have no evidence whatsoever that I am a POV-Pusher and therefore you would not make such an incivil accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, you must be aware that you are banned from alt. medicine, GMO and agrichemicals for violating WP:NPOV? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of this. Please provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What? See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions , Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, [42], [43]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

None of these diffs show that sanctions were imposed on me for violating NPOV, which is what you stated - please read WP:Casting aspersions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It would clutter this thread. But assuming they weren't for POV pushing, what were all these topic bans for then? Please tell. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"It would clutter this thread" - that has to be the weakest argument I have ever read for not presenting evidence - evidence which simply does not exist. I remind you that we are on a noticeboard which requires you to provide evidence of such aspersions. I invite you to now strike your totally false and unfounded aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Again: why were you topic banned? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do your own research.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The simplest route to solving this is topic-banning Brian Josephson from all pseudoscience topics. He is otherwise a good (great actually, they dont give Nobels to dunces) scientist (in his field) who also believes some laughable rubbish. Ban him from the areas he has problems in where he tries to promote pseudoscience crap, conflict disappears. If anyone wants to take a closer look at NPOV, FRINGE noticeboards the last few weeks, there are a couple more who need to be punted from science-related topics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I would be thrilled if he would help edit the Josephson effect. jps (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Simon Singh was interesting on the subject of Josephson: he described him as a really nice guy who is keen to be fair to people who propose weird and bizarre stuff, but is easily swayed by the zeal of the True Believer. The example was homeopathy (which is, of course, unambiguously bullshit): Singh explained the evidence, Josephson was convinced, but days later he spoke to a True Believer again and was right back to believing the woo. Topic ban? I think that would be excessive, but we've topic banned people who have been less persistent over much less time in giving undue weight to fringe beliefs. start at 1:00 Guy (Help!) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have actually read/heard Singh's views on him and they are indeed interesting. The problem with people who can be productive in their areas of expertise on wikipedia is that so often they are distracted by getting into pointless arguments elsewhere. I am sure we all remember how Mathsci ended.... Had he been suitably restricted earlier it might not have escalated to the stage it did. At this point Josephson is being disruptive to others, and to himself. So if it helps, think of a topic ban not as a punishment, but as a guiderail to prevent him bowling into the next lane... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification on discretionary sanctions, please I have just noticed that the Parapsychology article is under DS. Does that mean that because this article is the source of the thread here at AN/I, this thread is also subject to DS? (I am naive in these matters - perhaps ALL threads at AN/I are subject to DS?)DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The 'topic' of Parasychology is under discretionary sanctions. This means wherever the topic is discussed, that discussion would also (potentially) be subject to it. Which means when you open up a topic on ANI on a subject that has DS attached to it, any administrator can pretty much take any action they want as enforcement. Given the amount of admins who watch ANI, sensible people dont poke the bear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I remind all editors that WP:Discretionary sanctions states While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. I think we are now all warned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To follow up, discretionary sanctions apply not only on article pages (to edit-warring and [[WP:OWN|article ownership), but to talk pages (personal attacks, aspersions), and to project pages. Editors should be aware that many of the readers of this page are uninvolved admins and can impose sanctions. Have all of the editors been properly alerted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rude, incivil, and bullying behavior

... is indeed going on here. And it's being accepted, and stamped with the seal of approval of Wikipedia. If the systems that exist for enforcing the policies and guidelines do not work -- and in fact ramp up the rudeness and incivility instead of addressing them, and even threaten to topic-ban a person who has just been subjected to rude and incivil behavior ... then we're completely lost here. SageRad (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a suitable editing environment, and the very mechanisms that are supposed to address problems with civility are in fact being used to rub salt in the wounds of the original recipient, and then to attack those who may comment against the "bully consensus" with things like this, which is addressed of course at me and DrChrissy:

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well since both you and DrChrissy were topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms I'd say it was fair comment. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@User talk:Mrjulesd - I suffer from Type 2 diabetes. I have infections in my feet which prevent me from walking and my Drs are considering amputation. Your support of "...out for a stroll" is a personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Paranoia gang" is uncivil and potentially a personal attack. "Out for a stroll" is not, despite your unfortunate medical issues, however, because nobody knows that until you tell us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bushranger - yes, I understand and thank you for pointing that out. I guess this incivil comment is really a extremely good example of why editors should focus on content, rather than contributors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also DrChrissy has showed signficant problems with advocacy of quackery, hence his other topic ban, so has a pre-existing agenda against skeptical sites specialising in alternative-to-medicine claims. I know why SageRad opposes the specific skeptic site under discussion, and it would be better all round if he backed off that one.

Unfortunately WP:CRYBULLYING is the new WP:CRYBLP. The "bullying" in question is, as far as I can tell, primarily telling advocates of fringe material that no, we will not reflect nonsense as if it were reality. Firmness is not bullying. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, please provide evidence of my supposed advocacy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 § Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG is the topic ban, if you are blessed with the bare minimum of self-awareness you will readily identify the problem there. I personally think you are not so blessed, and I don't propose to waste any time trying to persuade you to your own satisfaction of things that independent observers accept to be true - not least because you have an unfortunate history of misrepresenting such explanations as "bullying", "uncivil" and "harassment". Guy (Help!) 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore the obvious attempts at taunting and the personal attacks, but will state that I am self-aware - I just passed the Mirror test. Instead, I will focus on the content. I'm afraid it is lost on me how the diff you have provided in anyway shows that I "showed significant problems with advocacy of quackery". Please will you provide a more specific diff?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No one on AN/I is required to provide evidence of DrChrissy's bias and POV-pushing. That evidence has already been presented, and has resulted in multiple topic bans for the editor, from both the community at large and from their elected representatives, the Arbitration Committee. That DrChrissy dcannot seem to accept that his behavior caused the bans is his problem, not ours. If DrChrissy continues to maintain that behavior pattern in other subject areas, I have absolutely no doubt that the topic bans will get broader and broader, and will eventually lead to a site ban, as the editor is apparently unable to control their behavior -- or has no interest in doing so. BMK (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: What is the motivation behind your posting above? How is it relevant to the thread?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is, I believe, obvious to everyone here but you: every time any one comments on your POV-pusing behavior your response has been "Show me the proof of that," but we don't have to show you the proof, because the proof lies in the very existence of the topic bans, which you choose to interpret as not being about POV-pushing, but which are, in fact, very much about that.

As for my motivation, it is to make it clear to all who read this thread that you do not come to the table with clean hands, that your complaints are -- as they always have been - intimately related to your WP:BATTLEGROUND state of mind and your entrenched non-neutral fringe POV. The only people you ever complain about -- and you complain about them a lot, in many different venues -- are people you disagree with. Without knowledge of that, people might think that you actually had a valid complaint, without realizing that the crux of the problem is not the people you interact with, but that those people are interacting with you. Given these facts, quite obvious to anyone who's been around a while and has anything like an open mind, projecting your future on Wikipedia is hardly a difficult thing to do, since many of us have seen it happen over and over again, to people on both sides of the fringe/mainstream divide. You're following a classical line of development for a non-neutral POV-pushing warrior. BMK (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, everyone should keep in mind that the "civility problem" is not the most important problem on Wikipedia. Yes, certainly, uncivil behavior helps to make the editing environment unpleasant for the editors, but the bottom line is what goes into the encyclopedia. That means that pushing a non-neutral POV is much more detrimental to the project than mere incivility, since it effects our product, the thing we're all supposedly here to improve, the encyclopedia. Folks who haven't done so might like to read the essay on WP:Civil POV pushing. It's best to be civil, but I'll take a potty-mouthed neutral editor over a sweet-talking partisan one any day. BMK (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's this kind of view that makes Wikipedia a toxic and unpleasant editing environment. It is a false dilemma to suggest that the only options are (1) civil editors pushing a non-NPOV, and (2) non-civil editors maintaining WP:NPOV. Civility and reason are the tools of a good editor, and they are available in abundance. If editors have to resort to incivility, then they haven't got a good argument, and shouldn't be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Would you mind if in the future I refer to you as a "self-appointed, paranoid, witch-hunter"? If you object to this, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have stopped beating my wife, thanks for asking.

DrChrissy, I gave you straight talk, and you want to play silly little games. Please go peddle your papers elsewhere, and don't ping me again - you're really not worth my time or effort. BMK (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At BMK (but not pinged as requested). Take a look at the thread development. At the time of my last posting you were not giving me "straight talk". Your last comment had been "You're following a classical line of development for a non-neutral POV-pushing warrior" I dislike very much being called such names. It indisputably violates WP:Civil This is exactly the type of bullying that several editors are complaining about, and the usual action is to subject those editors to even more bullying in an attempt to silence them. What gives you the right to feel you can call me such names ignoring one of the very pillars of WP, i.e. civilityWP:5P4. Your repeated bullying makes me frustrated and, quite normally I think, I feel motivated to call you names, but I do not because I wish to remain civil. My "silly game", was my attempt to find a method of venting my frustration at you while not violating WP:Civility. As for "peddling [my] papers", I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I have published (many) scientific papers, but not in this subject area. I certainly hope your wife recovers from her beatings.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this train wreck, I will assume good faith that although you don't intend to behave in a way that mimics Civil POV-pushing (the "I didn't know Joseph Mercola was a pseudoscientist" defense) by behaving in the way you are it makes it very difficult for other editors to see the difference. If this is the case, what I fail to understand is your refusal to change ways. Editing fringe areas is difficult, and yet you continually arrive at such pages and repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It would be one thing if you just allowed that you don't know what you are doing and allowed others to clean up your problematic edits as you do them, but you simply don't let that happen. You argue constantly about fringe material and you always take the side of the fringe-proponent. This is about the limit that many of us can take. I have tried to clean up a lot of messes you've made, and there are still a lot of articles on the list. It's only made worse by the fact that your edits are a complete mishmash of uncontroversial attributions and poorly-vetted material. It's a slog and when you reflexively revert every editor who tries to clean up your contributions, you are exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior that throws up warning signs for those of us active in these areas.

Much of what you consider a lack of civility is really just an attempt to contextualize your activities. You find it problematic because you don't think you fit the mold. What I'm telling you (and others are as well) is that your actions, whether you intend them to or not, do fit the mold. One of the only ways we have of fixing the problems you have created is by quarantining your edits, and as we try to do that the characterization that best fits is that of a Fringe POV-pusher.

If you don't like that, then there are lots of other things you can do at Wikipedia, but I don't think you are going to be successful keeping up this particular tactic of claiming that it is all the fault of the people like me who bully you for supporting the fringe-POV.

jps (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are prolonging what you call a train-wreck, but you nearly got there! You nearly posted an entire message without resorting to incivil name-calling which I am now construing as WP:Harassment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you not see how this response is just indicative of the political positioning of WP:Civil POV-pushers? It's almost as if you want to prove my point for me. All I can say is that I have seen this line of argument a lot over my 12 years here at this website, and it has invariably ended with those taking your approach either retiring, being banned, or being completely sidelined. jps (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Please could you supply a diff of where you or another editor has had to "clean up" an edit of mine on a fringe article, as you stated above. In fact, please just supply a diff of my editing a fringe article; I have looked at my edits over the last month and could not find a single one.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember the Mercola. jps (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh very much so. I really think you are in danger of deliberately misleading the community here. You could not be bothered to provide a thread, and I think that is because that would show this was a discussion (and a very brief one at that ) about the suitability of a source. It had nothing to to do with "fringe". I suggest again that you provide evidence that I have edited fringe articles. For readers who want to follow this, the thread is here.[44] Take a look at the article and make your own minds up whether it is fringe or not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See, here's exactly the problem with your pedantry. You seem to think we can sort articles into two categories: fringe and not fringe. That is not how Wikipedia works. People insert fringe material all over the encyclopedia from the most outlandish to the most innocuous places. It's why we have guidelines like WP:ONEWAY (which I helped write, inspired by some of last decade's tactics of Iantresman). What you were doing is inserting Mercola into articles where he didn't belong in contravention of WP:FRINGE. It's no huge sin; we are a wiki after all and can clean up after you. But to pretend like this never happened after we just discussed it is disingenuous in my book. Or it's needlessly pedantic in a way that Wikipedia in practice is not. jps (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's put this to bed once and for all. This diff shows where I originally inserted the disputed material.[1] (Please note the material is a quote by Mercola, not Mercola's own words.) You then deleted the content here[2] with the Edit Summary "Mercola is a completely unreliable source" - you gave no further information. No discussion was opened on the Article Talk page regarding the the reliability of the source. I re-inserted the disputed content here[3] leaving the ES "Is a quote and therefore reference is RS..." Kingofaces43 then removed the content here[4] leaving "Remove WP:FRINGE source and undue weight for a non-expert..." I did not attempt to re-insert the material. Those are the facts. I reverted material which had been disputed with minimal justification just the once - yes, once. I refute your accusation that I am a promoter of fringe or a POV-pusher. You have also accused me of being a Civil POV-pusher. Perhaps if I had told you to "F*CK OFF and leave me alone", I could also refute the civility aspect of that particular accusation, but thus far, I am unable to do that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Plausible deniability is useful, no doubt. We don't have User RfCs any more, but we could scour your contributions and show other instances of where you seem to be drumming up GMO fears with dubious sourcing. I gave you one example. You don't like it. Tough cookies. You made your bed, you should sleep in it. jps (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's simply rude and uncivil to say the things in the original post's diff's, and many things said in response here on this ANI messageboard, including the remark "Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang..." -- it's uncivil. It's name-calling. This is a serious business, the editing of "the sum of the world's knowledge", and we need an environment where people feel able to edit without getting called names all the time, and without prejudicial poisoning of the well to be done all the time. We can be relaxed and joke, but not at the expense of other editors. We cannot call names, and we cannot say things that are clearly intended to "get to" another editor psychologically, which is the core action of bullying behavior. It's all pretty simple. It comes down to respecting others. We can talk about ideas here, and Wikipedia is a miracle. It's the most amazing discourse on the planet, in my opinion, where we can figure out what is a point of view and what is acceptable to be told in Wikivoice according to sources. There is so much amazing philosophical and intellectual learning that can happen here. People can see when their previous beliefs are not in line with evidence, and people can open their minds to new points of view. It's an amazing place, but when people run around with intent to trash others, it degrades to a schoolyard with bullies. SageRad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

To the closing admin Please look at what has happened here. An issue was raised, incivil language started and 2 editors, @SageRad: and myself, reminded editors that WP has a strict policy regarding WP:Civility. We have then been subject to personal attacks, accusations of NPOV, aspersions about support of various topics, and others. Why should editors, calmly and politely reminding other editors to remain civil according to one of the pillars of WP be subjected to this unacceptable behaviour? It is clearly wrong and needs to be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Someone needs to ping ArbCom here, I think, in hopes of some member of ArbCom not just going on a lunch break. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would anyone do that? Arbcom cannot currently find its own arsehole with a compass, map and a mountain rescue dog. The above at worst is snark bordering on mild disrespect to someone who is pushing woo. You *personally* have opined that the community has not laid out clear civility policies (despite there being at least 4 policies to the contrary) so frankly expecting Arbcom to do anything about it is a waste of time when they cant even do their job enforcing wikipedias standing policies. Unless of course you were referring to the various discretionary sanctions available on all the fringe/pseudoscience topic areas, in which case taking it to Arbcom would result in a "Take it to AE!" response, but wait! Since Arbcom in its wisdom decided closing an AE report as 'no action' is an arbitration enforcement action that cant be overturned, no one wants to take actual serious shit to AE now in case it prevents future enforcement actions. Of course as an admin you could do something about it, but that would require you to actually do some independant thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You said poopy words. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Tu quoque: "Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own."
2. "No personal attacks": "Comment on content, not on the contributor"
3. WP:ASPERSIONS: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence

--Iantresman (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As Jimbo would say, "Knock it off and be good to each other!" SageRad (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it perfectly clear what this ANI entry has shown: Wikipedia is a place where bullies rule, and if you dare to raise the issue, you will be attacked. SageRad (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your two comments above are mutually contradictory. The issue is that when people keep advocating a fringe view or some other thing that is not going to happen because it violates core content policies, other people eventually become exasperated. Firmly resisting POV-pushing is not "bullying", the problem in most cases comes down to WP:STICK versus WP:SPADE. The alternative is WP:RANDY. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, man... people can call a spade a spade, about content but when it comes to a comment like "oh look, it's the GMO paranoia team out for a stroll" simply because i spoke against uncivil comments, and then against further uncivil comments here at ANI, and then becmoe the recipient of further uncivil comments here for doing so.... it's not calling a spade a spade. It's just being mean for meanness sake. There's a problem here and i'll not have it minimized or redefined. Civility is a core policy, by the way. And, watch out how you characterize others as POV pushers, as that is all completely relative. Who you call a POV pusher may actually be a POV remover, and be getting flak for that because they are resisting the POV pushing by another editor or group. It comes down to policies, like NPOV, and also CIVILITY. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion ANI should be the prime example for usage of citations (ANI = requirement to back up comments with citations). Suggestions, opinions could be moved to a different venue. prokaryotes (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with SageRad. The principle of Tu quoque does now allow us to attack an editor because you disagree with their POV. If you get exasperated then take a break. To suggest WP:STICK versus WP:SPADE is a false dilemma, "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks" (WP:SPADE). --Iantresman (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's juuuuust a coincidence that the only ones acting like this bullying talk holds any water are all folks who just so happen to wear the same jerseys in the Battle of the POVs, eh? Sure. Don't care one way or another about your POV, but anyone looking at this who actually knows what bullying and abuse is, knows what the real kind is like-- you look like you're trying to wield that big nasty word bullying like a weapon to win your battles, and doing that seems very underhanded and disingenuous to say the least, leaves a bad taste in the mouth-- watch me commenting on your actions, not your actual selves, and if you make the fallacious assumption that doing so much as that is ~bullying~ that just proves my point. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If I feel like I am being bullied because someone is being uncivil to me, I will call it how I see it. It is usually easy to spot objectively "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (per WP:NPA). It may be just words to many editors, but any victim will tell you, that being persistently belittled, deprecated, insulted, and blamed for criticising uncivil behavior, is not on. This is why Wikipedia has "respect and civility" as one of its Five Pillars. --Iantresman (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if Iantresman would stay away from conversations concerning pseudoscience. He is never helpful. jps (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (

Wait, what? When did this become about you being bullied? Wasn't it Sage and Chrissy specifically that jps was slagging off? Sheesh.

I can't say the whole "GMO paranoia gang" comment was helpful, or most of jps' comments here are helpful really; ad hominem and general sneering is always super annoying and lowers the tone of debate, but it's to be expected on the internet, it's not Happy Funtime Friendship Land-- best practice is to ignore PAs completely, take the high road, and stick only to the first 3 tiers of this when it comes to the actual intellectual substance of the disagreement, which everyone trips up on, not just one side or the other. Still, with a lot of ANI shite, a lot of arb shite, a VPP thread about an anti-bullying policy (that got shot down most likely because it would come down to trying to codify "civility" again, and codifying/enforcing civility properly is like trying to find a Higgs boson with a lump of granite and two sticks)... and that's without looking at the actual articles they're involved in-- no wonder people are getting annoyed. Arbcom didn't rule against these two in the GMO case for nothing; there was enough evidence to agree on that they weren't playing nice. Instead of trying to change their approach (at least to the point where I can actually see any difference pre-case against now in how they behave), they're painting themselves as champions of some Grand Antibullying Movement which is noble at face value, but seems altogether like a distraction, an attempt to overplay their victimization, or at worst an attempt to use it to their advantage to shut up the anti-fringe people by painting them as The Big Meanies, which is just... gross. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to poison well against others in a dialog, as the above comment does. You do not know that a past judgement was accurate, abs in this case it really wasn't. Ad hominem has no place here. Prejudicial statements have no place here. Personal attacks have no place here. There is a culture of abuse here. It is not inevitable, and is not okay. We can change it if we own it and address it culturally. It takes a critical mass of people standing up against abusive behavior for it to become anathema. Right now it's implicit endorsed. Right now we might as well burn the civility policy for all it's worth. I respect when I see people standing up for decency. Without it, we have devolved into bullying and McCarthyism. Not good for the encyclopedia, for editors, or for the world. SageRad (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Apart from that imaginary stuff , you're ok with discussion? Begoon ^talk 14:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You do not know that a past judgement was accurate, abs in this case it really wasn't. So... are you saying you don't consider Arbcom's judgment accurate, or am I missing it here? 74.205.176.200 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as an experiment

• Support/s> a topic ban on SageRad plastering his imaginary blather about "bullying" everywhere. It might not pass, but it would sure reduce the drama. Begoon ^talk 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, I don't consider trying to remove editing privileges from a user who is trying to reduce bullying, to be funny, and does appear to meet WP:AGF. I apologies if this was meant as a joke, but you can appreciate that the humour is reduced for the person that is the butt of the joke. --Iantresman (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to Iantresman for standing up for me here. I appreciate seeing the integrity. It's far too rare and we need more of it to achieve a critical mass, to overcome the problem of abusive behavior here in Wikipedia.

To Begoon: Wow. Really... bullying is a real thing and it does happen. There are behaviors that are intended to chill, to drive away, to hurt people and when used over time, they add up to bullying. I've seen the behavior here on Wikipedia far too much, and it's real. There's also a notable fraction of editors who react like this -- getting up in arms at the mention of the word -- which i think speaks to the power of the concept and its reality. In other words, if it weren't on target, then it would just sound ridiculous and it wouldn't get people upset. There really is a psychological tactic called "bullying" and people really do it. On the Internet, it's easier than in person, and i feel like a lot of people get their "kicks" or "ya ya's" here by being bully-ish, like a power trip. Anyway, a lot of people have agreed with this observation and independently said it of the environment here, as well, so it's not just me. I find this to be ridiculous that you say this here. I stood up to say that i found behavior against another editor uncivil, and then others decided that was an invitation to open season on me and another editor who had also voiced opposition to the abusive behavior. Then i voiced opposition that that abusive behavior and got more abuse. And now i get this... thank goodness i have a thick skin and some serious self-confidence, so i survive this, but it's not alright. It's not acceptable. It's schoolyard tactics. And it shows the power and reality of the concept itself that people want to silence me when i speak about it. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Begoon: Please consider striking this proposal - it's not going to stick and if anything is just going to cause more drama -- samtar ^whisper 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I have looked at your contributions and you are certainly not a stranger to AN/I. Surely you realise that making a frivolous proposal here is sanctionable. This not a threat - I'm simply suggesting that making such a posting in the heated atmosphere might no have been well-thought out. Please strike it. The last thing we need is more drama.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing frivolous about my comment. Are you bullying me? Begoon ^talk 16:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for misconstruing your proposal as "frivolous". And no, I am not bullying you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Next time maybe less "opposition research"? Up to you. Begoon ^talk 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment while a TB against claims of bullying probably isn't feasible something will likely have to be done in the near future. Perhaps some one way IBs would fix the issue as Sage never seems to jump into conflicts they weren't involved in prior unless it concerns the same editors they've already had issues with. This board has quite a few threads about claims of incivility yet you'll note this is the only one Sage felt the need to piggy-back onto. Capeo (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that SageRad is more familiar with certain editors than others, perhaps because (s)he has come across them while editing. It seems quite reasonable to me to jump into any conflict one isn't involved in, if you spot incivility and bullying, after all, we'd all rally against a bully in real life, wouldn't we? --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, pseudoscientists of a feather flock together. C.f. Iantresman and his pseudoscientist credentials! jps (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Jps - please read my clarification above that this thread is covered by DS[45].DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a big problem with people such as yourself, SageRad, and Iantresman propping each other up when you're all documented with diffs in various arbcom cases to have promoted pseudoscience to the detriment of the quality control of Wikipedia. This is a problem Wikipedia has a hard time dealing with. jps (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that I have "promoted pseudoscience". I remind you that this page is under DS and you should familiarise yourself with what that means in terms of casting aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you reinsert Mercola as a source. Mercola is a pseudoscientist. Ergo, that makes you... a promoter of pseudoscience. FTW! jps (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of links in that - but all to no avail. I am not an expert in this area - but let's not forget, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. I did not know at the time I inserted the quote that Mercola is what you categorise as a pseudo-scientist. Once this was pointed out to me, I did not challenge its reversion. By stating that my using a quote of someone you believe is a pseudo-scientist makes me a promoter of pseudo-science is like calling me a promoter of Nazism if I was to quote Hitler. Absolutely proposterous.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And now that we've reached Godwin's Law, I think it's clear that there's nowhere to go but sideways. You quoted Mercola as a source for information and reinserted the source after it was removed. That's about as promotional as you can get. jps (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is a new one for me, but I don't see that it has anything to support your argument. It is simply an observation of general editing habits. Anyway, back to the proper subject. Yes, I reinserted the edit, but I did not know at the time that Mercola was labeled by you as a pseudo-scientist. How can I be promoting a POV when I do not know a source I am using has a POV? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: You used a label above which included the term "paranoia". I am seeking your permission to refer to you in the future as a "paranoid, self-appointed, witch-hunter". Do I have your permission for this, please? If permission is denied, I would be grateful for an explanation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I really don't mind if you call me that. I wish more people would call things like they see them. jps (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, Godwin's Law is when a conversation hits rock-bottom through the use of, or comparison to, Nazism/Hitler/Facism/Stalin/other big bag meanies and ideologies. It is not an argument (or shouldn't be), but merely an observation of the state of a discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban on all discussion of bullying by User:SageRad. I am aware that SageRad thinks that false allegations of bullying, like false allegations of rape, very seldom happen, and that bullying is seriously underreported, and so nearly all allegations of bullying are true. It is my opinion, on the contrary, that bullying is both often not reported and often falsely reported. I am aware that some editors think that SageRad is performing a service to Wikipedia with a campaign against bullying, but I strongly disagree. In my opinion, SageRad's opposition to bullying is based on a one-sided concept of bullying, that, while he honestly believes he is objective, he tends to see disagreement, or even reasoning, as part of bullying. His anti-bullying campaign has been deeply divisive. Let other editors continue the campaign for him. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Robert. You are correct by saying that SageRad's anti-bullying campaign has been highly disruptive. However, this disruption is because we have vocal editors who believe that the problem exists and equally vocal editors that do not. However, this is not SageRad's fault. Punishing SageRad by sanctions would be a tragic case of "shooting the messenger".DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand firm on everything i have said here. I find this circus here absolutely shameful and ridiculous. Look at this ANI thread. It's a farce. SageRad (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad I concur with you. I'm not sure how you feel, but to me it feels as if the problems that the editorial behavioural problems that ArbCom GMO was supposed to address have simply shifted topic. This has all happened because you and I decided to politely remind other editors to remain civil. It really is unbelievable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Topic ban on discussion of "bullying" by SageRad. The editor clearly does not know when to quit. BMK (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose a topic ban. It would be be pure victimisation. The diffs at the top of this thread clearly show bullying and POV-pushing against those who dissent from the anti-pseudoscience cabal's zealous determination to use en.wp as a forum to dismiss as "fringe" any view they disagree with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I don't think SageRad is the worst offender here - not by quite a margin. There is a real issue with rebuffed POV-pushers howling "bullying!" (they remind me of the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, shouting "Help! I'm being repressed!"). This is not about any "cabal" (TINC) opposing things they don't "like", it's about the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most important places for any crank to have their crank beliefs reflected as "fact". This is clear in many, many places - homeopathy, Rossi's e-Cat, remote viewing - and it is not getting any better. So I think what we need to do is find a quicker way of producing near-permanent resolutions to frivolous demands. I advocate more use of RFCs, giving a solid baseline of consensus on article content and a cutoff of debate so that if people continue to repeat rejected demands after the RfC is closed, they can and should be sanctioned. It will make it easier to separate those who are committed to NPOV and Wikipedia's intentional bias towards empirical rationalism, versus those who want Wikipedia to be more sympathetic to woo. And if they want to change policy so that we *are* more sympathetic to woo, they can then address the policy, rather than attacking the articles. I am pretty confident that any attempts to change policy to make Wikipedia less skeptical, will be rejected, but it may be that the community actually does want to give some kind of equivalence to the views of creationists, climate change deniers and the like - and if that's the case then we need to have the fight just once, at the policy page. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, i appreciate your lukewarm support, though i am not an offender. I'm saying that it's not okay to act abusively toward anyone. I see what you're saying in the rest of your comment, surely, but it's really relative. Wikipedia is important, so saying the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most important places for any crank to have their crank beliefs reflected as "fact" (minus the word "crank") is simply and accurate statement. People do care about Wikipedia as it is supposed to reflect the sum of human knowledge, and people do get eager to change it when it can be improved, and often this is when it's to establishment. There is indeed and establishment bias to many articles and this is often held in a lockdown by some editors who are very skilled and who also use abusive language and tactics. Filibustering would be disruptive and sanctionable, but equally is WP:IDHT and strawman argumentation and other forms of dialog that lack integrity. In the face of these tactics, someone seeking to change an article may seem to be angry and too persistent, but that may simply be a reaction to the bad tactics and lack of good dialog being used by the defenders of the existing POV. It is complex, and many elements of the story are relative to what POV you hold. We must be a civil environment to work out how to represent a world that contains multiple points of view. It's wonderful work, if we can do it without abusing each other. SageRad (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem arises where there is significant disparity between public discourse and scientific opinion. The two are different in important ways, and Wikipedia, by design, describes the public discourse but follows the scientific view. Some areas have endless circular discussion, with climate change and the Subject That Shall Not Be Named being recently particularly prominent. We have ways of settling disputes: RFCs for example. So the solution here, I think, is specific RFCs on article talk pages, and ultimately sanctions for people who refuse to drop the stick.

Science may be wrong. It's allowed to be wrong, because it is, by design, objective and self-correcting. Belief cannot self-correct. No scientific evidence will ever persuade a homeopathy believer that homeopathy is bullshit, or a creationist that life evolved by natural selection of random mutation over billions of years. If scientific evidence emerges to show that recent changes in global temperature are consistent with random variation, then scientific consensus will change. Actually the trend is the other way.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan

I won't discuss other examples because the aim here is not to booby-trap you. The point is that science is inherently neutral and skepticism, which lies at the heart of the scientific method, is entirely consistent with Wikipedian ethos. There is an important difference between informal and formalised statements, in every subject. Take Dawkins (please, do take him, far away). He is a world class expert on evolutionary biology, and a complete dick. He annoys the hell out of a lot of skeptics because he makes unskeptical statements outside his area of expertise. Skeptics try (in as much as the fallible human can) to draw a distinction between opinion and objective truth; the major problem with most of the contended areas is that they are a battleground between those who try to do this and those for whom truth is measured primarily by ideological consonance.

"Big pharma" abuses science. Example: Vioxx. Science catches up with such abuses. It is frustrating for those who see the abuse early and are impatient for fast recognition of the problem. Hence the All Trials initiative, created and driven by skeptics such as Edzard Ernst, Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre - all of whom are routinely attacked by quackery proponents as "pharma shills", even though they have done more to stop the abuses of science b y "big pharma" than all the quacks in history. Quacks hate science-based anything because they know that objective reality is their worst enemy.

Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. According to quackery shills, it's a hatchet job against "natural cures". Any dispassionate reader will see that most of it is actually a very pointed and rather devastating critique of "big pharma". The difference in perception comes entirely from the disparity between the skeptical POV, which abhors bullshit, and the True Believer POV, which abhors all ideas that cause cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy. I think you are mixing two completely different issues. Willfully pushing a singular POV is prohibited, and should be addressed accordingly. But it does not, per Tu quoque, give any editor the justification to be uncivil. --Iantresman (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad >> ... People do care about Wikipedia as it is supposed to reflect the sum of human knowledge ... << I have no problem with that. However, there is a difference between knowledge and crap. Cardamon (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note. I withdraw my support, per the Brown haired girl. Apologies for any inconvenience. Begoon ^talk 14:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I thank you for that. --Iantresman (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommend closing this thread

• Recommend closing this thread with no action. The OP supplied only two diffs (not even from the same user). The heat-to-light ratio on this thread is now approaching infinity. Suggest closing it down before we waste any more time here. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, but it gives the impression that you can be uncivil if you do so only twice? Your Honour, I only punched them in the face twice, and I've always been let off the previous times I've punched someone in the face. --Iantresman (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. The two diffs are two different users. There was never a case made here, by ANI standards. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Those two diffs were the "most egregious examples" as Talk:Parapsychology is currently flooded with uncivil behavior. I'm taking notes and I'll be more detailed next time I approach this noticeboard, but it's too bad that we all have to be bullied in the meantime. Now, how not to get my request hijacked by other editors whom I've never encountered before with their own axe to grind? I don't know. That was odd. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support close as a USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. That editor bullied this one, but this one was a dick to that other one, but that other one was mean to that one, and oh no I've gone cross eyed. Let it stand that we should all be better to each other, edit in a polite and professional manner, and follow WP:CIVIL a little bit more. There are several million articles, last I checked - plenty of room to go edit something else for a while rather than fight continually. All of you - cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

user Volunteer Marek ignoring RfC, edit warring on Art Laffer

An RfC was held here to discuss the inclusion of identical material inserted across 4 different pages Art Laffer diff, Jude Wanniski diff, Supply-side economics diff and Laffer curve diff. That RfC was closed diff with a result of "The description of the Laffer curve should not include the proposed text or mention of the poll." Despite this, User:Volunteer Marek has been reinserting this material in the Art Laffer page diff diff diff amongst others, claiming that the RfC somehow does not apply despite the RfC making specific mention of the Art Laffer page and a notice on the Art Laffer talk page diff.

I would like someone to ask or force Volunteer Marek to abide by the consensus reached in the RfC, or, per WP:ONUS if he wishes to challenge it, refrain from re-adding that material and seek consensus to do so himself, rather than insisting that I start yet another RfC. Bonewah (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the RfC was held on the talk page of one article, and neutral pointers were placed on the talk pages of the other articles involved, but it was not advertised on the talk page of WikiProject Economics, nor on the Centralized Discussion page. BMK (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the RfC template did all that. If that didnt happen it was due to my inexperience. Bonewah (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The RfC was NOT held for four pages. It was held for a single page, Jude Wanniski. Bonewah then decided to interpret the results of the RfC for that page as applying to any article he feels like. Obviously, there's nothing in policy to support this. A piece of material may be inappropriate (maybe it's off topic) on one article and it may be perfectly appropriate on another (where it is on topic). For the record, this was well sourced material and the RfC centered around the question of whether it was sufficiently close to the topic.

2. On December 24th after all the !votes have been made Bonewah added a message to the effect of "oh yeah, I'm going to assume that the results of this RfC apply to any damn article I choose" [46]. This was immediately objected to, correctly, by at least one user [47] because, well, because it's sort of ridiculous and dishonest (to change what the RfC is about AFTER people voted)

3. Disingenuously, on the article on Arthur Laffer Bonewah then recently argued that the RfC on Jude Wanniski did in fact apply to Arthur Laffer because... people didn't raise objections to the idea that it would also apply to other articles. Well, no shit, since Bonewah didn't bring up the fact that it was going to apply to other articles until AFTER people !voted. And oh yeah, people actually DID object.

4. It's also ridiculous for Bonewah to accuse me of edit warring where it is in fact he who broke 3RR: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert. I did not (this edit is not a revert as it introduces new material and sources] - it also seems to be what motivated Bonewah to go running to ANI)

5. Bonewah has been edit warring over this issue for months against multiple[ editors. In addition to the four reverts in the last couple hours we have: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. That's edit warring against at least six different editors. You get the same story if you look at the history of Supply side economics, Jude Wanniski and Laffer Curve.

6. When he started this latest bout of edit warring, as soon as his edit was met with objections, Bonewah went running to the one, single, editor who had supported him in the past [56] and asked him to help out in the edit war. This is a totally transparent and blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS in violation of policy.

7. Bonewah is welcome to start a proper RfC for the page in question. They cannot assume that just because they managed to sneak in a "oh yeah, this applies to other pages" into an RfC that was about to be closed, they get to violate Wikipedia policy on either WP:3RR or how RfCs are actually conducted.

8. Content wise, if anyone cares, this involves Bonewah trying to defend a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that cutting taxes raises tax revenue.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I added to the RfC clarification that i intended it to apply in all the articles listed because it became obvious that you would do exactly what you are doing now, ignore whatever consensus came up and insist that I jump through more hoops to satisfy you. The RfC specifically mentions *all* the pages in question, i even said iwhen i opened the RfC "I feel that the optimal text for this issue will likely be different for supply side economics and the Laffer curve as opposed to the bios of Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski, but in the interest of a centralized discussion, i started the RfC here to help resolve the deadlock above. " Despite this, and explicitly calling out the Art Laffer page in the RfC, Volunteer Marek never said one thing about it until after the RfC was already closed. If you really had a problem with the RfC applying to Art Laffer, the good faith thing to do would be to say so up front in the RfC, not wait until the discussion is closed and insist on another RfC. But thats been par for the course for VM, he never responded to any of the concerns expressed in the RfC most specifically that the source fails verifiability, nor did he even bother to state a reason why Art Laffer should be different, despite me asking him to do so several times.

As for the notion that im edit warring, that accusation is false. The edits he sited as proof were across 3 days not one per 3RR. Further, i went out of my way to avoid editing the articles in question diff since november 9th while the RfC took place, despite VM immediatly reverting me diff per wp:Dispute resolution i disengaged and let the dispute resolution process work. Which it did, and yet here we are.

As for the notion that i violated wp:CANVASS, this is an absurd distraction. The user i contacted had already voted in the RfC, diff long before i contacted him, he was already substantially involved. I pinged him in hopes that we could avoid exactly what is happening now, having to resolve this dispute via ANI. VM is simply trying to distract from the fact that he is ignoring consensus, ignoring every good faith effort to resolve this via discussion and instead wikilawering me at every turn.

As a side note, even if the RfC somehow didnt apply to Art Laffer, doesnt the fact that an RfC over literally cut-and-paste identical content was decided in favor of excluding that content suggest that perhaps the WP:ONUS is on him to make the case for inclusion, rather than insist that i re-litigate the same discussion yet again?

Despite the fact that ONUS says exactly that, when i pointed this out to VM diff? Silence. Just like his silence when i point out that he has never responded to my concerns that the source included in the edit does not match the claims made.

Speaking of which, his #8 above is patently false. Ive stated over and over that the issue here is that the source does not back up the claims made, i even exlicitly said so in the RfC diff Fringe has nothing to do with anything, im only trying to follow the Core content policies of Wikipedia, the fact that VM is trying to claim otherwise should tell you plenty about the way he is representing things here. Bonewah (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"I added to the RfC clarification that i intended it to apply in all the articles listed because it became obvious that you would do exactly what you are doing now, ignore whatever consensus came up and insist that I jump through more hoops to satisfy you." - No. I gave no indication that I would "ignore consensus". And neither am I "ignoring consensus" right now. You are just making that up right now, ex-post rationalizing your behavior. "Well I knew you were going to do something bad so I did something bad first, but then you didn't do anything bad but I knew you were going to so my actions were ok". That doesn't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Libertarians claim that cutting taxes will lead to economic growth, and hence a rise in tax revenues. But that middle step is necessary. You don't go straight from one to the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC was on the talk page of article Jude Wanniski. After quickly looking at the RfC, it's obvious that many participants object inclusion specifically on the page Jude Wanniski: "At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski...", "he poll was not "Are Jude Wanniski's claims about taxes valid or not?", "the source makes no mention of Wanniski", etc. This RfC applies only to one page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Im the person who said "At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski", as a part of a larger argument to exclude that material. Bonewah (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Even *you* said, originally, that the RfC applied only to the Jude Wanniski page. It was only once everyone voted and the RfC was about to be closed that you snuck in, unilaterally, on your own, and without support from anyone, the "this is going to apply to any article I feel like". You were - perhaps unconsciously WP:GAMEing the rules.

Also, you only mentioned that similar text was being discussed on other articles in your (somewhat misfiled) RfC statement. You did NOT make it explicit that other articles were to be covered. THAT is why no one explicitly objected to the RfC applying to other pages - because it's impossible to object to something which hasn't been proposed. And now you're pretending that this lack of objection to something that wasn't proposed is consensus for you to do whatever you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess i shouldnt be surprised that you are now taking what i said totally out of context. The sentence you cite was part of a larger post where I detail exactly why this material needs to be removed. Right above the line you site is a bolded "oppose" inclusion. The very same comment in the next bullet point down ends with the line "its absurd to include it here in Jude Wanniski or Art Laffer". If any of that is too ambigous, the same post also contains a whole section about Art laffer wherein i say outright that this information should be excluded. Once again you are lying about what i did and did not say. Bonewah (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This RfC was clearly about only one page. Let's see what other participants who voted "oppose" had to tell: "the article is not about the Laffer curve", "This appears to be COATRACK", etc. In addition, regardless to any RfC, one can not decide to exclude a reference that qualify as RS from a number of pages because that would be against WP:NPOV, a policy that overrides consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats new to me. You should edit the RfC page in that case as it currently states that RfCs are used to help resolve content disputes, which is exactly what this is. Bonewah (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions

Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. I asked him to retract that but he ignored it. Other editors also challenged these remarks as aspersion. Ping involved editors AlbinoFerret, Semitransgenic, The Four Deuces, Aircorn, petrarchan47, Tryptofish -- prokaryotes (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a profound difference of meaning between statements like 'Arguments like this are used in climate change denial' which seems to be what KingOfAces is saying, and 'The editors arguing this are climate change deniers', which seems to be what Prokaryotes is accusing KingOfAces of having said. Not sure how those two are being confused, although statements like the first one can be logical fallacies. Geogene (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also explained exactly this to Prokaryotes prior to this posting at WP:AE where their behavior is currently being looked at.[57] My only comment actually directed at editors and not on content/subject matter was that multiple editors were misunderstanding some of the concepts behind some scientific content. I'm not interested in addressing the hyperbole that I'm calling editors climate change deniers further, nor do I think we should entertain the silly idea that I was doing that. I was actually careful on wording my posts to focus on the subject and not editors to avoid these kinds of comments as we're subjected to drama pretty often in this topic. Either way, the topic is under discretionary sanctions, so even if someone thought my sourced comments on the subject matter were some sort of violation, that's for WP:AE, not here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The first two links are diffs of comments that show no problem that I can see. The claims are generic and appear unexceptional. It certainly is true that people use Wikipedia to promote WP:FRINGE ideas, and often sources are cherrypicked to make claims that aren't valid—the same tactics of climate change denial. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you link a comment from there where someone is promoting a fringe theory? prokaryotes (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

He wrote:

• "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus"

  "...but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial."

To understand his comments you need to read the discussion, the main point being that none of the sources cited supports the consensus, except for a single author (who was criticized for a flawed assessment by the Union of Concerned Scientist). And besides the WHO states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Pointing out the lack of consensus prompted him to write above analogy to climate denial - states ..."editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial" He is not calling us deniers, but compares our honest policy based input to climate denial. Hence why i wrote above, he essential frames...and this is what qualifies as aspersion.prokaryotes (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To make this clear he started with denial when he wrote, "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus." . But there is no consensus at all in the world of GMOs (in regards to an overall assessment as discussed).prokaryotes (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional look at the discussion and judge for yourself, are the arguments there the same as in climate change denial, as Kingofaces claims? prokaryotes (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Coincidentally there is an article about recent discussions on the food safety consensus, we discuss here, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to ping. Maybe I have thicker skin than others, but despite some robust discussion that is not going anywhere fast I am not seeing much in the way of "very serious aspersions" from either side. I think the OP missed the point as far as apparent "accusations" of climate change denial goes. Nobody on either side of the debate thinks of the others as denying climate change, quite the opposite in fact. It is more presenting the paradox of how similarly presented science can be seen so differently depending on ones ideals. Something not unique to GMOs or climate change. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• As noted above, "this is the kind of thing climate deniers do" is not an accusation of climate denial. It has been observed elsewhere that some anti-GMO activists are massive fans of science in the area of climate change, and resort to fallacies such as the "pharma shill gambit" when science fails to show GMOs to be dangerous, I wonder if that is the problem here. Regardless, I see nothing actionable here, on either side. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've been pinged, and I am responding with no small amount of annoyance. This is "vexatious litigation". It is abundantly clear that saying that an argument is the same argument that has been made in other contexts is not the same thing as saying that editors have actually made that argument in other contexts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Vexatious Litigation? If you were all for avoiding conflict, then why did you take Prokaryotes to ArbCom Enforcement almost less than 1 hour after after the 1RR violation here without first asking him/her to self-revert? No warnings, nothing. Just straight to ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Because that is how Wikipedia works. The difference is that there really was a 1RR violation there, with an abundance of prior warnings, whereas there have not been aspersions here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no "abundance" of prior warnings. One only need look at Prokaryotes talk page history going back to 2013 to see that the only warning from you was after you filed the case at AE. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A day or so ago, I thanked you at the article talk page for being willing to work together, but here, you are sounding rather partisan, especially given your professed preference for "avoiding conflict". Please see the AE page. There is a section in my filing that details prior warnings to him. ArbCom imposed 1RR, and they had good reasons for doing so. The way it is imposed, prior warnings are considered the appropriate procedure. And it took him well over a day before he finally got around to self-reverting, but he was a lot quicker to open this retaliatory complaint here at ANI. In any event, here we are discussing whether admins should block KofA. It is abundantly clear that they should not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being "partisan". I am not trying to create conflict, but point out what I see as double-standards of calling this unnecessary litigation. Prokaryotes did not wait a day to self-revert. Prokaryotes self-reverted here only 21 minutes after being asked by Aircorn here. If you had politely asked as Aircorn had, it would have saved us a lot of time at AE. Instead you supported a topic ban for Prokaryotes. It is true we seem to be able to work together and appreciated your positive comment there. I would like you to try harder to work with Prokaryotes instead of threating a topic ban. (I apologize if others see this is off-topic.) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly coming on strong with your beliefs that I am at fault and Prokaryotes should be excused. It was a day from the AE filing. An editor who understands why there is 1RR would not spend a day arguing at AE that the reverts were justified because he was supposedly right in the content dispute, only to self-revert after someone points out the obvious to him. This is not a double standard. The AE filing is appropriate, and two administrators there have agreed about it. This ANI filing is unnecessary. If you are such a fan of asking politely, why didn't Prokaryotes try to discuss it at KofA's user talk, instead of coming here? See? And I have been quite polite to Prokaryotes at the article talk page, even saying that I fully supported the edits that you and he had made at one point. His response to me saying that? He accused me of not cooperating with other editors. And while we are veering off-topic here, I'll point out that editors were quite noisy about wrongly accusing me of SYNTH, but when I supplied the requested source, the response has been silence. There is a source for "scientific consensus", and editors suddenly lose interest in discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And to be very clear: 1RR does not mean if you make a second revert other editors are supposed to explain to you that you need to self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close with no action, per comments above. Geogene (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I too find that KingofAces43's frequent use of the term "Fringe" and "climate denier" problematic and needlessly antagonist. We are supposed to discuss how to represent what is in RS, not use our personal biases about the science (or a scientist) to dismiss any position (or person) we do not agree with as "Fringe". For example here, King claims that José L. Domingo who is editor and chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal with a high impact factor is "fringe". It is little more than an ad hominem argument, just like calling editors "anti-GMO", POV-pushers, etc. This same editor was none to happy when accused of having a COI here, which resulted in a very lengthy AN/I and successful block against the person suggesting King had a COI. You would think King would give other editors the same respect and not use ad hominem arguments, but after repeated warnings, this has not stopped. I am not surprised this case was brought. I think a warning to cease the behavior would be sufficient. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Besides the ongoing OR discussion, Kingofaces is now what appears to be edit warring at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_crops&action=history, where he edits against talk page consensus, of several editors. prokaryotes (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial. Advocacy of fringe beliefs and climate change denial are a long term problem on Wikipedia, hence WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBPS and the like. It is a clearly established principle of Wikipedia that the mainstream POV is Wikipedia's POV. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reason to throw editors who are questioing recent edits by King, Air and Trypto in with climate change deniers, unless you want to distract from the real issue. And it is simple: Jytdog wrote a SYNTH/OR "scientific consensus" statement that after a months-long, well attended RfC, was closed with agreement by all that the wording does not have support with available RS. As no new sources have emerged to support some version of 'no scientists doubt the safety of GMOs', these editors who are now ignoring that RfC cannot claim to be doing it in good faith. So sling mud, then no one will notice. It's a PR statement and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-science establishment mouthpiece. Guy argues that Domingo 2011, which shows that HALF of all independent studies done on GMO food safety found "serious cause for concern", should be ignored by WP and not included in these articles until various governmental agencies have adopted different language (admit that questions of GMO safety exist). We have suggested for going on a year now that the solution to this contentious and unsupported generalizing statement is to simply quote the various groups. We don't do that. WP summarizes upwards of 18 different sources in order to claim that this 'general consensus' exists. Having been through the RfC and the related ArbCom, these facts have been well covered so i won't be added diffs again. WP can continue to host unsupported PR statements that fly in the face of MEDRS, and it can continue to be a laughing stock that people are warned to stay away from. Up to you. But PR doesn't work if no one trusts you. petrarchan47คุก 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point about direct quotes, I have suggested this here, and guess what - the involved editors ignore this entirely, besides we do this for Scientific opinion on climate change. Their reason is probably because the WHO (statement in link)- the highest authority in the field, directly contradicts a consensus statement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That we are being forced to reargue that gargantuan RfC, but unofficially in barely-related noticeboards, shows disruptive editing. That this consensus statement is being added to WP and you are the one who ends up in trouble (again, for simply tending to RS issues) shows that "discretionary sanctions" and handslaps from ArbCom do not actually help anything. This issue needs to go to the authorities and they should be forced to address it. [But I'm not volunteering; I am ignored even when I ping and ask very direct (even bolded) questions.]

It is clear that an encyclopedia would uphold the notion that we add content, well-sourced and neutrally stated, and then if it can be summarized in a simple statement, great, add it to the intro. I call this a PR statement because for one thing, the opposite happened in this case. The statement was written, and the sourcing was dealt with afterwords, largely through drama board gaming by gangs, as we see today. Even though official WP processes were used to determine that statement is without support, longtime editors can still find a way around this inconvenient fact. I call it a PR statement also due to the fact that any true mention of opposition to this POV is left out of articles, again through these same methods. To this day, WP does not mention the percentage of Americans who favor GMO labeling, even though I have complained about this many times in very public places. I've mentioned many times Domingo, who's paper is the very best MEDRS source available on the subject of GMO food safety, and literally everyone at this encyclopedia snores. So, by what WP does say, and by what is being kept out, we do indeed have a PR statement written by a topic banned editor, now being reintroduced and defended by his buddies. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice Petrarchan47's shill gambit above? Comments? Geogene (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, stop following me around. It's becoming ridiculous. petrarchan47คุก 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Following? I posted here (top of the thread) before you did. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite. The apology will be interesting. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene has been following me for a long, long time. I had to say it, even if it doesn't immediately apply. Anyone can do a little search and find this to be true. I see no reason for an apology, but it's easy to believe you weren't aware of our long history. You can check Geogene's talk page archives for more. petrarchan47คุก 00:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Then ask for an IBAN. A two way IBAN. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking you to leave me alone. It's been over 2 years. Let it go. We don't need to call the cops. petrarchan47คุก 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here still discussing whether there should be administrator action against KingofAces, or are we just warming up for another round of dispute resolution? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this was dead on arrival and should have closed yesterday. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Suggestion (from uninvolved editor): I suggest that the community make it a policy, in DS or AE/ArbCom areas, that participants on either side must not name-call or falsely characterize/compare the participants on the other side. Therefore, in this particular DS topic area, no use of the word "shill", no mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar such as flat earth), and no use of insults/name-calls such as "GMO paranoia gang". Can we all agree on that? It seems like such directives should be included in every ArbCom ruling in these sorts of DS areas. It would solve a lot of problems. Especially if sanctions were forthcoming for any breach of these principles. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, and I've been trying to get the community to see pretty much that in the thread about Elvey higher up on this page. The thing about "shill" was actually codified in the ArbCom decision. But what is happening is that editors are getting sophisticated about skirting the spirit of the principle. Instead of calling someone a "shill", they talk about "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good", and in the thread I referred to, administrators are saying that they don't see anything about "shill" in that. But the opening complaint of this thread here was about an editor saying that an argument resembled the arguments used by climate change deniers, and some editors are trying to spin a critique of an argument as being the same as saying that editors are climate change deniers. It gets messy when you get into the weeds, just like civility. I wish it were clear-cut. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Spot on Softlavender prokaryotes (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It would all be settled if any mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar) were prohibited. I'm not talking about this ANI case. I'm talking about going forward. And, going forward, "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good" and similar statements would be prohibited as well. If someone has a COI claim or investigation to make, that belongs on WP:COIN, not in content discussions or disputes. It's fine to discuss whether research or a source is independent of a company/ies or not, but in this DS area, it's not fine at this point to discuss or hint at other editors' motivations, period. Or compare their arguments/behaviors to other groups, period. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the problem with comparing an someone's argument to arguments used by climate change denialists. For one, that's a critique of the argument, not the editor. It isn't flattering, but this is not the most horrible insult to hit ANI this week. Geogene (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely the point: It is an insult, and in these contentious DS/ArbCom areas, we need to prohibit insults of every kind, on both sides of the equation. Again, I'm not talking about this particular ANI case; I'm talking about going forward. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to be able to objectively, and honestly discuss the qualities of arguments other editors use. If it's a bad argument, the editor behind it might feel insulted. But that's not necessarily an insult. The problem comes in when they attack the editor, such as by assigning them problematic motives. That isn't what's happening here because this area has no connection to climate change, and there's really no threat of anyone constructing bad arguments about GMOs because they're climate change denialists. If that were true, if a reasonable person might be worried about denialists sneaking in and using bad arguments, etc, in GMO articles then it might have been an aspersion. Civility and AGF are already required by policy but they aren't consistently enforced. Banning certain words or phraseology would just be another "gotcha" trap for newcomers to Wikipedia and wouldn't accomplish anything because thesauruses exist. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguments are based on logic. You can objectively critique the logic of any argument without comparing it to the arguments of a disparaged group, or indeed any group at all. (Just as you can critique someone's claims without fulfilling Godwin's Law.) I see no point in explaining this further, so that's my last comment to you on that score. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, "discussing" needs to be done in all kinds of ways, but "honestly" isn't necessarily one of them. I agree with Softlavender that such a comparison is insulting, and is meant as a put-down. Analogies can work very effectively, just ask Donald Trump or any other politician, but some of them work by way of rhetorical sleight of hand. If you cannot say something in literal language, you probably should stay away from using metaphorical language. I'm speaking now as a person who has a block button: I am very likely to consider the comparison a personal attack. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll remind you that editors such as Prokaryotes were made fully aware this couldn't be construed as a put-down before this thread opened as described in my original post here, with even more explanation here, and my comments at the AE case. They were implicitly told I was focusing on the sources and the arguments sources put forth and that the criticisms of arguments for "no scientific consensus" being like climate change denialism were also sourced. The only time I ever directed a comment at editors was: 1. Some were misunderstanding some technical aspects of the sources [58] explained in previous discussions. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at the board.[59]

As a legitimate question to hopefully end this, maybe you can offer some insight both from the admin/ArbCom perspective and the content side? If even introducing the content issue that science denialism in the GMO topic fringe sources and the methods the sources use causes this much of a call for blood, how would we even approach writing about this content in an article? Such content would describe many of the arguments against GMOs being safe as ranging from unsupported to pseudoscientific and described as similar to climate change denialism, vaccine controversy, etc. by sources. That's content and a huge consideration in WP:WEIGHT on the topic. No one should be getting insulted by that content not directed at editors. That's especially if editors that may not personally agree with that view are checking their personal views at the door at login. Not checking such views at the door should be the only way to claim personal offense in this area of the content and contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED.

How would you go about dealing with this dynamic of separating content from behavior issues on this specific topic? I for one am interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack. I'm open to thoughts of clarity on this, especially now that we've fulfilled the point of Godwin's law where editors are invoking Nazis as part of arguments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content. Accusing an editor of using an argument like climate change denial is not at all the same as citing content from purported RS that does so, and then discussing whether the source is RS or is the best RS. Besides I have not seen quality RS that accuses those who question the purported "scientific consensus" on GMO safety as being akin to climate change denial--it is usually GMO proponents like Jon Entine or Pamela Ronald who write in mainstream who say things like that. Nor have I seen RS using terms like "pseudoscience" or Fringe. The word "Fringe" is purely a Wikipedia construction. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Softlavender's suggestion and agree with all of Softlavender's responses to Geogene. We need more civility. These insults are unnecessary and unhelpful and also create a lot of text that does not serve the project. Instead, let's look at the RS and what it says and discuss it without attacking the other editor's intelligence, competence, motivations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Do you consider a comment like "I understand the industry does not want the critics' voices, but I think our article is supposed to be about the "controversy" not just the industry perspective. in relation to a reversion to be any different than the ones being discussed here? I was personally not offended by it in any way and didn't even give it a second thought until another editor linked WP:AGF when responding. I think it highlights how easy it is to make these unnecessary aspersions and the difficulty in enforcing them in any meaningful way as the level of offence experienced by editors varies a lot. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a very subtle accusation of biased editing in the first part of that comment. So it was okay for the other editor to call me out on it, and so I regretted it after making it. I should have just said that there is too much of the industry perspective. In fact, I would be willing to strike that part out if it helps. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is good opportunity, a bit more of a hopefully final explanation of my original intent plus general issues we're dealing with in this topic. Part of the problem with what Softlavender described is that general science denialism tactics (e.g., denying scientific consensus where climate change has the most examples) are content issues, not comments on editors. I fully acknowledge that editors sometimes may blur the line between the two in heated debate, especially in cases when an editor personalizes a point of view that might have significant criticism and gets offended (I'm not singling anyone out here). Editors should be detaching their personal views from content when they log in though per NPOV. That's all why I was purposely careful to focus my post about the content, not editors, as I made abundantly clear to Prokaryotes before this thread was even opened and at the WP:AE case against them (where I find it very curious that they went to ANI with this instead of AE during their open case).

Saying we can't talk about sourced science denialism in a topic at all would be restricting content. It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism. Those things are going to come up as part of legitimate discussions on real-world content in these topics. Obviously no one should be going so far as to personalize it into insults directed at editors such as claiming they are an anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOer, etc. We focus on content instead. It's one thing to deal with obvious personal attacks like just I described. It's entirely something else when an editor gets offended and tries to claim personal attack because the subject matter in the controversy has been characterized as pseudoscientific, fringe, on par with climate change denialism in method, etc. by sources as happened in my case. Especially in controversial subjects, we can't be restricting content because someone will create offense out of that focus on certain content. I hear your comments on trying to cut down the drama (we all want that), but we'd be violating multiple policies and ArbCom decisions if we apply your suggestion to these kinds of situations. We instead need to cut down on instances where editors try to falsely claim personal insult when discussion of controversial subjects comes up, not restrict the controversial subject from the content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Stated above: "It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism". Not at all. There would be no need to compare the editors or their arguments to climate change denialism, since the subject would be climate denialism and the arguments would be discussed directly and would be directly relevant, not an attack by using an Association fallacy with something unrelated to the subject matter that is designed to denigrate those making an argument. Should we allow those who dispute climate change to have free reign to say that those who disagree with them are using the same arguments used by the Nazi's, since limiting such comparison to the Nazi's would negatively impact the articles about Nazi's? See Godwin's law.

To say it another way, I think the concern King raised about Softlavender's proposal, is that he believes it would make it impossible to challenge the LOGIC of the climate change deniers. No. The LOGIC, facts, RS, etc. of arguments related to climate change or GMO's can be challenged directly without any need to compare the two. The objection made here is of the unfair comparison of the two with the purpose of denigrating the editors. I would be just as concerned if Nazi's were used for comparison. (Ironcially, when I searched for this section, Godwin's law came up on one of the other AN/I cases. Softlavender mentioned it too.) --David Tornheim (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That is among the most fatuous suggestions I have seen on Wikipedia in recent times. Censoring Wikipedia discussion to prevent mention of such well-documented real-world problems as climate change denial would not only be completely unenforceable, it would also be an abrogation of our mission to be neutral and accurate. Of course climate change denialists hate being called climate change denialists, that's their problem, not ours. Climate change denial is real, and to make climate change denial denialism a formal policy here would be outrageous. What would help is for those who self-identify as climate change not-denial-at-all-ists to stop getting so indignant whenever we mention the D-word. The global scientific consensus on climate change is extremely robust, and the continued pathological opposition of a group dominated by fossil fuel interests and fundamentalist libertarians is justly characterised as denial: a form of motivated reasoning. And we're not going to stop calling it that, and if people are uncomfortable with a project that is unashamed to call climate change denial by its name, then they will surely be most welcome at Conservapedia, where climate change denial is the official editorial line. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are reading a different suggestion here than the one I see. Call a climate-change denier a climate-change denier or an anti-vaccine advocate anti-vaccine. This is not a problem. The problem arises when shallow comparisons are made, saying anti-gmo groups are like, or make arguments like, anti-vaccine advocates, when the groups, arguments, and science involved have almost nothing in common.Dialectric (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually from my own observation of anti-GMO activists and anti-vaxers at work, they use very similar arguments: "not adequately tested", for example, the pretence that they are not anti-X but pro-safe-X, "think of the children" and so on. The tactics of antivaxers are more rabid, but anti-GMO activists and climate change deniers - two groups with almost no overlap in personnel - both make liberal use of tactics straight from the tobacco industry playbook. And there is also quite an overlap between climate denial and antivaxers in US politics at the moment. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are your observations, but we are supposed to be reporting what is in WP:RS, not making up our own theories. If someone said, "These editors are using the same arguments as Nazi's in order to promote their agenda here on Wikipedia", and the writer defended it saying, "that's just my personal OPINION and OBSERVATION", you wouldn't seriously be okay with that would you? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's crude and proves Godwin's Law, but aside from that, what's the big deal? After all, Wikipedia more than occasionally deals with true-to-form honest-to-goodness Nazis, doncha know? Are you saying that if we find a Nazi we should never point it out? Honestly, I'm getting the impression that you lack critical thinking skills here. jps (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Editors have agreed that denigrating one's argument by lumping them in with climate change deniers is indeed "casting aspersions". As these articles are under DS, I would support some action taken. Guy said:" I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial." In my opinion, it is equally agregious to use these terms as it is to use "shill" (a term I have never used, by the way, and wouldn't support). These needs to be made clear. petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree. In my opinion there is no way that mentioning "climate-change denial" (or "fringe", or "anti-vaccine"), when discussing a completely different topic is not casting aspersions. Nor is it content-related: it's behavior-describing. For instance, saying "We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." needs to be re-worded as something like "I'm seeing tactics to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated anti-GMO sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of aspersion-by-association has gone on for some time now on the GMO articles and this behavior should stop. It does not contribute to dialog. No argument in this area requires nakedly biased wording such as 'fringe', shills', or association of arguments or individuals with 'climate change denial' and the repeated use of such wording is divisive. While it may take a few more words to articulate one's concerns without such language, many editors manage just fine without resorting to it, and as most of the editors involved so far in this discussion have written many thousands of words on GMO topics - a few more in the service of a fully articulated argument free of aspersions won't hurt.Dialectric (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your revision still says the exact same thing I originally did and my comments were referring specifically to sources and content. It's time for people to drop the stick that I was somehow referring to editors even after multiple clarifications on my intent being on the sources and the arguments they put forth. WP:NPA is clear that discussion of content in this manner not directed at editors is not a personal attack even if people may be offended by the content itself, and we need to stick to that policy, especially when it comes to misrepresenting editor's statements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Who and what are you replying to Kingofaces43? If, as you say, you are truly 'interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack' then a clear statement from you that you will stop mentioning climate change in any capacity in GMO articles article talk pages, and an acknowledgement that the two areas are completely unrelated, would be a good start.Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Following the threading, I'm replying to SoftLavender. You're suggestion though is that I violate policy by restricting content when sources describe a topic as pseduoscientific, fringe, and all the other nuances of those terms, including when sources say they are similar to other fringe points of view. That's what I'm currently looking into expanding in some articles. If someone is opposed to that, that's a content discussion and not something suited for ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have clarified that I meant talk pages, which are being discussed here.Dialectric (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, if you're going work on developing content, you can't restrict mention of that content from talk pages. That would toss WP:CONSENSUS policy out the window. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-censoring in a controversial area in no way violates policy. I am not suggesting it as a punishment, rather as a voluntary route for you to avoid further distracting digressions over this issue which I don't see coming to any resolution here unless you agree to one. I can't see how not mentioning climate change will prove any real impediment to work on GM articles.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's violating WP:NOTCENSORED if some editors have gotten offended because of what sources say on the matter and the solution is to not talk about the offending content. We're not here to WP:RGW on content as some people may perceive them to be. We just write about reality as sources describe and leave it at that regardless of whether the content offends some group. If someone consistently has trouble with NOTCENSORED policy, that can be taken up at ArbCom enforcement. I don't see any reason to continue this particular conversation beyond that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content as I explained here --David Tornheim (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This sure reminds me of the debates about enforcing WP:CIVIL. One editor's reaction to the word "cunt" ends up being far different than another editor's. And one editor's reactions to "climate deniers" and "companies with deep pockets" ends up being far different than another editor's. I really do not know what to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You could begin by refraining from using a word you know will insult people. Please use "the C word" to get the point across without offending people, in this case large numbers of women. petrarchan47คุก 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend to offend anyone. There is a specific history on Wikipedia about that word, with some editors feeling about it the way that you do (and I pretty much agree with you!) and other editors feeling very much the opposite. It even became the centerpiece of an ArbCom case. (For context: some editors from the UK consider the word to be not much different than "buddy"; to US ears, that seems surprising.) I'd rather not link to the past dramas, but my intention was to utilize a word that has been Exhibit 1 in Wikipedia's inability to get to consensus about WP:CIVIL. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I know the history, as do you, which is why you cannot claim that you meant not to offend, you've just admitted you know the word is highly inflammatory, especially to many women on this site. I'm suggesting you can make the same point in the future without using the word and potentially upsetting people. There is no reason to spell it out unless you want to inflame, or if there is no other way to convey your point. petrarchan47คุก 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not even make sense, which illustrates how far this dispute has become intractable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am staggered to hear that any English editor would consider that word as meaning "buddy" except in a very private conversation between people who know each other extremely well. I am not fanning flames here. I will go away and do my own research, but I am shocked by this possibility.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I live in the US, and my understanding of the word is in accordance with US customs, and I am no expert on UK culture. I was not endorsing the use of the word. Rather, I was trying to point out to grown-up people that Wikipedia has had a history with it. Given WP:NOTCENSORED, I assumed that other editors would understand it that way. The background for it is what led up to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. If anyone wants to argue about it, you can identify editors to argue about it with by looking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I did not mean in anyway to comment on your use or interpretation of the word. What I was doing was expressing "to the world" my amazement that some English editors would make such an argument. I am striking my comment above so that hopefully there can not be any misunderstanding.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! That was very kind of you. For what it's worth, I find it rather surprising too, but if I've learned anything from editing Wikipedia, it's the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it just has to be done on a case-by-case basis. If someone is making strong attacks directly at editors or casting aspersions, then sanctions should deal with that. If it's actually a focus on content like in my case, that's not any sort of violation (could be a boomerang situation potentially). Let's take a parallel example from the "other side" of the topic. Saying the statements and literature that GMOs are safe are just bought off by industry could technically be twisted to be a personal attack too if someone was pointy about this. Some examples:

1. An editor trying to discuss potential source conflict of interest, etc. would be fine in terms of civility, aspersions, etc. (not going to get into validity as content).
2. Saying that the editor is just siding with Monsanto, etc. is crossing the line into aspersions territory or more.
3. If they said Nazis would use those arguments (unless pig's fly and it's amazingly sourced), that would still be aspersions territory even though it's discussing content as it's unwarranted guilt by association rather than solely content. Nazis just get mention because some people triggered Godwin's law and trying to frame that mentioning fringe subjects is equivalent.
4. If they said the arguments for GMOs were just fringe (e.g., if the scientific consensus was GMOs are unsafe) and reasoning trying to push the fringe idea is pseudoscientific in nature similar to that pushed by industry in climate change, that's not inherently an aspersion, and definitely not if it's sourced (again talking scenarios and not actual content validity).

Basically, I'm sitting in situation 4 right now. I can think of some situations where editors have made a very similar argument as 4 though, so if we're going to consider that inappropriate and blockable, I think we could clear out a lot of editors from the GMO topic. I highly doubt anyone is going to seriously consider that valid though. Any thoughts on this framework though? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if we accept that such statements aren't aspersions, what purpose do they serve? When is 'you sound like the climate change deniers' ever the best argument in a given discussion? Any forward progress we've seen in the GMO articles has come from finding and discussing good sources, not on pigeonholing editors into an objectionable association.Dialectric (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What is a good argument when you are trying to convince someone who has rejected reasonable approaches? I think it can be helpful at times to get people to see what others see of them. It's not always effective, but let's take a particular editor here, prokaryotes. This particular editor is topic banned from vaccines for promoting anti-vaccine nonsense. And yet the editor has been very good in certain climate change articles. Here they are seeming to fall into the same habits as their anti-vaccine editing rather than in the good habits of their climate change editing. At the very least, it seems to have gotten their attention. Now, whether it is persuasive or not is hard to say. I'm not sure what the best persuasive technique is when it comes to these hot-button points. But it's not fair to accuse someone of pigeonholing when discussion at times needs to break free of the usual litany of bad sourcing, poor science, and, yes, denial of facts that characterize poor editing practices in this area as well as the other areas herein referenced. jps (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. I think your argument has fallacies. (a) Calling someone names is not a reasonable argument against a poor edit (b) Suggesting someone is unreasonable is to suggest that your argument is perfectly reasonable and that you have absolute knowledge of the facts and truth. Wikipedia has a procedure called Dispute Resolution for dealing with content issues that does not include incivility. If editors can not control themselves, they should not be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree, especially with (a). --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of your preference for form over substance. It is part of the reason you're topic banned. jps (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would fall into 2; I'm pretty sure I was clear that wasn't ok at all. It's entirely different to discuss there are similar scientific denialism methods within content at play like in climate change to obfuscate scientific consensus, especially when discussed in sources (#4). That's part of this controversial topic, and even if someone doesn't like that, they need to accept that it's going to be part of the content discussion just as claims came up that there is nefarious doing within sources related to industry on the other end. We can't have double standards here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Softlavender -- this is a serious obstacle to constructive editing and dispute resolution, and must be addressed by the community to avert many more instances of future conflict. GAB^Hello! 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Softlavender These comparisons and labels simply make a tense situation into a battleground. It lumps editors into categories and is contrary to consensus building. The results is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with SoftLavender and many others, that dialog must be open to all, without prejudice, and name-calling disallowed. It's not okay to frame some ideas a "fringe" and therefore to poison the well against them. Simply rely on sources. You may find that there is a lot of nuance in the results. Some concepts have some validity and some falsity. There are indeed power dynamics that shape knowledge. If we rely on sources and act with integrity, then it will not be necessary to engage in witch-hunts or inquisitions, and the finer edge of reality will reveal itself, instead of a caricature version of what's real. SageRad (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• 'Oppose While well-meaning, I think that any policy or guideline level advice like this would only be used to shut one side down, by ignoring the content of argument in favour of some specific of how it's phrased. Especially as, in this specific case, pointing out similarities of tactics in denialist movements is the subject of major academic texts, e.g. The Merchants of Doubt, which compares and shows continuity in, offhand, denial that tobacco causes cancer, denial of the nuclear winter/support for Reagan's Star Wars initiative, climate change denial, etc. No personal attacks is a rule, but no attacks on viewpoints cannot be without harming the encyclopedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no article for The Merchants of Doubt. Can you please provide a proper citation? Also, you did not say this source mentions arguments related to GMO's in the context we have been talking about. As far as I can tell it is irrelevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment on whether it is relevant, but the wikipedia article is Merchants of Doubt.Dialectric (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with SoftLavender...such labeling and name-calling of editors is clearly being used to taunt and harass. It makes for a battleground atmosphere which could so easily be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with SoftLavender - Adopting this policy, with sanctions for repeat violations, would remove a tactic long used by POV warriors to shame and blame those opposing their cherished views. Jusdafax 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with SoftLavender As per my earlier comments. Comparing the questioning of GMO safety to climate change denial is a talking point pushed by Jon Entine[60] who does this on behalf of industry.[61] This comparison, and claims of fringe, are not encyclopedic and have no place here. Further, as I wrote earlier, questioning GMO safety is becoming the majority viewpoint in some areas, and has a true scientific basis, as evidenced by the amount of countries now banning them, the fact that 93% of Americans want them labeled, and the findings of harm reviewed in Domingo 2011, for instance. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Several problems, but one simple solution

Problem 1: A small number of editors hold fringe beliefs which they hate to be characterised as WP:FRINGE. A small group of editors are sympathetic to climate change denial and hate it being called climate change denial. A small group of editors are sympathetic to pseudoscientific ideas and hate them being characterised as pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs.

Problem 2: These editors are persistent, and most others long ago bored of arguing with them. That risks one of two outcomes: either those who remain, burn out and end up in trouble; or, everyone wanders off and the POV-pushers get to dominate the article and this claim "consensus". Neither of these is good.

Problem 3: Some people who advocate fringe beliefs are hurt badly in the feels by Wikipedia's unashamedly reality-based stance. This is not our problem to fix.

Problem 4: Some people interpret a polite response as an invitation to keep advocating content that violates policy (e.g. by pretending that climate change "skeptics" are Just Asking Questions), and interpret any forthright response as "bullying" (see Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia for an example of what happens when you get a climate change denier, a holder of multiple topic bans and a serial WP:OWNer to collaborate on how to make Wikipedia "better").

Problem 5: Most Wikipedians could not care less about any of this bullshit and just leave the toxic areas alone, thus leaving only warring factions active there.

Problem 6: I am a nasty suspicious bastard and every time I see anybody trying to suppress mention of climate change denial, I want to stand them on a piece of low lying ground just before the next unprecedented arctic melt (i.e. each successive summer right now).

There is a solution. People with fringe beliefs who want to make changes to articles that do not achieve consensus on Talk are free to start an RfC with a specific, actionable request. They should then abide by the outcome. The policy Wikipedia needs is not WP:CUDDLYBUNNIES, it is WP:STFU. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In trying to think of a practical solution that can be discussed meaningfully at ANI, I am especially drawn to points 2 and 5. I would be delighted to see more fresh eyes on the pages where the disputes are happening. Please, let's have more uninvolved editors taking a look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had to google "Wikipedia STFU", this is the first entry, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STFU prokaryotes (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You have led a sheltered life, clearly. However, now you understand. The solution to 90% of "uncivil", "bullying" comments is for POV-pushers to start taking "no" for an answer. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is problematic. You start out by grouping people into categories with the word "fringe". It's a grating word to some who see how it's applied. It's a McCarthyism. It's a silencing. We come down to sources and sensible dialog. There is no need for a slanderous word to group some people together in that way. It's off-putting and makes a toxic environment. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Guy's statement. Oppose SageRad's hysterical and ahistorical response. BMK (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My position is based in principle, and is based on observing what is happening within Wikipedia. The proposal buy Guy is a foundation for people like you and Guy to rule what becomes "acceptable" knowledge according to your prejudices. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by requiring sourcing, and having good dialogue about the sources. There are good policies that result in good articles when applied with integrity. We do not need an over-layer of pre-determining some things "fringe" and others things "acceptable". That creates a hierarchy of control that is unacceptable within Wikipedia, and i have observed for a year now the way it leads to a flavor too similar to McCarthyism. It removed nuance from discussions. It creates caricatures of reality. It is an unnecessary layer, and it leads to a bad editing environment. I personally know that climate change denial is denial, but i don't declare that this is the new rule on Wikipedia. That's against policy and spirit, and it's not necessary, and in fact it gets in the way of good editing. The sources alone, and reasonable dialogue, are powerful enough to maintain the articles in good form. There may be a constant conversation and that's okay. On other topics, it's not as clear. There may be nuance. Some things may be partly A and partly B -- partly correct and partly incorrect. We need to admit this possibility, and not set up a panel of judges who determine "This is A!" and "That is B!" -- That is the format of fascism. That leads to binary versions of reality in articles, not the richness that Wikipedia can achieve if we simple follow the policies. SageRad (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In this crazy mixed-up world, you are actually trying to argue that your preference for people not to say what they think will somehow lead to a freer exchange of ideas. I guess that's because you think it will somehow raise the level of discourse. But if people are forbidden from discussing their preferences for what ideas should and should not be stated plainly in articlespace, this clearly will not allow for a free exchange of ideas. jps (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does

Once upon a time, the self-described "climate change skeptics" were mad about being called "climate change deniers". Because holocaust deniers were evil and they were good. The presence of lots of sources that eventually pointed out that the term "denier" was more accurate than "skeptic" put to bed these concerns. I'm sure there are lots of threads in the archives complaining about the uncivil way in which climate change deniers were characterized.

Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers. Because the climate change deniers are evil and they are good. I sense a similar story a-brewing.

Bad science is bad science regardless of the venue in which it is found. Comparing bad science to bad science is simply to say that it is not good science. To argue that climate change denial and anti-GMO activism are "unrelated" is to miss the point of the comparison just as it was missing the point to argue that climate change denial and holocaust denial are "unrelated".

jps (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm really struggling with this issue, in terms of what is the right thing for Wikipedia. My personal opinion (as a not-reliable source) is that you are correct. In the present, there is a clear scientific consensus about GMOs, albeit with caveats, and Wikipedia needs to push back against POV-pushers who want us to obscure that fact, and there is a pattern that is very obvious to me of, as you say, they consider themselves good whereas climate change deniers are evil (WP:RGW). On the other hand, as of right this second, I don't think that we can say that the science about GMOs has gotten to the point where we can place skeptics in the same category as holocaust deniers. Maybe five years from now, the science will be at the point where fear of GM foods will be widely seen as being on a par with thinking the earth is flat. But maybe not, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shades of gray certainly draw the short straws on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, for me, the point stands that current evaluation reveals a general anti-scientific bent found in the anti-genetic engineering arguments. This is true even while there is a reasonable broader argument to be had over public health, safety, risk management, and environmental protection which form part of a WP:MAINSTREAM corpus and are part of the overarching goals for many of the same activists who adopt the pseudoscientific thinking. Where they seem to lose the plot is in an over-reliance on categorical claims about genetic modification that lack empirical backing. It is, of course, possible to genetically engineer dangerous organisms. It does not follow that all genetically engineered organisms are dangerous. It is also, of course, possible that certain genetically engineered organisms are dangerous unintentionally. These are questions of empirical science and they have to be interrogated empirically. There are lots and lots of papers on these subjects and the consensus is pretty clear to me that genetic engineering as a process is no more dangerous than any other form of artificial selection. This fundamental point is utterly lost on those in the anti-GMO movement, and it is a point of departure that strikes me as being entirely denialist. jps (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment' Can we please stick to the point of the thread. The above and several other postings are simply POV unrelated to the subject of the thread.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My god but you are tiresome. If you don't like a conversation, don't comment in it! For someone who complains about harassment, you sure do seem to like to wikihound. jps (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not the contributor WP:FOC. My comment was that postings are increasingly off-topic. I suggest someone looks at hatting these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My comment is that your contributions here are garbage. jps (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I am sure that the vast majority of editors here will understand that your last comment is totally inappropriate for this noticeboard. My replying to you here would be just as inappropriate. Am I welcome to post at your Talk page regarding your unacceptable behaviour?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For someone who links to WP:FOC as much as you do, you certainly don't practice what you preach. You are always free to post at my talkpage. Don't expect the conversation to be fruitful if all you want to do is declare what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Open and honest discussions are always welcome. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quote from admin Guy/Jzg: "Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers." Can you identify the editors of your so called group of anti-GMO paranoiacs? I edit GMO topics and I am unaware of such a group. Also can you maybe provide a link to an example where this "group" you claim exists at Wikipedia, where this group displays anti-GMO paranoia, which is similar to climate change denier arguments? prokaryotes (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

He said that in the talk section before this one, so you really should ask him about it there, instead of implying that other editors said it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually Prokaryotes displays all of his customary care to follow factual accuracy over predefined agenda: it was someone else entirely who said that. It is, however, true, that the anti-GMO brigade and the climate deniers do use many common tactics, which is ironic as they are generally at opposite poles politically - and sources often considered left-leaning are the ones who say this, by the way: Slate, New Scientist, Grauniad. Anti-GMO activists are as passionate in their promotion of the pharma shill gambit as they are indignant over the activities of the fossil fuel industry. As an outsider to both worlds, it amuses and perplexes me in equal measure. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, the problem is with these "opinion pieces", that they are or potentially are biased (based on past incidents), For instance the Slate article is by Keith Kloor, someone with ties to the industry, http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/ The second article by Fred Pearce is not really supporting your claims you make here, and besides Pearce has written in the past critical about Monsanto http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/03/monsanto-water-greenwash Didn't checked the 3rd opinion piece authors background. prokaryotes (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• The truth is, even this conversation is riddled with aspersions. You're making a leap from editors rightly questioning your use of wording and sources based on the results of a previous RfC, to the assumption that this is motivated by a desire to push an "anti-GMO" POV. The ArbCom case made very clear that casting aspersions in order to kneecap critics of your editing is forbidden.

An encyclopedic approach to this issue would be to list the various opinions and statements, credited to their sources, rather than what we have presently: written as a summary using WP's voice, without proper sourcing. A recent article in TIME puts our coverage to shame with this balanced, accurate wording: The science community holds a variety of opinions on GMOs... and then goes on to list of few of them. The article is titled Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs, which makes these proclaimations that any questioning of GMO is fringe, look a bit absurd. I would argue that this language has the effect of discrediting opponents in place of having actual support for arguments.

The present editor in chief of Elsevier, Jose Domingo, reviewed the literature regarding GM food safety. It is the only review of these studies that exists, and meets WP:MEDRS requirements. Of the studies done not by industry, but by independent researchers, roughly half showed what Domingo called "serious cause for concern", meaning that there is no possible way to claim that the science is settled. Further, this review is being disallowed from not only our summarizing statement, but from gracing any page on WP.

The NYT states that 93% of US citizens support GMO labels (fringe?) and even this fact has been disallowed from WP articles. It is only because of the bias that is being allowed to rule the GMO suite that you can make claims that some bad faith editors are pushing an anti-science, fringe POV.

The World Health Organization states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." But we have been disallowed from properly quoting them.

The problem does not rest with some anti-GMO faction on WP, no matter how many echo this claim. petrarchan47คุก 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Excellent argumentation. V Opinion and with no RS to back it up + unnecessary ad hominem --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is really poor argumentation, akin to a lot of what I've seen at climate denial points as well. Yes, it is well known that Europe's Frankenfood paranoia is about as pseudoscientific as certain countries' uncritical acceptance of homeopathy or their belief in hudenfolk. That goes for the WHO as well which doesn't make scientific pronouncements as a general rule and is sadly held hostage to the political whims of the member states when it comes to its white literature (there is a godawful WHO statement on acupuncture I can point to). Labeling arguments, while not being based in science at all, miss the point that 1) organic food already works as a perfectly good label and 2) strict labeling would require identifying precisely what a "GMO" entails which is why any labeling regulation or law would be subject to massive legal wrangling and not a small amount of impossible to verify claims about how you can tell when something is "GMO" or not. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for empirical points. So whadya got? A much criticized review article by Domingo. Hell, I can point to some pretty damning review articles by climate science deniers too. Right now, the issue that petrarchan47 and his clan are pseudoscientist POV-pushers and probably shouldn't be allowed to touch articles on the subject. They just aren't competent. Just like the global warming deniers aren't competent to edit articles on global warming. jps (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of opinion, not a lot of fact. In fact, you are wrong. Domingo's review has never received one iota of criticism. Encyclopedias should be based on science, not hand-waving rhetoric and downright lies. petrarchan47คุก 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm.. you're just plain wrong about that. jps (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A much criticized review article by Domingo. Prove it. Domingo's review has not been criticized; I find this apparent inability to accurately read or understand science highly troubling. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here ends the lesson. Evidence provided and dismissed. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The first study you link above, Matt Demont's project has received millions in grants, including from Syngenta and several grants from Monsanto. I don't have access to the study, so i can not say if this conflict of interests is mentioned by the study authors.prokaryotes (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The 3rd study from Italy, is not ruling out risks from GMOs, the abstract "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense." So what are the indirect hazards? Probably pesticide residues. prokaryotes (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the claim that there isn't one iota of criticism is just plain false. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are 3 studies you linked above, how are these criticism of another study? Can't find anything, unless you suggest that their findings indirectly critic other study findings. Bu this would be considered WP:SYN prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are direct criticisms of the study championed above in each of the papers. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously credible criticism able to discredit the review and the studies, as you suggested had been done, was what I was referring to. petrarchan47คุก 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So provided. Sorry if you can't understand that. jps (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

jps: You have not provided any evidence of the criticism of the Domingo's 2011 study. Please provide quotes from the articles. Although I was unable to find copies of the first two, the last study is available here and it does not criticize Domingo's 2011 review. Why did you say it did? And you are throwing around accusations of incompetence? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to do your research work for you. The study most certainly does criticize Domingo as is seen in the list immediately following the citation. It's fairly easy to read the part where it is cited. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not asking you to do any research for me; I am asking you to prove that you did not lie. You said above that Domingo 2011 was a "much criticized review article by Domingo." As evidence to support your claim you provided three sources, the last of which is this in abstract. I reviewed the full article of this last source, and the article does not say what you contend it says. I asked you for quotes from the article to prove that you are not misrepresenting the contents of the article. Again you are unable to do so. Instead, you say to look at where Domingo 2011 is cited and the list that follows. That material is here and it does not criticize Domingo 2011, but instead is used to support the author's review:

However, as indicated by the significant increment of the publications after 2006, it seems that the GE crop developers acknowledged the necessity of an improved transparency (Domingo & Bordonaba, 2011). The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:

(a) there is no scientific evidence of toxic or allergenic effects;

(b) some concern has been raised against GE corn MON 810, MON863 and NK603 (de Vendoˆmois et al., 2009; Se´ralini et al., 2007, 2012), but these experimental results have been deemed of no significance (EFSA 2007, 2012; Houllier, 2012; Parrot & Chassy, 2009);

(c) only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazilnut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed (Nordlee et al., 1996) and the not verified case of maize Starlink (Siruguri et al., 2004);

(d) during the digestion process the proteins generally undergo degradation that leads to the loss of activity (Delaney et al., 2008);

(e) even though there are examples of some ingested proteins that are absorbed in minute quantities in an essentially intact form (e.g. ovalbumin, ovomucoid, b-lactoglobulin) (Kier & Petrick, 2008) or proteins that are hydrolyzed into smaller absorbed bioactive peptides (Udenigwe & Aluko, 2012), the consumption of transgenic proteins contained in the authorized GE crop does not result in any detectable systemic uptake (Kier & Petrick, 2008) and transgenic proteins are usually rapidly degraded and not detectable in animal derived products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) (Ramessar et al., 2007);

References

Domingo JL, Gine´ Bordonaba J. (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environment Int, 37, 734–2.

This kind of dishonesty falls under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY and should be sanctioned. The entire demeanor and name calling behavior of this editor starting this section is uncivil as well, for all the reasons mentioned in this AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you don't even have basic reading comprehension. Go back, read what I wrote, read what's written here, and see if you can find your mistake. I'll give you a redo. jps (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was able to obtain full copies of the other two journal articles you cited that you claimed are evidence that the Domingo 2011 literature review is "much criticized". They both cited Domingo, but neither of the other two criticized the review either. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You did not learn. Sorry, fellow. You're not only wrong, you appear to not be able to understand what you are reading. jps (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the dance and really can't stay, but as a part-time DRN volunteer, I wanted to express my concerns over the unsupported criticisms and downright aspersions being cast against editors who did nothing to deserve such treatment except disagree with a very strong POV that favors censorship or extraordinary downplay of information in our articles. According to PAGs, our articles are supposed to include information that is compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. The constant bickering and aspersions by those who apparently want to censor general information under the guise of fringe are turning this into a behavioral issue, and appear to have made Petrarchan47, Prokaryotes and David Tornheim the targets of their misbehavior. I don't understand why because those 3 editors have presented excellent arguments without castigating anyone or using any unacceptable terminology except to condemn the bad behavior by others. I also researched how our PAGs support the fringe claims that have been thrown about, and used against the 3 named editors and quite frankly, our PAGs say quite the opposite and condemn such behavior - as did the recent ArbCom hearing on GMOs. As for the fringe/ps claims made against the 3 editors, our PAGs read:WP:FRINGE/PS

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Those editors who are aggressively asserting their POV with objections to different academic points of view and labeling it fringe/ps and casting aspersions against other editors as a result have already been advised by Drmies to stop that behavior, yet they appear to have ignored the warning and have chosen to continue as evidenced above. This thread is not progressing as a result, and while some interesting points have been made on both sides regarding the issues that plague this topic, it is actually information that belongs IN THE ARTICLE, not on this noticeboard. Just saying.....Atsme^📞📧 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You cannot stop me from pointing out that people who are afraid of GMOs because they use genetic engineering are advocating for pseudoscientific claims. I will continue to make that point over and over and over and over and over again until we get the encyclopedia in a shape that makes this point abundantly clear. We're almost there, but it does help to be placed in the crucible once in a while in order so that we can make it clear. People who think that GMOs are dangerous because they are genetically engineered are arguing a basic pseudoscientific conceit of the GMO paranoiac group. See what I did there? I pointed it out again! Naughty! jps (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't me who will stop you. I'm quite happy to feed you as much rope as your little heart desires. Atsme^📞📧 07:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the 3 sources Jps used in his failed attempts to prove a false claim, one of them was from the "Genetic Literacy Project", which our Jon Entine article calls "a pro-GMO biotechnology and genetics outreach organization"; Entine is the founder and executive director. Mother Jones calls him an "agribusiness apologist", and he was recently found via FOIA records to have received Monsanto funding, written pro-GM articles, and failed to disclose that funding.

Jps is arguing a claim that hasn't been made. He is arguing against the RS showing that questioning the safety of GMOs is far from "fringe" by lying about Domingo 2011, and claiming that over half of the EU suffers from "Europe's Frankenfood paranoia". These hollow arguments are being used to keep well sourced facts out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this is rapidly becoming another GMO conspiracy theory for Petrarchan47. Do we have any benefit from keeping his crazed argumentation around? Wouldn't he feel better posting on a blog dedicated to conspiracy theories? It certainly doesn't fit here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing by Kingofaces

Kingofaces is now canvassing here. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A single comment at the venue where the whole shitstorm appears to have started, is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may want to read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, especially the parts about getting relevant noticeboards involved. This thread has devolved (or evolved) into a wide conversation of how we deal with discussing fringe topics. WP:FTN is more than appropriate when we need people familiar with how to deal with exactly this. It seems like we're reaching the point that accusations are just being thrown to see what sticks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is canvassing. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JzG - it is not canvassing. In fact, WP:Canvassing clearly states An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.

The verbiage probably needs to eliminate "uninvolved" because it is somewhat of a contradiction. Atsme^📞📧 07:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close

This has gone on long enough. At the end of the day I made two comments[62][63] that were focusing on the fact that sources describe many of the arguments that there isn't a consensus on GMO safety as tactics similar to climate change, vaccine controversy, etc. with that direct comparison being made by sources. That was direct mention of content that conflicted in a WP:WEIGHT perspective with the content previously being mentioned at the board very similar to how many of those same editors bring up source conflict of interest in weight discussion.

Editors such as Prokaryotes, who were heavily involved in the ArbCom case and nearly sanctioned, have tried to twist that into saying I was commenting on editors. I made it repeatedly clear to those editors I was talking about the content aspect of opposition to the scientific consensus on GMOs, not editors both before and during this thread.[64][65][66] The only instances of me actually commenting on editors (appropriately) even loosely was: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN (more here).

Seeing as some editors are unwilling to drop the stick at this point in claiming I was commenting on editors in terms of climate-change denialism even after repeated clarification, they are either purposely misrepresenting my comments and ignoring clarification, or insinuating I'm lying. Both are direct violations of WP:NPA Repeating calls that I intended to direct the climate-change denial remark in any way towards editors either directly or by aspersion after this post will be taken up at WP:AE to impose sanctions where things belong for this topic. People who still try that can't claim they didn't get ample warning. The open case related to Prokaryotes behavior here and elsewhere will still be handled at AE, and there's nothing left to deal with here at ANI, especially since I've asked admins at AE that I'd even open a case on myself if they thought my actions legitimately needed a look. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no action. It's time to wrap this up. Clearly, there is not going to be anything remotely close to a consensus for admin action here. Arguments about content belong elsewhere. And proposals about civility on related talk pages should probably either be made as formal RfCs or dropped. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose close - The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way, especially with SoftLavender's proposal above. Gee, what a surprise. I for one am utterly sick of this gaming the system. Jusdafax 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There being only two editors commenting before your comment, and with me being one of them, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to shut down discussion of anything, but rather asking that the discussion be done at the right place. This is ANI, and the issue of blocking anyone as a result of this discussion is clearly done with. Nor do I think that it's not going my way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. While they have been interesting, meta discussions belong at their respective noticeboards or guideline talk pages. I'm all for addressing this in the proper forum if admins at AE think these specific claims actually need a look, but ANI was no longer the place to deal with this after the GMO case ended. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I purposefully did not involve myself in the GMO case because I have a dim view of arbitration, but it sure looks like it made things worse rather than better. The biggest problems I have is that the fundamental dispute has not been addressed. The pseudoscientific argumentation promoted by anti-GMO activists continues to infect the decisions relating to content and apparently the activists were under the impression that they could be insulated from such plain words about their positions. See below. jps (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Close -- at a minimum the discussion started by jps (aka I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) titled "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does" needs to be concluded and assessed. After a long diatribe, asserting the existence of group of editors who are "anti-GMO paranoiacs" (who jps compared to both "climate change deniers" -and- "holocaust deniers" (see Godwin's Law)), Jps went on to make some highly questionable factual assertions that have been challenged without an adequate response. Jps's behavior and credibility should be brought under scrutiny too. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Laughable. The lack of WP:COMPETENCE is strong with this one. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG, David Tornheim. jps (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The insults and threats just keep on comin', don't they? David's comment goes to the heart of the issue: the ongoing attempts to intimidate respected editors and equate them with mass murder apologists. This has gone too far and per David, I now call on an uninvolved admin to take prompt corrective action. Jusdafax 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You guys don't seem very intimidated. Whoever feels intimidated, raise their hands. And "murder apologists"? If I wasn't so amüsierten, I'd be verklemmt. jps (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are creating a hostile work environment. I do not mean it in the legal sense, but just in terms of behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it count as an insult to say "The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a follow up, in the section above "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does", jps cited three journal articles as proof that the Domingo 2011 literature review was "much criticized". Because I (and others) did not have access to all the journal articles, I asked jps to provide quotes proving the point. None were provided, just further taunting. However, I was able to obtain all three full articles. He lied. None of the articles criticized Domingo 2011 as jps purported. Such lying about what is in the RS is a major waste of time for editors (or worse Wikipedia's readers) who wrongfully rely on such misinformation. Lying is properly designated as uncivil behavior under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY. The combination of the lengthy diatribes of ad hominem attacks and dishonesty about RS warrants a strong message and sanction to this editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You persist in parading your inability to comprehend a simple discussion and read the basic texts that criticize the particular claim in particular. Your tendentiousness is rather astounding, but entirely predictable. I used to accuse people of lying and people got mad at me. Here's one for you. You're not WP:COMPETENT enough to be editing and probably should be banned from Wikipedia for lacking basic reading skills. jps (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Admins, please do something. I can't even believe what I'm reading here. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What would you like admins to do? Indefinitely block David Tornheim for the reasons asserted by jps? Block jps for making those assertions? What if the assertions are correct—should admins care about that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, jps needs to be warned that questioning editor competence as a rhetorical tactic in a thread of this nature is a blockable offense. However, the ugly nature of the continuing hostile badgering by jps, clearly observable just above, in my view calls for an immediate preventitave block, with unblock conditional on agreement to knock of the problematic comments. For crying out loud, this is the admin's noticeboard, and if there isn't one admin willing to stand up here and now, then we as a community are circling the drain towards all-out "Wild West" warfare. Please, administrators, let's enforce existing policy on your own turf. Jusdafax 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An inescapable fact

Last year's GMO case at ArbCom was intended, as all ArbCom cases are intended, to bring a difficult dispute to a resolution, for once and for all. Clearly, it did not accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much so. Despite the imposition of wide-ranging topic bans which should not have been administered but which have been adhered to, it has clearly failed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it has not failed. It is being constantly attemptedly-undermined by repeated WP:WIKILAWYERING by those who refuse to accept the fact that their editing has fallen under it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I think there is very little doubt that the bans were amply justified. The remaining question is whether sitebans should have been used instead. You make a good case for sitebans being a better solution. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The other question might be why DrChrissy and SageRad are here commenting on a thread entirely focused on GMOs in violation of their GMO topic bans even though there were directly told even standing on the sidelines of ANI discussions like this was a no-go. It might be slightly different if it was a tangent on a policy or guideline page. I'm not opening a case myself at AE though to avoid even the illusion that I'm going to mimic what Prokaryotes did in opening this thread with their AE case open. Broadly construed topic bans need to be respected though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Akash3141

Akash3141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has dedicated several months to rendering The Undertaker a fan page, violating numerous policies including WP:RS, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. As can be seen from the edit history, numerous – more experienced – editors have chided User:Akash3141, but he instantly reverts their efforts to remove his fanclub-esque edits and makes shocking insults like these in his edit summaries: [67][68][69]. People seem to have given up trying to combat this truly relentless individual, who has seriously undermined the credibility of The Undertaker, and insulted many people in the process. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice complaint, but you are required to notify the person complained against on their talk page as the big yellow notice at the top of this page says. You have not done this. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I know everything involving IPs is suspect, so let me just verify their claims. Akash3141 has repeatedly readded similar puffery material to The Undertaker. The user in question has also edit warred and has shown incivility, such as calling good faith editors trolls[70], dumb[71], dumbass, lousy scums, stuck up, etc. They had another account, Akash Bedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which was blocked and their user page was deleted for being an advertisement. Akash3141's userpage is identical to Akash Bedi's. Akash3141 borders on an WP:SPA as 90% of their edits either add bloat to The Undertaker or contribute to the advertisement on their userpage. Akash3141 previously contributed to Akash Bedi before it was deleted.LM2000 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add that he was warned about edit warring on January 19 and asked to discuss changes on the talk page and to stop calling people names on January 22. A quick look at his contributions shows that he continued his bad behavior after these warnings. Nikki♥311 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations is thataway. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is less about the (obvious) sock puppetry and more about the uncivil edit warring, ownership issues and general non-collaborative behavior. The sock puppetry is just another reason to indeff them. Which is what I propose. Clearly acting in an utterly non-collaborative manner to force in OR, INUNIVERSE and other terrible edits. I believe they lack WP:COMPETENCE and have worn out their welcome here. oknazevad (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No need for a sockpuppet investigation, Akash Bedi was already blocked for being Akash3141. That wasn't much of a sock case, they never tried to hide that they were the same person, Akash3141 just wanted to create a biography page on a userpage that had his real name on it. The larger issue is the The Undertaker fluff being added and the incivility we're having to deal with, the advertisement on his usepages is the icing o the cake.LM2000 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's an edit where he called another editor "dumb" and "dumbass' in one summary: [72]. CrashUnderride 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Cliff1911 refuses to add sources and refuses to communicate

User:Cliff1911 has nearly 50,000 edits in eight years as an editor. Every one of them is to mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever; He has zero edits on his own user talk page. On that talk page are hundreds of disambiguation warnings, none of which have been corrected. This may be the Wikipedia world's worst case of WP:IDHT / WP:NOTHERE.

We've been here before -- in May 2013, October 2013 and again in July 2015 -- and did nothing.

Adding content is great, but the refusal to add sources, especially about living people, and the refusal to communicate -- ever -- should ring alarm bells.

We can deal with this refusal to observe policy regarding sourcing through a block. Or we can have editors systematically revert every unsourced edit one at a time. Doing nothing will mean thousands more unsourced edits from an entirely uncooperative editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at a sizeable sample of the more recent edits. Ignoring minor CE and adding wikilinks, most other edits are adding poeple to pre-existing lists. Yes: it is true that all the additions are unreferenced. The problem is: that the addition is being made to lists where most, if not all, of the other people on the list are equally unreferenced. It is difficult to censure an editor who is merely following the established format in an article that he edits.

A more relevant question might be: should the lists be allowed to stand with the almost lack of any referencing? 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a side issue, along with all unreferenced articles. The key point here is a user that never engages in discussions and edits are coming under question (and not for the first time). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course such additions are improper, and editors that continue to build such lists should be unwelcome at Wikipedia. It is, unfortunately, somewhat perilous to attempt to deal with the problem.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can you provide recent WP:DIFFs of "refuses to communicate", and of your recent attempts to resolve this with him on his talk page? Otherwise, I think this fails ANI criteria, especially when, as the IP observes, most edits are adding people to pre-existing lists where all the people listed are equally unreferenced. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Without any opinion on the merits of the edits (I haven't checked), "refuses to communicate" is self-evident just by a look at his talkpage. (Mainspace: 49,823, Category 5, User 2, Template 1, Talk 0, User talk 0, if you want raw stats.) ‑ Iridescent 23:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In my mind that's only relevant if the OP has actually tried to communicate with him, which he hasn't since June 2015, just prior to the last ANI (which ANI was not acted upon). This ANI is therefore moot. It could have been otherwise had WP:DIFFs been provided of actual really problematic edits (which there aren't any, really, per above) and of recent attempts to communicate about such putative problematic edits. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a prime example of unsourced WP:BLP, and be problematic? Scr★pIron^IV 14:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Would an admin like to enter the discussion now and make a decission? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've had a look, but unless somebody gives me a large amount of very recent diffs that are obvious disruption or BLP violations, I can't do anything. The diff ScrapIronIV supplied above shows Cliff removing a significant amount of unsourced content, so while the bland "they have since divorced" needs a source, it's at least heading in the right direction. The last person I remember blocking for a lack of communication (Ludwigpaisteman - who I will happily unblock the minute he says something) just disappeared and is probably just editing as an IP instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock at Sockpuppet investigations/Wordfunk

Would appreciate someone else reviewing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wordfunk - I learned of the SPI today after looking at edit history on the most recent sock. The socks have thus far all self-acknowledged themselves, so have all been blocked. Due to the self-acknowledgement, I don't think an SPI was even needed - behavioral evidence was more than sufficient here.

The user suffers from a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and continues to utterly miss the point. They seem to have their own idea of what should be Wikipedia policies and how the site should operate, and have refused every step of the way to listen to anyone that has tried to correct their mistaken beliefs.

Wordfunk (talk · contribs) was engaged in a content dispute (don't tell them that, they go ballistic and say that the content was never in dispute), and they were appropriately warned for edit warring by Jim1138 (talk · contribs) (they don't want to hear that even good faith reverts can be a violation of edit warring). The user insisted the warning was not appropriate and went on to harass Jim1138 for what they claimed to be a false warning, insisting that Jim1138 remove it. At various points, both Jim1138 and myself told him if he wanted it removed from his talk page, he could do it himself - strangely, he has this notion that it is a "technical fact" that he cannot remove text from his own talk page. Due to the harassment, two different admins (including myself) told him to leave Jim1138's talk page, drop the stick, and move on to other things. The user continued posting at Jim1138's talk page, and so I blocked the user for 5 days due to continuing the harassment.

The user then abused talk page privileges, resulting in Only (talk · contribs) removing their talk page access. The user then created a sock to post again at Jim1138's talk page, resulting in both the sock and the original account being indef blocked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs).

After a bit over a week, the user returned with a series of socks to post at my talk page - complaining about unjust warning, unjust block, unjust sock blocks, etc. Each block-evading sock has been blocked - and the user advised on their original account and on each of the socks that at this point any unblock requests should be routed through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System - they refuse to hear that too and continue to create new socks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify - when the most recent sock posted at the SPI, I chose not to RBI their post over there. But, I think a reply of some sort is appropriate (but I didn't think SPI was the right venue, so I started this thread). Either enforcing that the user needs to take the issue to WP:UTRS - or presenting whatever alternate response the community feels may be appropriate to any of the parties involved (myself included). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they've mixed up "removal" with rev del, which of course would be inappropriate in this case. Blackmane (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As you said, RevDel would be inappropriate. They also seem to think edit warring can be excused, as all the socks attempt to justify it - and through that they attempt to justify their harassment of others, as well as trying to justify their sockpuppetry. WP:UTRS is their only remaining path - but they want to dig deeper holes for themself here instead. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(Just passing through), look what I found: *drops from mouth*. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If they're indeffed, I can't really think of much else to do except community ban, but I don't see that as being justified, necessary, or particularly useful just yet. Other than that, more eyes on this? Added Indian pariah dog and relevant user talk pages to my watchlist, for what it's worth. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I had re-granted talk page privileges to their original account earlier this week, and left a note on that page. Thus far, their attempted justifications for their harassing Jim1138 and for socking are based on their own invented rules, not on Wikipedia policies - but that talk page at least gives them a means to reply and ask for clarifications on what has been explained already. Should they abuse their talk page privileges again, another admin can revoke it if needed.

I agree, not really up to a community ban level as yet ... if the socking persists, would a community ban be needed prior to asking a check-user to see if an IP or range-block may be useful? I don't think we're quite there yet either. At this point, RBI is probably the simplest method to deal with the socks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page

Editors dispute some changes that BushelCandle and EEng have made to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images guideline page about size and location, and there is currently a RfC going on about the size aspect of the guideline. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Permalinks here and here. EEng is steadily making significant changes to the guideline without consensus, and I feel that the page needs full protection to cease this disruption to the guideline page until the RfC is over and/or until other matters are worked out on the guideline talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If all you want is page protection, you might get a better outcome at WP:RFPP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that page, Tryptofish. Taken there. Sometimes requesting page protection works quicker at WP:AN or here at WP:ANI, but that's more so for vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake!

• At Talk:MOS/Images I proposed a reorganization of the MOS/Images#Size section, intending only to improve the presentation without changing the substance. Another editor -- not I -- went ahead and installed it on the live page, calling it "magnificently superior"; [73] other editors immediately commented on what an improvement it is [74] [75].
  • Flyer and other editors feel that certain language was better the old way, and opened an RfC on that. Depending on how that turned out we could have reinstalled the old language on that one point, or not, but either way leaving all the other new stuff (which no one objected to) in place.
• So far so good, so I gave the same treatment to MOS/Images#Syntax [76]. No objections.
• So I moved on to MOS/Images#Location. With no explanation other than, essentially, "I'm reverting because I can", Flyer reverted [77]. I un-reverted [78], with the edit summary Calm down. If you don't like a small part of a large, good-faith change which is obviously helpful overall, then just change the little bit you don't like, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of doing that, he's suddenly here crying "disruption". Blindly reverting the good-faith (and obviously useful) work of others, instead of modifying and building on it -- that's disruptive.

What a waste of time and effort. Pinging BushelCandle, Dennis Bratland, David Eppstein to back me up on this. EEng 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion related to this issue has been going on for some six months now. Every time someone thinks things have died down and achieved something resembling consensus (or at least enough of one for a bold change) and tries to implement the changes that have been discussed, it gets reverted with a message that it can't be done until we reach a consensus. SlimVirgin is only the most recent to do this (and in general I agree with her that the discussion was still ongoing this time); before that, Sandstein reverted twice. It would be nice if we could get this guideline modernized but we seem to be stuck in a perennial filibuster by editors who are happy to take advantage of the rules under which no clear consensus equals sticking to the old version (rather than even recognizing the lack of consensus and ripping out the non-consensual parts of the guideline). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think EEng's points are wrong per se, but I really like and trust the principle WP:NOCONSENSUS which means that I favor reverting to the stable version while we hash it out. If one or more editors think we haven't reverted back far enough to the stable enough version, then we should revert to that until the discussion ends. At the same time, if the RfC or other discussion is WP:SNOW -- a waste of time, over trivial nits, or whatever -- then a closing admin should be proactive in declaring the discussion over and consensus achieved. On top of that, I think getting articles to look good in everything from a tiny iPhone 4S like late adopters like me stick with, all the way to those crazy super eight foot wide concave screens I read about somewhere -- it's impossible. No rule will ever cover all those, and if you could write hard rules that way, somebody would write a script called "make this Wikipedia article look great on every display." So what difference is there in going back to the old version until WP:Consensus is consensus? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think I may bear some responsibility for this perturbation and if I have done something wrong then I most humbly and earnestly apologise. I apologise in any case for diverting editors from the important task of building a better encyclopaedia.

I think the summary above is fair and accurate. I came to the Manual of Style page about images by accident and found it in what I thought was a quite outdated, unhelpful state with scope for improvement in the clarity of the advice it offered. After I checked its accompanying discussion page, I thought there were changes that could be implemented on a consensual basis after 6 months of discussion that had been followed by a comparatively lengthy hiatus. I made the relevant changes which were reverted. The reversions were discussed and the admin making the reversions excused himself from further reversions or discussion. Proposals were made that received no objections. Before those proposals could be implemented, EEng made his "magnificent" proposal which I then implemented using an edit summary of "Be very bold and attempt a great leap forwards: see discussion page for rationale". I expected to be immediately reverted if that leap was unpalatable, but no substantial reversion occurred until some 2 days later with User:Flyer22 Reborn's reversion of 20:37, 26 January 2016. Rather than throw away the progress made after nearly a year of exhaustive and exhausting discussions I suggest that we revert to Flyer22 Reborn's consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and allow discussion to continue. Vigorous discussion does indeed continue. I am somewhat surprised that the editor who has brought this matter here did not ask editors on the page's discussion page to stop improving a specific section or sections if he was so greatly concerned. If she does so now, I will certainly voluntarily abstain from editing the sections that she specifies, but to block all editors from editing a whole page seems both strange and unnecessary. The editor concerned has been asked to specify exactly what wording would placate him her and I await their her response with interest. BushelCandle (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we revert to Flyer22 Reborn's consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and allow discussion to continue -- fine with me. But can we stop talking about "consensual versions" -- it sounds like a college date-rape hearing. EEng 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Resuming_discussion I've made a proposal for incorporating Flyer's desired wording. EEng 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We (y'all) could use "consensus versions", which doesn't sound like a college date-rape hearing. I !vote for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my whoopsies. I didn't start to use English until I was 5 years old and first went to school and I still make some bad howlers. I'm also a bit mixed up in my colloquialisms because some colleagues speak Indian English, some South African, some Australian, some Canadian, some Filipino English but most Singlish. BushelCandle (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng can ping all the editors he wants for backup on this, and it won't make him any more right. Why I reverted EEng and requested page protection was made perfectly clear. And it is still perfectly clear judging by the current editing of that guideline page. The guideline has been a mess, for the reasons noted by GoneIn60. I requested that EEng stop via an edit summary. He often edit wars on guideline pages. Asking him to stop on the guideline talk page most likely would not have helped a bit. And, BushelCandle, I'm female, by the way. And what you call my consensus version clearly is not my consensus version. I reverted EEng on that section twice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That stated, EEng is currently trying to work things out with me on the talk page, and I have known him to make good proposals to our guideline or policy pages. It's just that I don't always agree with his methods, or proposals (obviously). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was always happy to work with you, but you would never say anything specific about what your objections were (other than the one phrase about which you opened the RfC). Thus I made one last entreaty for specifics, and went back to work. EEng 02:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations

• Clairemont, San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SDarchitect (talk · contribs)

Perhaps the user is inexperienced, but it appears that a lot of the prose content they've added has been lifted verbatim from Clairemont's publications. Normally I'd drop a note to Moonriddengirl, to ask for help determining what needs to be cut. Any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I have attempted to communicate with the editor, and asked them to start removing the copyright violations. Not holding my breath. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• I feel somewhat ill at ease with this netbook I'm working on, so I'm not sure if I got it all--but applied rev/delete in that history, starting with the first one I could find. I also moved the article back to its earlier title. Please check to see if I missed something or screwed something up. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dr. I was trying to take it passage by passage, and removed as much as I could that appeared to be either a blatant copyright violation or close paraphrasing. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have hidden some more revisions. The latest ones (which I left visible) seem ok to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries

I should apologize that being new to things around here I posted this at the dispute resolutions center first.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Karait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YuHuw (talk · contribs)
• Неполканов (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Warshy (talk · contribs)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
• Wbm1058 (talk · contribs)
• 31.154.167.98 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a conduct dispute arising from harassment on Talk pages. The discussion began on Talk:Karait but soon spread to other talk pages:

Talk:Keraites Talk:Turkic_Karaite Talk:Crimean_Karaites Talk:Karaite_Judaism#Russian_Empire_Karaites_.28Qaraylar.29 Talk:Karaylar#Delete_or_Keep?

It spread to these pages is because User:Неполканов brought my attention to the issue of potential confusion with Crimean Karaites and various other ambiguous words which could be used to refer to them.

However the Harassment has also appeared on User Talk pages: User_Talk:Toddy1 User_Talk:Warshy

It began with my reversion of what I thought was vandalism (I apologized later) of an article here [79]

I looked at User:Неполканов's edit histories to try and pinpoint exactly why they started to harrass me. I found this here [80] apparently canvassing support for against the author of the article, an IP address from the biggest ISP company in Israel whose only contributions were on that article [81] maybe the Wikimedia Administrative Offices can identify if that IP has ever been used consistently by another user before.

It turned out I was not the first person accused of being a sockpuppet for taking an interest tn this at that time foggy topic. The User WBM1058 had also been accused of being a sockpuppet here [82].

Looking through Неполканов's history he only ever seems to start editing wikipedia when Toddy1 needs assistance accusing sockpuppets. Toddy1's canvassed Warshy into this as you can see from that talk.

DBachmann said that we may have all been duped by a sockpuppet of another user but it did not stop the harassments which are too many to post here but an initial list was made here but they did not stop, and neither did my requests for them to stop.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to turn the other cheek, I have tried to be warm and welcoming, I have invited friendship, I have tried to reassure the users that I do not have any negative agenda and encourage the users to engage in discussion pages and bring their sources for un-sourced disputed content rather than talk about me as if I am a sockpuppet everywhere. Any content recommendations from the Users which have been made I have tried to include into the articles, I have taken advice etc..

How do you think we can help?

The Wikimedia officials can surely see the IP addresses which I am assigned by my IP service provider (a major company in my country). I always edit wikipedia from an IP address provided me by that provider. I believe if I can prove my true identity to one trusted Wikimedia Foundation Official that the Users can then be reassured that I am not the person they think I am and they may then join in discussing the facts about the articles rather than continue their current path of Harassment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by YuHuw (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2016‎

I'm not seeing harassment at the locations you've listed. Perhaps you can list the diff(s) that concern you. Tiderolls 20:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was told that if someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you. Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[83] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [84] and the fact (s)he signed later [85] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [86] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [87]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [88], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [89] [90] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

But at least Nepolkanov has engaged in (even if he is aggressive and belligerent editing) some useful discussion on the issues which need to be discussed, unlike user Toddy1 who does not really engage much at all. I don't want anything but to reassure them I am my own person and make sure they don't try such tactics again just because they don't like the challenge. I don't mind fierce debate, I believe thrashing out diametrically opposed views can lead to a clearer picture on foggy issues, but preferably without the insults to intelligence and without the horrendous and potentially damaging references. I didn't create an account to hide my light. I hope I have something that given time will shine here. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I was drawn into this when I spotted technical issues. My first related edit was to the unrelated article about Bungarus venomous snakes, where I removed a hatnote because Karait did not redirect there anymore; but it seems that I stepped into topic areas where one needs to tread carefully, to avoid getting bitten by a Bungarus. I understand that there is no one correct way to spell "Karait"; that varies depending on what foreign language the word has been translated or transliterated from. I understand that peoples characterized as being "Karaits" may come from different geographic regions, far separated from each other, and I understand that some "Karaits" identify as members of the Jewish faith, or some variant of that, while others do not consider themselves to be Jewish. I've seen that Wikipedia has multiple articles covering various geographic, ethnic and religious variants of "Karaits", and that editors, some based in Israel and some based in Russia, cannot agree on how to disambiguate these topics. As an American who identifies as neither Russian nor Jewish, I have limited knowledge, and sorry, limited interest in, these topic areas. I believe that YuHuw is a good-faith new editor, and have no basis whatsoever on which to even remotely suspect them of "socking". Note that despite being an administrator, I don't have much experience at this venue. I hope my comments are helpful to those who edit here more often. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Thank you for that. @Tide rolls: As a follow up to this Nepolkanov albeit surrounded by a bit of endearing grumpiness and in the wrong place on my wall User_talk:YuHuw#Nepolkanov.27s_complaint seems to be attempting to make some sort of suggestion about something he would prefer. Perhaps if someone can help me understand his suggestion it this might help move things forward. YuHuw (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unregistered IPs 92.24.104.145 and 92.24.104.245; genre warring

Unregistered IP 92.24.104.145/92.24.104.245 has been genre warring as of late on the Hymns (Bloc Party album) article. They've been continuously reverting my edits where I added genres backed by a reliable source and has continuously added unsourced genres to the page, suggesting that just because the band is labeled as one genre, it means that all of their albums must be that genre. The page history is available here They're clearly unfamiliar with the Manual of Style for album articles and how sourced genres work, but even after this, they went the extra mile to leave this and this on my talk page. Aria1561 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have written FAs and this 16 year old think he can school me. Ha what a joke this place is. Genres were there indie rock and alternative dance, he came and removed them to his preferred ones. I cited them and then he removed them again including the citations because he didn't like the sources. Allmusic tags have always been used as reliable sources, doesn't have to be in the review text. Stop wasting people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.104.145 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see edit warring between the both of you on Hymns (Bloc Party album). I highly suggest that you two make no further edits until the matter is either settled here or in proper dispute resolution or discussion channels. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you've written FAs I'm sure you have an account, 92.24.104.xx. Please log in. Aria1561, please don't edit like this, see WP:POINT. I was going to protect the article to let the content dispute be addressed on talk, but in view of this and this, I have instead attempted to give the IP time off for personal attacks by blocking the range 92.24.104.128/25 for a couple of days. If there is continued edit-warring after that, the article can then be protected to encourage dispute resolution. (I'm assuming 92.24.104.xx won't edit the article with other IPs, since I've given both the IPs formal block notices on their pages; that would be block evasion.) Bishonen | talk 09:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

Edit Warring with Harassment / Threat Overtones

Yesterday, I had cause to block User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres for vulgar personal attacks in an edit summary, which had come about as a result of a small edit war on the article. Looking into it a bit further, I am concerned that Eni.Sukthi.Durres has been engaged in more widespread harassment / threats with a nationalistic tendency.

User:FkpCascais posted this on Eni.Sukthi.Durres's talk page admonishing him openly for pushing a nationalist agenda, specifically here in an edit summary and here on User:Msb73505's talk page. I am concerned that there is something deeper here beyond mere incivility, certainly Msb73505 has observed to me here that Eni.Sukthi.Durres has made threats against him. The problem is that I don't speak Albanian and online translation sites don't seem to be much help. I'm aware of long running conflicts on enWiki from a wide number of users from Balkan states relating to ethnic nationalism and wanted to run it past other admins here, particularly some who might be able to speak Albanian and offer translations for what has been said in the diffs above (and perhaps identify any further instances that in my ignorance I have missed) and help me understand whether this is just a small edit war that had some uncivil overtones or something a bit more serious that needs to be nipped in the bud.

For information, although I blocked Eni.Sukthi.Durres for his edit summary and the general edit war, I only issued a warning to Msb73505, as I felt that there was provocation, harassment and disruptive editing mitigating his reverts and that the fault at his end was not trying to take the issues to the talk page for discussion.

Happy to here thoughts on this from anyone, names users above have been notified. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Fenix down (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Py0alb

Please refer to this ANI which resulted in a warning to User:Py0alb following "conduct (that) is attacking and ill-informed". The admin at the time said that "a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will be met with sanctions". A formal warning was placed on Py0alb's talk page and was promptly deleted by Py0alb.

Py0alb is a very occasional visitor to the site with just only 582 edits in five years and yet he makes bold claims about site policy as if he is an experienced and regular user. He seems to become involved in conflict every time he visits the site as a check of his talk page and contributions will reveal. For example, an argument with User:115ash led to him posting this warning which was not justified. On his own talk page, there is this complaint about his attitude. He has also been in breach of copyright.

He had not been on the site since November last year and reappeared on 18 January with this confrontational attack on the major cricket article. I considered his tone and his use of the phrase "un-encyclopaedic gibberish" to be a breach of WP:CIVIL. I therefore reverted his edit and suggested that he puts forward a constructive argument if he wants someone to respond to him. His response to that was to reinstate his original post, "warning" me that I will be banned and demanding that other people are polite and respectful to him. Admittedly annoyed by his attitude, including his apparently entrenched view that the term does not exist despite the evidence in the article, I responded by advising him to study the citations. His response to that was to again threaten me with a ban because I, and not he, am guilty of abusive behaviour. Apparently, it is abusive to suggest that he needs to read the citations to understand that the term does exist and has widespread usage.

He placed a PROD on the article, claiming that the term does not exist, despite the citation evidence. That is his prerogative and it is mine to remove the PROD as I do not agree with it, so I did so. He came back and reinstated the PROD, demanding that the article is deleted immediately. This is, of course, out of process because if a PROD is rejected by an interested party, the next step is to take the article to AfD. His second attempt at PROD was removed by another user who advised him of the correct procedure.

Today, having been inactive for two days, Py0alb blanked the entire article and placed a redirect on it. His comment was a threat that anyone reverting his change would be banned, which is bang out of order. He made reference to a previous AfD in 2011 when an earlier version of the article was deleted because it lacked citations. The current version has several citations from significant sources to comply with WP:GNG. Besides blanking the article, he went into the talk page and declared that it is "a direct contravention of Wikipedia policy" (this from someone with only 582 edits in five years) to recreate an article that was formerly deleted. Any article can be recreated if the earlier issues (in this case, no citations) can be resolved. He finishes by saying without any authority whatsoever that "The article will now be deleted for the final time".

Frankly, this person is a troublemaker. He seeks confrontation and it is evident from his attitude to this article and also to the Indoor cricket article for which he received his warning two years ago that his sole rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has obviously not learned anything from the formal warning which, remember, he immediately deleted from his talk page. I recommend an indefinite WP:BLOCK for someone whose behaviour is repeatedly hostile, abusive and unreasonable. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD on this page was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket. Consensus is to delete. Jack is ignoring this consensus and is now engaging in an edit war and engaging in a personal vendetta against me (see this completely unnecessary ANI for an example). This is not a personal matter, it is merely a matter of correctly following protocol. I understand that it can be difficult when a page you have worked on is deleted - I have experienced this in the past - but Jack needs to calm down and understand that this page is unencyclopaedic, and that his opinion alone is not sufficient to supercede a clear consensus. I do not want a war, I merely want correct protocol to be followed. The phrase is a nonsense.

Thanks, Py0alb (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong as a matter of policy. Fortunately, another editor has reverted you, or I would have done so myself. But you don't have only one choice (take it to AfD); you can also tag it per WP:CSD#G4. Frankly, I doubt an administrator would delete it on that criterion, so taking it to AfD again is the better option. From the diffs above, this isn't the first time you've made statements or acted as if you are a policy wonk when in fact your grasp of many policies is sorely lacking. No one expects editors to understand all the Wikipedia policies, but you should at least have enough insight to know when your interpretation of policy is at least close to correct. I suggest that at a minimum you step back from some of these confrontations, or you are going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. You may note that since writing the above, Py0alb has tried to canvass support from the other editor involved in the dispute. He has not, however, been successful and has again been told to follow the correct process. What he is saying about consensus is ill-informed, to say the least. The article that went to AfD in 2011 was completely different as it was no more than a stub that, crucially, lacked citations. I did not take part in that AfD but thought the decision to delete was fair enough. Since then, usage of the term has increased and I keep hearing it in discussions on the media and at cricket grounds. I decided to research it and found that it is now quite widely cited so I decided to recreate the article and capture a range of sources so that it will meet WP:GNG, not just the NCRIC SNG. I am not engaging in an edit war as I have only reverted one of his changes and that was effectively a response to vandalism because he had blanked the article without following due process, and that after the process had been explained to him by another editor. To say that I am conducting a personal vendetta is a ridiculous statement. I am not even protecting the article because I was quite happy for him to PROD it and I would be equally happy to defend it at AfD. I want only two things from this: one is that the article will be treated with respect which includes being taken to AfD in a constructive manner if someone deems it necessary; the other is that I do not have to deal with ill-informed, opinionated editors who are confrontational and rude from the outset. In view of this editor's past record of confrontation, including a formal warning that he has completely ignored, not to mention the serious doubt I have about someone who appears sporadically yet writes as if he is a continuous user, I still recommend that an indefinite WP:BLOCK, especially as he has again blanked the article since I restored it yesterday and repeated the correct process to him. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is something I am slightly confused about, in that Jack claims above "I was quite happy for him to PROD it" and yet this edit reveals something different: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_cricket&type=revision&diff=700427615&oldid=700423682

Aggressively defending articles you have a personal interest in from due process is really not the sign of a constructive member of our community.

Py0alb (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try to format your responses in the proper way. You make discussions difficult to read. There's nothing confusing about what Jack said. He said it in his opening post. You prodded the article, and he removed it. Your prodding the article was your prerogative. Reinstating it after he removed it was not. Your last sentence is more meaningless rhetoric than anything else. At the same time, some of Jack's allegations in his last post are off the mark. The reverts here by you were wrong, but I would not label them vandalism, just a repeat of your misunderstanding of policy. Also, your last revert came before my comments above, and at this point it's fairly clear that you're not going to heed good advice from Jack, but did from another editor (the same one who reverted the reinstatment of the prod). So, I don't think that last revert is anything surprising. Finally, whether you should be blocked for what you've done is unclear. If it were clear, I would have already blocked you. Regardless, jumping to an indefinite block of an editor who has a clean block log is a rather drastic sanction. I would think any sanction would depend on how you conduct yourself after this discussion. Certainly, my 3-year-old warning is not as relevant as a more recent warning, and, in any event, was limited to personal attacks. Although your style is more aggressive than collaborative, I don't believe a case has been made for personal attacks. I'm more concerned with your competence and whether your edits are a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. Looking at the history of Major cricket, I see that Py0alb added a PROD tag to the article, which was then removed by BlackJack. Py0alb then reverted the PROD tag removal, which is not proper procedure; if the PROD tag is removed, the article must be AFD'd (or CSD'd if it meets criterion - even though I agree with Bbb23 that administrators rarely delete per this criterion unless blatantly obvious; an AFD is preferred). Despite the fact that another user correctly reverted the restoration of the PROD tag (note the edit summary), he reverted the page twice (here and here) before finally nominating the article for AfD as instructed by multiple users. This is edit warring in my eyes, as multiple users have attempted to leave edit summaries describing proper process, and the changes were reverted outside consensus and despite a discussion on the article's talk page. Py0alb - You should stop making reverts such as what you did recently. I note that you have since nominated the article for AfD, and I wouldn't block you for edit warring since you seemed to have stopped (if I was an admin) - but you need to acknowledge this, listen to other editors (especially when multiple editors step in to correct your reverts and actions), and discuss disputes before reverting. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Since raising the AfD, he has written this which indicates that he is continuing to ignore advice given by other users. In the AfD itself, he has voted twice and he has made a personal attack: both entries removed. In addition, he is evidently seeking to mislead readers re the citations and persuade them to ignore non-internet sources, claiming that "'Its in a book I once read, trust me' is not a valid form of evidence". Apart from its nonsense value, this constitutes a serious breach of WP:AGF. It doesn't end there. Since raising the AfD, he has removed a link to the article from another article. Frankly, this is all completely out of order and I repeat that WP:BLOCK is necessary in this case. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that these edits may have issues, but I'm not seeing a personal attack against another editor here (addition diff). It appears to be a logical analysis to me (taking "right or wrong" out of the equation). When it comes to the issue of edit warring, he has ceased doing so. Py0alb has voted; we just need to let the community have a chance to give input and come to a consensus. If disruptive editing occurs, that's a different story. However, until this happens, I suggest that we step back (both of you) and let the AFD take its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you are of course correct, I have maintained a rational, impersonal, and professional dignity throughout this discussion. I have nothing agaisnt jack on a personal level, I simply feel that the page in question quite clearly fails WP:V and needs to be deleted from the site. A "personal attack" might constitute raising a spurious ANI and repeatedly insisting that another editor be given a block simply because you don't agree with them. If an editor acted like in such an antagonistic and uncivil manner, I think the admin might need to consider looking into their behaviour at that point Py0alb (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, that is a ludicrous accusation. I just repeated the point made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&type=revision&diff=698008924&oldid=698004810 that the term "major cricket" is one that has been invented by wikipedia editors as a convenience. There is nothing personal about this. Py0alb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am following correct procedure in restoring this discussion from the archive but I am concerned that no action has been taken against Py0alb who has continued to breach guidelines at the major cricket AfD. Please see this accusation of bad faith made by User:Hallward's Ghost, which has subsequently been proven by three editors to be completely false. Pyoalb supported the accusation, predictably I would suppose given the foregoing, and committed yet another breach of bad faith by accusing another editor of dishonesty when the true situation is quite the reverse. I would argue that the sanctions demanded by these two people should in fact be directed against them. That AfD has become a fiasco and I believe admins need to step in and take positive action against those who are trying to discredit a reputable editor who, I might add, is currently on wikbreak and so presumably unable to defend himself. Thank you. GnGn (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You've already been asked by @Harrias: (an admin) at that AFD to calm down and quit flinging around these accusations. Now you engage in blatant forum-shopping, hoping for a different result. You would do well to read WP:BOOMERANG before proceeding any further along this line. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: GnGn has now "resigned in disgust", apparently since Harrias wouldn't block me for buying one of the offline refs and doing actual research on an AFD. In my view, GnGn had to know that sanctions were likely heading his way, for his over-the-top behavior, which might well have precipitated this "resign in disgust" thing, to avoid such sanctions. Be that as it may, this thread can safely be rearchived, I think. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the "retirement" I would block GnGn, but I'm clearly now too involved to do so. Harrias ^talk 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  A cynical person might also view that as part of his "plan", or whatever. First, he tells you to sanction me, then when it becomes clear you're not going to do that, he blasts a very personal attack to your talkpage, making you an "involved" admin for purposes of actually sanctioning him for his behavior. Who really knows, though? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gnorman Gnome

As an extension of the discussion above regarding Py0alb, I would very much appreciate another administrator's view on this, particularly the conduct and personal attacks made by Gnorman Gnome at that discussion (particularly this diff), and his statements on my talk page (this diff) and his own talk page (this diff). In the interests of completeness, the conduct of myself, Hallward's Ghost and Py0alb should also be considered. Harrias ^talk 17:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the merits of this diff alone, I issued a warning to Gnorman Gnome, asking them to not make personal attacks, and emphasizing that if other editors are being incivil, calling them aresholes isn't going to fix it. If the other named editors are willing to just cool it and discuss matters in calm fashion (or, better, walk away for a while and let a consensus form), then things should resolve themselves. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing, though: I never did any of the things GnGn was accusing me of, and Harrias's only "crime" was, apparently, not blocking me when GnGn demanded he do so. It's my suspicion that GnGn has only "retired" to avoid the sting of the WP:BOOMERANG. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The AFD is on my watchlist and I commented there so am somewhat involved. Gnorman Gnomes comments are way over the top there demanding sanctions when none are needed. This has crossed any line that was left, retirement or not, and probably deserves more than a warning. AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • From a combination of the personal attacks and obviously gaming the system to get Harrias WP:INVOLVED in hopes of drawing a "bad block", I've indef'd. If they return from their retirement they can see about having the block shortened, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks

I'm not pleased to be posting here again so soon. However, Travelmite (talk · contribs) has recently launched (out of nowhere, from my perspective) a series of personal attacks directed at me, accusing me without grounds of vandalism, whitewashing, editing in bad faith, causing damage, violating rules, making threats, and corruption. As well, there is what seems to be an attempt at outing me.

• 15:57, 27 January 2016: [Under the header 'Canadian Monarchists vandalising this article'] "There is a user called Miesianiacal who is a writer for the Canadian Monarchist League. I can see a long history of severe violations of Wikipedia rules. He is relentless in removing parts of the article, that show republicanism is valid. I've just fixed up the vandalism that I've seen, whole paragraphs haven been taken out. Even the way Australians discuss the issue has been replaced by the whitewashing terms of Canadian Monarchist League. How much damage has been done, is hard to say."
• 11:39, 28 January 2016: "The edits of user Miesianiacal represent the aims of the Canadian Monarchist League. I think it's irrelevant if it's a paid position. The objective is to whitewash. The activity is certainly supported by the membership dues. Wikipedia should not be a tool for any organisation. If anyone goes over the history, there are dozens of edit-wars, where he has deleted or changed material and they were restored, but occasionally, a deletion is missed by the editors. Threats are made I found and restored three paragraphs. Miesianiacal's action was to undo the changes, and delete the crucial comment that he is speaking on behalf of CML. Other editors should be aware that this is a serious situation (arguably corruption) and it may be justified to place Miesianiacal under an edit ban."

I removed the attacks three times ([91], [92], [93]), citing WP:TPO: "[Allowable is] removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." I left pertinent discussion about content: [94]. I also left a note at Travelmite's talk page, again outlining WP:TPO, as well as WP:NPA. S/he reverted the removals of the PAs from Talk:Republicanism in Australia ([95], [96], [97]) and reverted my comment at their talk page without remark.

I am genuinely baffled at this hostility from Travelmite; as far as I can recall, I've never interacted with the individual before. Further, I shouldn't be forced to say anything about what I do outside Wikipedia, but, I am not a spokesperson or any other authority with the Monarchist League of Canada, paid or otherwise. I am not even a member.

Assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Travelmite, you are too close to outing with your statements, and you are certainly making personal attacks/denying good faith. Do not restore that material. Discuss edits, not the editor, and please do so in a way that ... well, you should know. See previous sentences. Skyring, I trust you will, with your experience, function as a guide in case any of these editors are not aware of our policies and guidelines--on the one hand, OUTING and NPA and all that; on the other, RS, NPOV, and what not. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If Mies is acting as a spokesman for any monarchist organisation, he should declare it, given the vast number of pro-monarchist edits he has made over the years. However, I felt Travelmite was going a little bit too far, and I'm on Mies' side in the case of exposing personal identies - Wikipedia upholds the right of anonymous editing very strongly. I've just this moment wound back some very bold edits by Travelmite on an article that has been the focus of intense discussion over the years, suggesting he discuss his many controversial edits. Not sure what this editor's objective is, but they need to work with established editors. I just noticed this on WP:COIN. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is exposing any personal identity. There is no way a reader can work out the identity of user Miesianiacal from these comments. It's a matter of exposing a Conflict of Interest. I see that there is a bit of familiarly going on here to "Mies", even though Conflict of Interest is an serious matter. At least, it seems the Admins know what is an advocate for. Interestingly, there is a denial of involvement with the Canadian Monarchist League here. Travelmite (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are dangerously close to exposing personal identity and that's all there is to this. For clarity's sake: I am Dr. Mies, and in no way affiliated with the Person Called Miesianiacal Abbreviated (Erroneously?) As "Mies". It should be clear to you that Pete is playing on your abbreviation. For the record, I did see Her Royal Highness once, during my sensitive years, but only from a distance. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to start a discussion about her highness, you must notify them on their user talk page. Then we can see just how "distant" the relationship was.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear at all. I point out to you all, that I am making a claim of a serious violation. This is Wikipedia's problem, not my problem. He is violating your rules and of course, he has a right to deny it (which surprises me, but there it is). The rule says OUT-ing people is more forbidden than putting forward evidence for the COI. Why assume that I don't know something, simply because I am following the rule to not OUT people. Travelmite (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of WP:OUTING, please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of harassment? ... so you're saying I've been personally attacked? No. I don't think so. If we tackle the COI issue, then different editors can over time will restore balance back into these articles. Travelmite (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And here we have a perfect example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Drmies, but I wasn't trying to be clever when talking about (Mies)ianiacal. I usually address him as Mies, because I'm too lazy to spell out his entire user name, and I usually need a running start and two attempts to spell it correctly. As he has selected his name in apparent homage to the brilliant architect Mies van der Rohe, I see no problem with the abbreviation. Perhaps one or both of you would like to select another name to minimise confusion? --Pete (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for removing the PAs, Drmies. However, it seems Travelmite has only shifted his campaign against me to another forum. I suppose there he'll at least be asked to prove I am what he thinks I am...?

There's something fishy about this. An editor who's been active only intermittently over only the last year, focusing almost exclusively on Chinese Beijing-related topics and "white privilege", suddenly puts a laser focus on me, claiming to know who and what I am. It's very odd. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've just figured out he's been editing more frequently as 62.189.73.197 (talk · contribs). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I have no knowledge of the subjects under 62.189.73.197, nor do I know the person. They a knowledge of Shanghai and perhaps a lawyer. I see 5 edits about Republicanism in November 2015, but I didn't make them. As I explained, I looked at the page on Australia Day, to find a Canadian monarchist in charge, and I followed the chequered history to the source. I think these admins know what's going on. But to recommend Skyring as a "guide" with his history of disputes and bans, that is fishy! Anyway. The proverbial ball is now in their court. Travelmite (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting to ponder how it is you determined within less than the span of Australia Day that the page was under some kind of control by the Monarchist League of Canada; you make the assertion in the summary for your very first edit ever to the article. More interesting still is that you made that claim, plus the personal attacks and accusations against me, not after you "followed the chequered history to the source", but based on "evidence" that was, by your own admission, not on Wikipedia. And it took you only a max of 40 minutes to go through 10 years' worth of my edit history to apparently find some "proof"? It leads one to wonder who you are and possibly also who's been feeding you misinformation off-Wiki and why.

But, the COI question is moot now. So, it seems to not really matter anymore. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note - I just closed the case at COIN. I tried to teach Travelmite how we deal with COI in WP at their Talk page, here, to no avail. If Travelmite persists with this behavior (and they just brought it up again on an article Talk page), I suggest a 48 hour block. Let's see what they do. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, unless you've got concrete evidence to back up your 'Monarchist League of Canada' accusations? then I highly recommend that you cease making them. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

evidence from within WIkipedia only! Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note - Randykitty has blocked Travelmite for 24 hours after giving a warning for the persistent COI accusations Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if 62.189.73.197 is Travelmite or not, however it is a | confirmed proxy, might either want to keep an eye on that or block it completely. KoshVorlon 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

IP alleging Jewish conspiracy, personal attacks, you know the usual

• 64.231.64.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Talk:R v Elliott

Anon editor insisting there must be a Jewish conspiracy and casting aspersions about several editors' and real-life persons' ethnicities. Requesting swift block. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dammit--that IP is on to me. I am in fact a Jewish feminist, intent on ... I forgot what. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• On monarchism, of course![98] Bishonen | talk 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

• Glad I read it a second time. I thought you accused him of monorchism. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• 74.216.198.142 - another. Why does it always have to be a Jewish conspiracy? Agnostics have conspiracies too, you know. We just don't care very much about them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agnostics might or might not have conspiracies — we just can't be sure! Carrite (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing nutjobs gunna be right-wing nutjobs.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's probably the same old Jew-hating ref desk troll. And why a Jewish conspiracy? Well, if they started talking about a Sealandian conspiracy, who would notice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How about us Illuminati? We never get any attention these days. GAB^Hello! 22:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, nobody shines a light on them nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha. The Illuminati are just a distraction so that the chemtrails can go unnoticed. GAB^Hello! 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, they have long since been taken over by the Jews. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Can editors at the ref desks offer legal and financial advice?

The Wikipedia:General disclaimer says, in part Not professional advice If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Yet we have a repeatedly posted/unblocked question by a single-purpose user asking whether someone offering to transfer him money out of the blue is a "scam".

By definition a scam is illegal. Our disclaimer, and the ref desk guidelines both make it quite explicit that we don't give legal or financial advice. Yet editors keep insisting on answering and reposting the question when it is posted. Do we, or do we not, by policy, offer advice about manners dealing with finances and possible money laundering schemes?

At this point we've got User:Reference Desk Fan, User:71.119.131.184, User:76.69.45.64, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Nil Einne, User:SteveBaker, User:ShakespeareFan00, User:Dbfirs, and User:StuRat entertaining this discussion that potentially deals with the felonies of fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering not to mention other crimes. I have closed the discussion repeatedly per the ref desk guidelines and the general disclaimer. Am I wrong to think that a single individual asking about $70,000 transfers to his bank account from a stranger is outside our purview as an encyclopedia based on referenced sources? If I am not wrong, will an admin please remove this item from the ref desks? Thank. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User Medeis's hatting can become disruptive. The answer to the question posed is that editors are not supposed to offer such advice. However discussion of the hatting should take place at the reference desk talk page, and not here under WP:BRD. For the section that is being hatted, this cannot be really considered legal advice, as it is so obvious, and there is a fairly clear advice to contact police (not a lawyer). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My involvmennt here, was soley to post a reference link, to an official (in the instance FBI site) on the subject of Advance Fee Frauds, which given the original posters concerns was felt to be the most appropriate response. If there's going to be a 'Do Not Answer' policy, some guidance on when to apply it would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's blatantly clear the OP for that question (Reference Desk Fan) is one of our regular trolls trying to get someone to close down his breaching experiment and generate maximum drama. It worked. --Jayron32 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not asking for legal advice, and suggesting someone contact the police is not offering legal advice, and I do not see how any normally competent person could, in good faith, say it was. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar behaviour from User:Medeis is found in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&curid=2535910&diff=702204069&oldid=702201315 where a troll like question and some answers were removed without an edit summary. I would expect at least an edit summary, and preferably if people ahve already answered the question should not be removed. Remove the question when not one has responded. This will upset less people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't put an edit summary, given past discussions on the talk page that said we should try to keep comments to a minimum when dealing with trolling. In this case I did both comment inside the hat, and link to the disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• We're feeding a troll and stretching AGF to the breaking point. The ref desk, in entertaining such questions, has little to do with the encyclopedia's mission. I participate at the ref desk from time to time and it's interesting, but it's peripheral to the purpose of the encyclopedia and should not be a distraction from our mission, which is to write an encyclopedia, not to be an advice column. Given the extensive history of disruptive trolling at the ref desk, the name of the OP at the ref desk doesn't create confidence. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP should also note that his signature violates WP:NLS in that it consists entirely of unreadable non latin characters. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Violates? Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is worried about signatures, he should check out this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The general disclaimer says what you claim (but see below). However, the reference desk guidelines (at the top of the page) do not. They state "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice" - no mention of finacial (which the subject question qualifies as). The linked guidelines like the general disclaimer page says "The reference desk does not provide answers where an opinion from a qualified professional is needed, such as advice of a medical, legal or financial nature ...". But for the subject question, the opinion of a qualified professional is not required. Any reasonable competent contributor can answer the question. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the reference desk.

Its original purpose was to help improve Wikipedia articles.

Over time, it has become more a place where people ask questions, maybe give answers, and have interesting discussions.

Trolling there is a perennial problem: just as Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can also troll, WP:RD is the Quora or Stack Exchange that anyone can troll.

There have been any of discussions at WT:RD about how to address that problem.

(Quite frankly, it would seem to me that the problem with ref desk trolling is that the ref desk regulars are quite happy to respond to the trolls.)

The best solution is for the ref desk regulars to simply ignore the trolling questions. This is not going to happen.

So maybe a least worst solution is to have each ref desk semi-protected or given pending changes protection, with a clerking system of community-nominated clerks with a sub-page where questions or pending edits are discussed and evaluated. Again, this is not going to happen.

Medeis has taken it upon herself to be a self-appointed WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner. And. that. is. fine. with. me. Who better to be a WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner? As a second least worst solution, accepting Medeis's hatting and just moving on seems to me a way to move forward, and get on with writing an encyclopedia.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It must be disruptive to repeatedly hat a discussion that multiple established editors are un-hatting in good faith. It's very presumptive, if nothing else, to assume that your judgement must be correct and theirs must be wrong. Also, so far as I can see, this was not taken to the reference desk talk page, which suggests μηδείς is not certain consensus there would go in his or her favor. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many of those so-called "good faith" editors don't like the rules against professional advice and will fight over anything that looks like a borderline case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Something Caustic in Ohio

Should we be answering questions about drinking caustic acidic and basic solutions to see what they taste like? See the latest OP question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#If_I_drink_10_mL_of_HCl_.281M.29_and_drink_10_mL_of_NaOH.2C_would_it_just_taste_like_salty_water.3F. These questions are not requests for references, but for comments on personal risks. I think we really need serious oversight of this, as the regulars seem all too happy to speculate without sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Bigger Picture

I could be in the wrong here, but I'm led to wonder whether the Reference Desk is worth the trouble it causes, and if it really helps us build an encyclopedia. I admit I'm far from a regular, but every time I've ended up at the Reference Desk it looks like a toxic mix of (a.) trolling (b.) inappropriate requests for legal/medical help (c.) do-my-homework-for-me requests (d.) simple requests that could have been answered in a 10-second Google search. It all seems more like a waste of time than a useful or productive part of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I find the reference desks an excellent source of information, when they are properly used. Ask evanh2008 whether or not he has found ref desk help helpful. That being said, I simply can't understand the "we...must...entertain...every...policy-violating...troll" attitude. For this reason I think we could do with stricter guidelines and oversight. But the last thing I would want to see is doing away with the ref desks. They are perhaps the best source on the internet to look for actual scholarly information, when they are not filled with scatological or racist questions about felonies, fraud, and BLP violations. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were possible to move to a question/answer format more closely modeled on StackExchange or one of its close relatives, I think quality would go up. That's a proven formula that pretty clearly works better than wiki talk page, which was never really designed for Q/A. (For example, on sites powered by StackExchange, both questions and answers can be voted up and down. If a post hits a certain negative threshold it is automatically hidden. No need to argue over which questions are unworthy trolls, or which answers are blatantly wrong, just cast your vote and don't worry about it. It eliminates a lot of drama and stress.) Sadly, I assume making that kind of change would probably require a lot of technical effort that just isn't worth it for what is basically a side mini-project of the encyclopedia. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How about changing the ref desks to nothing but external links to that site. Then the trolls would become their problem, and from what you're saying, they have low tolerance for trolls or flaming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this thing again. While I rarely use it now, I've found the reference desk extremely helpful in the past. I think it's not only a good thing (particularly given the abundance of Yahoo! Answers and similarly useless venues), but also a logical extension of the WMF's mission to "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Wikipedia is fairly unique in that it is a broadly respected outlet with contributors who are, to varying degrees, serious about being helpful and communicating knowledge. This is the fundamental problem with statements like "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library." There is irreplaceable value in "oral" (for lack of a better word) instruction: A static written text cannot be interrogated and cannot adapt itself to a given reader's needs or to an unforeseen context. The most fruitful ref desk questions are those that are (neologism alert) "unGoogleable." Wikipedia is not an educational institution in any traditional sense, but our mission is explicitly educational in nature.

As Medeis alludes to, I've actually made tangible academic use of sources I've been referred to by ref desk users (Medeis among them). There are a fair number of "Is battery acid really that bad for you?" questions, but analogies regarding babies and bathwater come to mind. I'm not familiar with StackExchange, but the idea of censoring comments on a popularity contest model seems counter to the open nature of this project. My basic perspective on this is all very idealistic and very forward-looking, perhaps naively so. I think the ref desk is a good example of what the Internet in general, and Wikipedia specifically, actually has to offer from a "knowledge-growing" point of view. I have access to Britannica and the OED and dozens of other resources that duplicate virtually all the WP article content I'm ever going to need to access, but the reference desk is the kind of thing that cannot be duplicated, specifically because it is available 24/7 and brings together people with different areas of interest with access to different sources. It's worth noting that I'm typically opposed to the kind of proposals that get branded with words like "open" and "free"—I still find it unconscionable that we allow unregistered edits. But the reference desk is a resource with real value to our readers. The idea of doing away with it is silly and short-sighted.

In con-freaking-conclusion, I'm short on time and am not familiar with the incident that precipitated this thread. But I am profoundly annoyed that this idea of blaming the ref desk for users' disruptive behavior is still being tossed around. It's the equivalent of dealing with an edit war by deleting the article. Hell, if people were as quick to jump to drastic solutions with article content as they are when the reference desk comes up, based on a dispute I was involved with a few years ago we might have banned the word "Tthe." Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Yes. Is the reference desk part of an encyclopedia? No. The solution is that there should be refdesk.wikimedia.org created, for Wikipedia and the Online Reference Desk to go their seperate ways, and then Wikipedia won't be saying the Ref Desk needs to go and the issues that the Ref Desk creates for the encylopedia won't be being created anymore. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked attempts to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina and removal of POV tag

I made the following edits to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina:

1 This edit was made to a statement that is not currently supported by the sources provided (in violation of the verifiability requirements of a WP:BLP).

2 Added well-sourced content.

3 The use of the term "wrongdoing" is not supported by the source.

4 This edit removed WP:WEASEL words: "Despite this.."

5 This edit also removed WP:WEASEL words: "...what she called..."

The edits were reverted en masse. I initiated discussion in Talk here where I made a number of good faith proposals to address the statement which is not currently supported by sources. Thus far, the BLP violation has not been addressed.

Also, I added a POV tag to the section with the content that is currently disputed. That tag was removed by one of the editors involved in the dispute.

At a minimum, the BLP violation needs to be addressed, and the tag should be restored until the dispute is resolved.CFredkin (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is rather obviously a content dispute and nothing more. The assertion of "BLP violation" in connection with #1 above is laughable -- go ahead and click, you'll see the core of a political dispute where the edit does nothing at all to "protect" a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I will address the BLP violation. CFredln changed "Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for their involvement in fetal tissue donation" to "Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for its practice of selling fetal tissue."[99] Selling fetal tissue is an offense under federal law (42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue) punishable by a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.[100] The original allegations that Fiorina relied on identify living persons as having broken the law. Mainstream media reports that no tissues were sold.[101] A grand jury decided not to indict Planned Parenthood staff. (See "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales".)

I have explained all this to CFredkin, yet they continue to argue that tissues were sold. Could editors please explain to them that making this type of edit could result in Discretionary sanctions.

Otherwise there is only a content dispute, which is how it should be resolved.

TFD (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The above statements are completely irrelevant. I'm not making a claim that the tissue was sold at this point. The sources provided in the article currently make no mention of the disputed statement. The editors involved the dispute (here and at the Talk page) have have been completely unwilling (or unable) to cite the specific content from the sources provided to support the statement. That's a BLP violation, plain and simple.CFredkin (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's been no effort at all thus far to justify removal of the POV tag that was applied for other edits which were removed without explanation.CFredkin (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is worthy of a WP:boomerang, seeing as Fred is obviously pushing his own POV. It's pretty well-known by now that the allegations against PP were bunk, yet he's adamantly pushing against that.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Civility/Personal attacks

User:Dennis Bratland

Edit summary including "fuck off already" [[102]]

My request: "Dennis, let me ask you a favor. Please move the above comment to the discussion you previous started on this talk page."

His reply "Do me a favor: fuck off."[[103]]

Previous examples of personal attacks/civility issues to a different editor to show a continuing pattern

"you're a fucking liar" in the talk page message and the summary just because it needs to be said twice? [[104]]

"Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m********" (seems pretty clear which word is being implied with "m***********") [[105]]

I really don't care if someone uses profane language on wikipedia. If someone calls my edit "fucking wrong", I wouldn't care, especially if it was wrong. I don't however think there are any situations in which it is OK to tell a fellow wikipedian to "fuck off" it is most certainly a personal insult and an example of an extremely aggressive and confrontational attitude towards other wikipedians.

Unless there are any claims of being hacked or my diffs being incorrect, I see no need for continued discussion on this matter. Too many threads are highjacked and lost in a pile of diffs and counterclaims.

The statements are shown clearly. The context is obvious. The pattern has been shown with previous comments. Short block requested. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

At this juncture, I think a two-way interaction ban between Spacecowboy420 and Dennis Bratland is a good idea. Anyone else agree? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering the civility issues are one way, and have been to multiple editors, I'm not sure that will solve the problem. Banning interaction between Dennis and myself, will not solve civility issues that Dennis has shown with other editors. I must admit though, it does sound interesting and might make for more constructive contributions...but still - his civility issues date back to before my interactions with him, so not a 100% solution, just passing the drama to another editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case indeed, he deserves a week-block at the very least. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As for your first diff, I think Dennis Bratland's behaviour was justified. Why are you copying and pasting his comments to other places without his permission? If I were him, I'd be expressing the same amount of concern. Ches (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had said that Skyring, Spacecowboy & crew should stop the redundant debate of w--------- at the XR-750 article and wait for the issue to be closed at the MOS talk page. I listed many other articles they could work on instead, including Harley-Davidson KR. They ignored me, and continued beating the dead horse at the XR-750 talk page. After a few days, I wanted to get away from all the drama, so I created Harley-Davidson KR myself. Spacecowboy420 immediately jumped on the article, and homed straight in on the sentence, "In 1970 it was replaced by the similarly low-tech but long-lived and US race-winning Harley-Davidson XR-750" changing it to "...went on to win the most races". Why? Because he is harassing me, and will not drop the w--------- stick. Drmies told Spacecowboy he would be blocked if he continued hounding me, and to cease even the appearance of hounding me. Did he quit? No. He came back to debate it more. To which my reply was "fuck off". And so here we are. I want to be left alone to create content. These guys create no content; they're only here for the battleground. Look at their paltry article expansions, their wholesale deletions of well-cited content, their pointless, provocative rewording, and endless, endless talk debates. One of them starts a noticeboard witch hunt nearly every day. I create articles, I upload photos, I create maps and graphs, I get articles promoted to GA. They carry on vendettas.

  An interaction ban will put a stop to all this. Take away their ability to harass me, and there is no reason for any drama. Nine tenths of Spacecowboy's edits are about me. With Zachlita and 72bikers, it's nearly 100% Without me, their interest in Wikipedia will fade to nothing.

  Skyring's wall of text below, desperately pleading for a green light to go on hounding me, is all the proof you need of how necessary this interaction ban is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • "…a green light to go on hounding…" Funny, what was actually in my mind was the exact opposite. If I never have to deal with you again, brother Bratland, that will be just fine by me. I just don't want to hand you a shotgun wth four barrels, that's all. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Your promises aren't worth much, are they? SQL blocked you because you don't keep your word. You brought on the need for a ban with teeth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard to believe they all think we should waste time on them. AKA a pox on all of their houses

Since the five of them (User:Dennis Bratland, User:Skyring, User:Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers, and User:Zachlita) do not appear to have any respect for the disruption they're all causing (probably a dozen ANI/ANEW/other threads started in the last couple of weeks), I have no problem with making their lives more difficult than they would consider necessary, in order to reduce the disruption. No one here can be expected to look into the long, sad history, find out who started what, who is following who, who is right about the underlying content issue, who is incrementally more disruptive, whether rudeness is being provoked, etc. It's too big and too messy a battle. All of them have already poisoned the well on this, with their over-the-top behavior. Instead, I suggest:

• Indefinite two-way interaction bans between Bratland, and each one of Skyring/Spacecowboy/72bikers/Zachlita (Group A). Group A can still interact, but they cannot - directly or indirectly - discuss Bratland. Bratland and Group A cannot revert each other's edits, no talk page requests that the other's edits be reverted... any disruption by any of the five on any other article becomes someone else's problem. Either an uninvolved editor will notice it, or nothing happens.
• Indefinite topic ban for all 5 regarding "winningest" (or any potential replacement for that word), in general and in the specific articles in question. They've more than made their opinions known. Others will continue the discussion, others will change the article from whatever it says now, or decide to leave it as is.
• If any of them report the others for violating this, they had better be scrupulous in adhering to CIV and NPA, because if the report contains anything that remotely approaches a comment on the other person's character, honor, intelligence, motivations, etc., the reporter will be blocked for a month.
• We've all basically had enough, so next time this won't be allowed to spiral so far out of control as this dispute has. If any of you move on to other disputes and edit war, or are rude to other editors, then you will be given no slack, and will be blocked more harshly than someone else would be who did the same thing.

The alternative is to take a case to ArbCom, let the Arbs actually read the reams and reams and reams of blather, and actually find underlying fault. Before going that route, though, all five should be aware that historically, the result of an ArbCom case is, at best, what I've described above, and at worst, that plus mass site bannings for everyone. So you better be damn sure that ArbCom will end up thinking you are entirely blameless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't object. I've had enough of this, it wastes my time. The one question I have is that how will this affect our ability to edit articles? We all have similar interests and generally bump into eachother. As long as we don't revert each other or talk to/about each other, we have no issues? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How it works is those who wish to bait the others makes sure they get in first into every new discussion that might attract one of the others and if they show up, then complain of a violation of the IBAN. If all editors are of good faith, it works fine. If just one thinks they can game the system, it turns into a never-ending series of trivial complaints, with points scored by blocks awarded. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Floquenbeam, I am concerned with the amount of common sense you appear to have demonstrated all over this encyclopedia. I fear it may be spreading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• For the sake of Drmies' sanity, I would support this. Otherwise, it's likely to go to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, spot on. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Demonstrated evidence of inability to work collaboratively and supportive of the mission of Wikipedia over personal gripes. End it immediately. --Jayron32 15:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Floquenbeam. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I'm tired of reading, "the community has failed to solve this" at ArbCom. So, as the community, let's solve this. GAB^Hello! 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support I whole-heartedly agree with Floquenbeam here. Enough is enough, and way too much of the community's time is being wasted on this rather trivial issue. Let's solve this and get back to writing articles and created an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support this, the winningest idea in all Wikipedia today. Scr★pIron^IV 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overly simplistic - No one here can be expected to look into the long, sad history…, you say, Floquenbeam. Once upon a time I would have seized upon your suggestion gratefully. A chance to get on with things without being subject to harassment, without having my talk page invaded – and edit-warred over! – by someone I've told repeatedly is not welcome. A chance to edit and discuss things I'm interested in without being distracted by crapulent slabs of evasion, repeated (and refuted) argument, and flat-out edit-warring. Not to mention the endless personal attacks. Spacecowboy420 has included a few of them above. I found the "Your mother should have taught you not to be a motherfucker" line to be particularly and deliberately offensive.

But for a certain type of person, that's not how it works. We all know them. They are NEVER wrong, they are always in the right, they never back off, and they have to have the last word. For them, Wikipedia is another kind of computer game. Build your kingdom, gather allies, attack your enemies and don't give an inch. Wikiprocess isn't a way of finding fairness and building an encyclopaedia; it's weaponry, smokescreen, and armour all in one, and the clever commander uses it to advantage, because Wikipedia is a combat zone and you don't never ever retreat.

I think for one of the five named above, an IBAN like that proposed would be seen as another weapon, one with four targets. Every day, there would be a look for a potential encounter, an article, a discussion, a noticeboard where he could get in first and then complain if one of his targets later showed up. "Oooh, look! He interacted me! I was here first!!!" Someone good at trolling would find tasty pieces of bait to lurk behind. I think whichever admin took carriage of the thing would get heartily sick of the distraction, and this noticeboard would get repeated doses of drama.

I've been cutting right back on my interactions with Bratland recently. Drmies gave me some good advice a while back, and I've been doing my best to follow it. Ignore the trolling, don't react, keep interaction polite and focussed on the content or the argument. I'm all too easily baited to respond to rubbish with a correction, so I stop, pull back from making a heated reply, and think about what I'm saying. Nine times out of ten, I don't need to say anything, so I don't. Because I know the response will be more rubbish, more evasion, more personal attacks. Occasionally I'll note policy, point out an obvious error, withdraw. But I don't follow anyone around and respond to every move they make. I'm quite happy to leave the topic of motorcycles alone, for example. I've never edited Harley-Davidson XR-750, the article that started all the fuss, and I never intend to.

So no, I'm not going to enter into such a deal. I can count to ten. I can avoid the trolling. And I don't care for the "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out." approach advocated by friend Floquenbeam. If there is misbehaviour on anyone's part, then it can be dealt with through the normal processes. Quote diffs, note the policy violations, use evidence and wikiprocess. Taking a shotgun approach to wikilaw enforcement isn't my idea of good management, attractive and simplistic though it might seem to some.

If others wish to enter into the complex IBAN proposed above, that's fine. For me, I'll keep on counting to ten, avoiding the trolling, leaving the motorcycle area alone. --Pete (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This remedy doesn't address the civility issues and personal attacks raised above.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• The community solving more problems is great. This won't solve the problem(I agree with the text of Pete/User:Skyring). The approach is now "We don't want to deal with it, it is annoying, so let's ban everyone involved", without any diffs for some of them, targeting everyone with the same restriction despite probably not appropiate... eh, oppose. This might, if it passes, in my opinion, be one of these cases, which would mean that this might get to Arbcom anyways. As an appeal of this decision.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. Skyring's behaviour towards Dennis Bratland has been unacceptable, not to mention the other editors involved. 72bikers' comments to Mr Bratland, which are along the lines of "you are paranoid/on drugs" is most definitely a violation of WP:NPA. Ches (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, Ches! Good to see a sixteen year old with six weeks on Wikipedia venturing an opinion so confidently here, where you've been extremely active already. Most newbies take some time to learn how things go, but you found your way around pretty quick. --Pete (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Skyring, 2 years actually. I'm sorry, but it's rather low that you're using my age against me... there are quite a few good young editors around here. Ches (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yet another comment about contributors, not content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)  :::::Is that not just what your friend ches did? And talking like your some victim. 72bikers (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Two years. Of course. Eleven edits in a few days in January 2014, and then nothing until December 2015, when you began performing non-admin closures here. You were then accused of bias here. Just thinking we don't often see that sort of pattern, that's all. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support It's a starting point, but I'm betting it ends up at ArbCom in the end. Sigh. Katie^talk 18:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Send it to ArbCom 2015, pox and all. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Supportingest - they're still warring about this? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support until a better alternative solution is proposed. This is a dramatic way to resolve this ongoing dispute but I don't think halfway measures will be successful. I was asked to close an ANEW complaint among these editors and I could not even process the history of this animosity, who is at fault, who, if anyone (or everyone), is being injured. I agree with Floq that the entire thing is a big, ugly mess that no one admin can sort out. As for Skyring, I don't know for sure whether your agreement is required to enact an I-ban including you, what is required is your compliance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - to the 5 aforementioned editors by Floquenbeam. You do not want this case going before Arbcom. IMHO, you all should agree to merely walk away from the article-in-question & carry on as though the whole dispute never happened. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The article in question was discussed and consensus found in polite discussion. That's the way it should go. As for ArbCom, it might be good to get some level-headed admins looking at diffs rather than hyperbole. Civility is a recurrent theme, and you've got to admit that offensive line mentioned above was about as big a breach of incivility as I've ever seen here. How do people get away with that? --Pete (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:NOPUNISH, that's why. Spacecowboy and you keep coming back again and again with the same old diffs demanding punishment for old grudges. You keep forum shopping the same laundry list of complaints, and you keep being told it stale. Sanctions, whether blocks or WP:IBANs, are preventative, not punitive. The best way to prevent future disruption is to stop the hounding. I go back to creating content, you guys go back to doing whatever it is you do when you're not writing polemics against me. Just do it somewhere else. Do it to somebody else. If I'm really as bad as you think I am, an uninvolved editor is perfectly capable of dealing with it without your help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Once again I have to defend myself. I did not say it like that. what I said and still stand by was he was acting like someone on drugs with all of his paranoia. Relentless unsupported accusation of being a sock or meat or part of some made up conspiracy against him. And with every thing written seen by all I don't even see that as possible. And that statement pales in comparison of the things mr bratland said of me. And ches with your statement just another attack on others and to speak as if mr bratland never did anything wrong. It is obvious you are bias and hold a grudge towards me for bringing up your age and that you are not a admin. But you were closing notice board discussion as if you were. And with your statements there it was obvious you were bias towards mr bratland. And with mr bratlands interest as far as motorcycles the same as mine. I also do not feel it is fair first come first serve. And for how long? I live a active life and have limited time to come edit. Mr bratland appears to have no other commitments in his life as it seem he is here 24 7. I really feel as a new editor I am being pushed out. I would invite you to read this. 72bikers (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You folks who are under the radar here, aren't heeding my advice. Recommend ya'll stop bickering & move on. Trust me, I know what I'm posting about. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support pox Drama like this can not exist without help from all sides. If we cared enough about incivility to nip things like this in the bud, fine, but we do not - posibly for good reason. No editor is essential to Wikipedia, the disruption must stop, and the other option is to ban them all, which would be a loss just less of one than continuing disruption. It also has the benefit of 'reseting' all past matters - no need to dig into the past mess. If any of them can not abide by the IBAN, or try to game it, then long blocks would be in order. Jbh^Talk 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I saw this thread opening last night and immediately suffered a Facepalm of the "oh Jimbo here we go again" variety. This keeps turning up like a bad penny and you'd think by this point somebody would have noticed it never gets anywhere, but apparently that hasn't sunk in, so it's time for that message to be applied with the Cluehammer 40K. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• User:Dennis Bratland, User:Skyring, User:Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers, and User:Zachlita, kindly refrain from discussing each other and each other's edits in this thread; I really don't mind getting an advance on friend Floquenbeam's proposal and block for interaction violations already. Y'all are at the point where every interaction between you is disruptive. Pete, I've known you long enough to know that you are reasonable enough to understand that something is going to happen, and that the best way forward is to not press the matter by making more counter charges. I hope the others have as much sense. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And I've known you long enough to appreciate your practical advice. Righto. I'll start now. *zips lip* --Pete (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Guy. BMK (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's proposal. Group A should leave Dennis Bratland entirely alone (and vice versa), and all concerned should focus on improving the encyclopedia while studiously ignoring each other. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support' Anyone in doubt can witness the WP:BATTLEGROUND at the MOS thread on winningest. That Dennis Bratland himself is endorsing this is all that really needs to be said.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support The nuke it from orbit approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again

For the past couple of days editor Second Skin has repeatedly removed valid well sourced genres from the Babymetal article (here, here, here and here). Apparently he doesn't agree with Babymetal being part of the "metal" and "idol" genres. He then proceeds to add his own personal unsourced idea of what the genre should be (here). He offers no explanation for his removal, neither does he present any references to back up his edits. It must be noted that before editor Second Skin changed the genres, there were two IP editors who changed the genre with the exact edits as Second Skin (here, here, here and here). Editor Second Skin doesn't discuss this issue on the talk page of the said article, he seems content with repeatedly removing the "metal" and "idol" genres from the Babymetal article.
Please note that this is not a content dispute. This is an issue of a genre warrior removing well sourced genres from a musical band article, and adding his own preferred unsourced genres into the band article. Taking a brief look at editor Second Skins recent and past contributions, it is clear that his main mission on Wikipedia is to push his preferred genre versions into band and artist articles. The majority of all of his edits are about adding or removing genres.
Additional info: The majority of reliable sources place the group Babymetal into the "metal", "jpop" and "idol" genres, and these sources are placed into the article via inline citations (see here for more info). Repeated removal of these genres and the sources and replacing them with new unsourced genres constitutes vandalism. Could an admin please take a look at this issue? Thank you. 93.133.44.143 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. A band with one album has a 50k article, and a template with dozens of somehow related articles. Can someone spell J-POP? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Well, the sourcing, as in all those J-pop related articles, is atrocious. Second Skin's edits don't strike me as very unproblematic given the mixture of fan sites and portals and commercial sites masquerading as journalism which is so typical of the industry. One wonders who IP 93.133.44.143 is, and what their relation is to the plenitude of one-off accounts and IPs found in that article's history. They sure are capable for someone who just walked in today. For the specifics of this genre discussion, which is incredibly exciting of course, I'll just ping NinjaRobotPirate and my old friend Moscow Connection, who have alrady weighed in on the talk page. Mind you, this discussion here is about the editor, not about the genre. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, some of the sourcing is a bit weak, and the article isn't that great... but when I find a band article that isn't sourced to Discogs and Encyclopaedia Metallum, I often consider that good enough nowadays. Second Skin's behavior influenced me to be a bit biased toward the IP editor's POV. This includes dismissive edit summaries ("lol how is that a 'genre'?", "LOLOLOLOL NO", "Lol. Try again") and apparent ownership issues ("leave this alone or your edit will be reverted"). Apparently, SS does provide a source when forced, but I think the IP editor has a point. "How is that a genre?" strikes me as enforcing his own opinions on the article. I don't know for sure if "idol" is a genre. And, honestly, I don't think I care enough to do more than post a message to the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point about the edit summaries, NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first off I don't understand what the hell labeling myself a "genre warrior" has anything even slight concerning the edits I was making to the article. Removing Japanese idol (something not even clearly perpetuated as a "music genre" reading the page) is not vandalizing the article and DEFINITELY not a representation of me "not agreeing that they're 'not a part of idol'" or whatever. The amount of hostility I'm receiving from just removing things like that and the fact that you've even chose to take it to administrator's noticeboard (something I doubt they'd even care for) if beyond absurd. The group seems more recognized as a pop group after what I've seen in the sources (although I couldn't care less what you call them. I don't listen to the group and don't care either). Not seeing how this pertains to being a "genre warrior" but ok. My acts of editing is more to the liking of changing them to a pop group (which in my opinion is way more accurate than a metal band) is not the act of a "genre warrior" butrather not giving a fuck especially after examining what the press and other observing reports has called the group. In the grand scheme of things though, I honestly just don't care enough and it's ridiculous that it was even taken this far. Have your stupid article for your stupid J-pop group. It doesn't concern me. And to the IP address that wants to talk trash on my edits trying to say that "all I do is edit to change genres", how about taking a look at the Decomposing Normality article I practically put together earlier this week - or perhaps taking a peep at the article for Visceral Disgorge I put heavy work into as well not too long ago either? Here's a grand idea I have for the IP address that wanted to cause all this drama because of his favorite pop band: Stop talking shit and stop leaving bullshit templates on my talk page. See ya 🖕🏻Second Skin (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The usage of vulgarities and expletives is not a good idea not only here in Wikipedia but in life in general. By the way, am I the only one who notices that editor Second Skin used a highly unacceptable vulgar expression in this edit summary after Administrator Drmies issued out an admonition on Second Skin's talk page? 77.4.144.255 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Couldnt give a fuck less what is a "good idea" or not honestly. And also that wasn't to Drmies who I was telling to fuck off but rather the IP address who constantly is leaving me these "please stop your vandalism" templates which should be justified for an obvious reason by me or anyone else who has been a user for a couple years on this site would be annoyed by. - Second Skin (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Drmies admonished you, Second Skin, about your unacceptable edit summaries. You were informed that such edit summaries will get you blocked. You responded by using an unacceptable vulgar insult in your edit summary. Your insults and vulgarities are in violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct behavioral guideline. It does not matter whether you directed your unacceptable vulgar insult against an administrator or against an editor. Bottom line is that you have done it after an administrator warned you against exactly such behaviour. You can try to talk your way out of it as much as you want, you have nonetheless created the impression that you probably told a Wikipedia administrator to "f** off". You might want to kindly take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's principles of etiquette. Thank you. 77.4.144.255 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off - Second Skin (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• IPs, please don't cite me by name unless your name is known as well, and please don't adopt this patronizing tone with someone who had the courtesy of signing in; we do observe some rules of decorum here. Second Skin, on this beautiful collaborative project, you really need to observe the rules of decorum. No one is going to block you for saying "fuck off", though some of that remark flew in my direction. You have a point to make, make it without insulting editors even if they are wrong or tirritating. I have no beef with you or anyone else over this metal/idol thing, but you need to argue your point in an adult manner, on the talk page. Or you can just walk away from the article, either way. I'd rather have you in and on the article, personally. Finally, IP, I'm not much of a prescriptive grammarian and I will not criticize you for what some call "splitting the infinitive", but in some circles it is frowned upon. This is just FYI; I want to see you succeed. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of your respect, I'll follow that. You're the only one here showing any clear amount of respect for me rather these unnamed IP editors are just pointing fingers of shame at me for any sort of contribution I have made to this website and all of my favorite bands that have articles on it (Babymetal definitely is not one of them). Second Skin (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. But, I have to say, I have not looked into the matter of sourcing, of what genres are verified and etc. I think I said before that in this field the sourcing is usually terrible anyway, and usually echoes what SM Entertainment or whoever runs the artist says. And have you checked out Ladybaby? Much better, and they can dance like nobody's business. I think Keilana or Kelapstick turned me on to them. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor uses foul and vulgar language in his edit summaries and in an Administrator's board and no action is taken against it by an administrator? So, according to Admin Drmies, noone is going to block an editor who repeatedly writes vulgarities not only in his edit summaries but also here in an Admininistrator's board after an administrator warned the same editor not to repeat such behavior? Do other administrators agree with this? According to WP:ACCOUNT, Wikipedia is for both IP editors and registered editors. I do not need an account in order to participate in Wikipedia. It appears as if IP editors are being discriminated against, e.g. if the vulgar language was thrown at a registered account, the offending editor would be blocked, but since it's just an IP editor no action will be taken? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Wikipedia there is no single policy or guideline that requires anyone to have a registered Wikiepdia account in order to participate in Wikipedia. The issue here is not me as an IP editor, it is editor Second Skin who repeatedly has used unacceptable foul language in his edit summaries and also right here in this discussion. Since no action is taken against editor Second Skin, I have no other option than to bring this issue to the attention of other administators. Why do we have WP:CIVIL if its guidelines are not enforced? 77.4.144.255 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this report about genre warring or is it about civility? SS was warned about their language and said they'll stop, so that should be enough. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that input, Clpo13. Since 2 admins have now agreed on this issue, that's good enough for me. 77.4.144.255 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer blatant violation of WP:NPA

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

---

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

This diff shows the editor "Bad Dryer" asserting "I realize that Nishandi [sic -- refers to Nishidani] takes a more favorable view of man-child sex than society on a whole does". This is a personal attack well beyond the pale of what our policies allow for talk-page participation. There is a longer history here regarding this editor's "contribution" to editing in the Israel/Palestine topic area (the block log contains the phrase "racially tinged button pushing"), and I think we need to part ways. I'd propose an indefinite block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see personal attacks in the diff.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I edit-conflicted with you, with gave me another moment to reflect, but I haven't changed my mind: the attack is about the worst example of a failure of AGF, and its charge of pedophilia is only thinly veiled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  I am fine, English is not my mothertongue anyway, and there could be some details which I do not feel well enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait--I had to read the posting twice. The attack, as far as I'm concerned, isn't in the sentence cited above, but rather in the suggestion that the two concerned editors are writing "a promotional brochure for NAMBLA". I am going to block indefinitely for this, and welcome discussion here. I'm going offline for a while: any admin who feels this is too strong is welcome to overrule me, always, and perhaps Bad Dryer has words to offer which can mitigate the situation. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Admins should note Bad Dryer is Brad Dyer, the contentious editor who faced off with Malik Shabazz leading to an infamous ArbCom case not too long ago. They were indef'd during that case, and I'm frankly amazed that was ever lifted, given the behaviour that led to it which they seem to be repeating here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy started this insinuation on the 25th 'Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?'

I ignored this because for several years he has engaged in personal attacks, apparently because he is convinced I am an anti-Semite. He has to deal with that obsessive conviction, I ignore it. Nonetheless, now the personal attack is getting out of hand, with innuendos my editing reveals a lenient attitude towards homosexual statutory rape. Still, he only made that sassy crack once, and I dislike litigation. I did think it important for the BLP article to make clear in the lead a clear distinction between rape and statutory rape, and this was continually messed with by Bad Dryer and several other editors, on political smearing grounds, as far as I understand. So

I opened a discussion on Alex Massie’s article on the affair at The Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the distinction is made, and the clear political intent to blur it and discredit a person is outlined. This by no means can be translated into either Massie or my approving of underage sex.

It's not enough that 3 days later, Bad Dryer against recycled the insinuation:I realize that Nishandi and Massie take a more favorable view of man-child sex than society on a whole does, but as was explained to him on the talk page, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a promotional brochure for NAMBLA.

After he was indeffed for this typical insult, NMMGG immediately came back to the attack. He just addressed me with the identical insult you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

He's allowed his obsession to get the better of him once more, and should be suspended. The offensive insinuation is exactly the one that Bad Dryer used, he coined it, and with impunity repeats it after the latter was indeffed, refusing to take even that hint to drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing started when Nishidani, in article space, placed the word victim in quotes, when referring to a minor which was involved in a statutory rape case against the subject of the article. Not a single source put that words in quotes. He then continued to defend this position.

For the record, I didn't know Bad Dryer was indeffed, I only learned about this discussion from the ping in the post above mine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You say I 'repeatedly' tried to justify sex with a minor. There is no evidence for this absurd claim. Both Nawi's case and the parallel case I cite of upwards of 20 soldiers abusing a 12/13 year old Israeli girl are appalling. The scarce Israeli reports on the latter never use the word 'victim' of the girl (though she was). That is why I left the word in inverted commas, was overruled and left it at that. All I get for a rational consideration is personal abuse from two of you, and insinuations about being a propagandist for an organization I'd never heard of. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are the relevant discussions [106] [107]. I will leave it to other editors to decide if you "left" the word in inverted commas (you put it there in the first place) because of some unrelated statutory rape case you brought up no less than 5 days later, or because you explicitly said the minor was not a victim, complete with the phrase "ostensible victim" and a dictionary definition of "victim" which you said does not apply to this 15 year old (see my link above). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Shifting the goalposts. I nowhere violate my own convictions by endorsing, justifying or promoting sexual relations with minors. I everywhere note the incongruencies of editors and sources that fail to treat the same facts with the same criteria in the I/P conflict. Your case against me as an anti-Semite flopped, and it is time administrators put an end to the new insinuation you began in my regard, by reading into my edits about Nawi some defense of what he did, as paedophilic propaganda, as opposed to getting the historical details correct. You've been around long enough to know this is unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty messed up. It's starting to look like Nishandi is a POV-pusher.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No it's not, and it's irrelevant, and you are? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I was earlier mentioned by name with this user on another board [[108]] simply because I happened to be on the same side of the argument on this particular article, and I am absolutely compelled to write here to distance myself 100% from the actions and speech of Bad Dryer, as I find what he wrote in this instance reprehensible...but absolutely not atypical for his style. I believe most Wikipedia editors who have commented/edited on any article which has anything remotely to do with a Jewish figure will have come across Bad Dryer at some point, and as shown, quickly labeled an anti-semite (among other epithets) whenever there is a difference of opinion to his. I personally have a thick skin and don't believe editors should whine and go running to the boards every time they get their "feelings hurt", but hat is worrisome here is that his comments and behavior often appear to be "unbalanced" and cross a line where normal empathetic humans simply do not (i.e. racially-tinged taunts or insinuating someone's support for pedophilia in this case). For some reason known only to him, one day I saw this oddly-worded threat on my page[[109]]:

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

Just saying. Or maybe not.

Watch it. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For these reasons and those outlined above, I am seriously hoping this user is blocked indefinitely, although I am fairly certain he has at least one (probably several) established sock-puppets, not including random IP entries. I am also confident this user will be back despite the block, but I believe an indefinite block is necessary to show other editors this type of behavior is both unproductive and absolutely not the "standard" one should hope for when joining/editing Wikipedia.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Boyconga278 and competence

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

---

Editor reported

• Boyconga278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The reason for this report is the lack of WP:COMPETENCE for Boyconga278. This concerned has been expressed by multiple users. And I will take some step-by-step incidents.

1. First he accused me of vandalism and gave me a level 3 warning (no warning in the past so why level 3 I have no idea) on 23 June 2015 (See User talk:Qed237/Archive 15#2015 FIFA Women's World Cup at 23 June 2015). When I asked him why, he never answered despite other editors joining that discussion questioning Boyconga and I left him a talkback template at his talkpage.
2. He has also been questioned by admin, at User talk:Boyconga278#Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table etc after some incorrect CSD tagging when saying that the creator wanted templates deleted although he did not and the templates were at TfD.
3. After that he nominated templates for deletion without motivation (diff).
4. He accused an other experienced editor for vandalism when the editor had created an article (diff) and being warned again not to do so at User talk:Boyconga278#Reverting my edits on 2019 Southeast Asian Games
5. Once again he accused an editor for vandalism (diff) when the edit was well explained and not vandalism.
6. In August I tried to get some responses (see User talk:Boyconga278#re: August 2015) as to why he keeps saying everything he dont like is vandalism, but the response I got was I think you did bad and terribly laugh. You maybe too crazy heavy and it is clear that he does not have competence to communicate.
7. Then in User talk:Boyconga278#Your protection requests an other admin for the lack of knowledge in protection guidelines after making some weird requests.
8. A new vandalism accusation came and response can be seen at User talk:Boyconga278#Hello and this time User:Kante4 said You have no clue what you are doing here, no competence at all. Maybe a ANI would be needed and/or a block.
9. And finally, edit warring today and accusing the other editor of vandalism and reports to AN3, which led to page protection.

This editor lacks in WP:COMPETENCE and keeps on making disruptive edits and accuse otheres of vandalism, while not being able to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. His level of english is not good enough to contribute here. He says that every edit he does not like is vandalism, so yeah, he is missing the required competence. Kante4 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion. I was hoping the protection would encourage him to engage, but I don't see that has happened. I'm going to leave a note on his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there would be too many objections if you had just dropped the indef off the bat. There language competence is subpar. Blackmane (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so either, the garbled syntax in the message they left on my talkpage was impressive. Still, I'm giving them a chance to reply. If they start up with the vandalism schtick again or start edit-warring any admin can indef as far as I'm concerned. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: It looks like User:Boyconga278 will not reply (as usual the lack of discussion is shown). The editor hass edited more today without discussion. Qed237 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: And now I saw he was blocked, so this can be archieved. Qed237 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Other biographical articles covered by GMO sanctions?

I'd like to know if certain biographical articles should be included in the 1RR/DS per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms: all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. For example Yvette d'Entremont, who is known for her GMO advocacy (which is mentioned in the lead section of the article). Other involved biographical subjects, such as Kevin Folta and Gilles-Éric Séralini, have the editnotices on their pages. I'm sure there are some other articles that should have the {{ARBGMO_talk_notice}}, et al, but this is the only one that has come to my attention recently, and I'm not sure what to do about it other than call on the assistance of an administrator.  Adrian^[232] 23:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think it's reasonable to consider that the scope is "broadly applied". Admins have limited ability to answer your question, but the ideal place to ask is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think more of what I am trying to say is, if it's obvious that the page is included, then the templates would need to be added to the editnotices there, and those are locked to admins. It seems obvious to me, but I have zero experience in these matters.  Adrian^[232] 00:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Anyone under the GMO topic ban who is editing the Science babe article is actively courting a block. It is obviously in scope. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yvette d'Entremont? Oh, yes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the page is clearly within scope. Any editor can place

{{ARBGMO talk notice|style=long}}

at the top of the talk page, and that is good enough to get started. My experience is that, once one does that, a template editor will come along and upgrade it to an edit notice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this decision is up to you all; I have been requesting clarification of this very issue from the Arbs and hope to receive it soon. To me some BLPs are obviously those of advocates, but the Arbs may not agree. There are probably some parameters we can use to make these determinations. petrarchan47คุก 00:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Until an arb says they aren't, they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well SageRad has declared Yvette d'Entremonts article biased, so no doubt they will be along soon to "improve" it. Shame their topic ban is not for all GMO related topics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• According to the lead section of the page: "She also works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement." (Bold font added by me.) There is no question about it. This page falls within the topic area of genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. As Bushranger said, that's what it is until an Arb says otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thrasher1988

• Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
• Thrasher1988 – On User talk:Myxomatosis57:. User harassment. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You are in a content dispute. This page (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism) is for vandalism. You are looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Curro2 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: @Curro2: I would personally block the user. There have been many genre trolls on Wikipedia that abuse the articles/pages. Also this user used profane language that was durrogative towards another editor/user. That should not need a previous warning in the first place... Astral Heat (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

His/her edits, while egregiously uncivil, are not vandalism and therefore should not be reported here. This entire conversation should be moved to WP:ANI. Curro2 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. Also, this. GAB^Hello! 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note that Thrasher1998 was not notified of this disucssion as the big orange box at the top of the edit window instructs; I have done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

See this edit. Leaving ANI notice now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

They used that word, I do not think it means what they think it means. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What a mess. I think I've cleaned up everything. I blocked the IP, two sock accounts, deleted the bad-faith and malformed AFD page, and semiprotected the target article for a week. I'm off to bed, if anything else turns up, let us know here, and hopefully, another admin will take care of it. --Jayron32 07:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Jayron32, and goodnight. Sweet dreams. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't have pinged you--did I wake you up? I didn't mean to... Drmies (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The same person tried this back in 2013. Also see User:ACE1234. Someone really wants to make sure we use a very specific title for a local politician who died in 1950. The Moose is loose! 10:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC) _{"Intellectual property" also definitely doesn't mean what they think it means, Bushranger.} The Moose is loose! 10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably this person wants to use the pagename Edward Jeffries for the actor [110], and thinks that the best approach is to move the current occupant to a different page. The approach adopted is clumsy and foolish, but not incomprehensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Independently of this ANI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red~Adman happened. User:ACE1234 was blocked for socks back in 2013, along with a few Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ACE1234. Should they go into the Red~Adman SPI, and it be renamed for ACS1234 as the master? Should the IP whose action led to this ANI be added there as well? DMacks (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See also the SPAfest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Director Edward Jeffries. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

LeoRomero

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

---

I just blocked LeoRomero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for trolling Jimbo's talk page and making gratuitous personal attacks. However this behaviour seems somewhat out of character, based on a sample of recent contributions, and I'm concerned the account may be compromised. Any thoughts? BethNaught (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This unblock request adds to the suspicion that the account is compromised. Should be blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I reblocked them indef--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

AndrewOne edits to Shoah (film)

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

---

AndrewOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been playing this silly game for some time, so when I called him up on it, he became indignant and began calling me names. He put a preposterous claim wrote in the lead of Shoah (film), which is on my watchlist, that Shoah has since come to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, ranking highly in various critics' polls. – His claim contained a lie, because there was no "various polls" in his edit, only one poll from www.bfi.org.uk webpage which AndrewOne has been adding repeatedly to a number of Wikipedia articles this month. See the samples: [111], [112], [113], [114]. The source looks like a blog. The repeat addition of this link to many articles make AndrewOne look like a spokesman for www.bfi.org.uk but he denies the connection. Nevertheless, his edit was a glaring WP:REDFLAG. The revert war followed. Please proceed at your own peril! The link added by AndrewOne contains a virus that will force-open a black pop up window on your monitor that cannot be removed without reboot. If you don't mind that, here it is: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magazine/greatest-docs

diffs

1. 21:06, 29 January 2016:‎ original redflag claim from AndrewOne attributed to www.bfi.org.uk
2. 23:57, 29 January 2016:‎ AndrewOne reverting back
3. 03:03, 30 January 2016‎: AndrewOne changed the link to a virus from www.bfi.org.uk
4. 05:57, 30 January 2016‎: AndrewOne re-added the same virus in a blanket revert

Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no virus on that page. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this all about. The British Film Institute is a reliable source, Sight & Sound is a reliable source, and these rankings should be reported in the article. The wording used is sub-optimal and is a bit peacock-ish, but that can fixed through normal editing. I would suggest you take this up with WikiProject Film if you have concerns, but they're just going to tell you what I told you. This stuff about a COI/virus/etc is over-the-top. Just fix the peacock wording and move on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what to call this link: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magazine/greatest-docs. It is not a link to Sight & Sound poll, but an info page. The link opened a black pop-up on my screen. I had to reboot to remove it. Poeticbent talk 16:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no virus on that webpage. No malware. No black pop up. Only you are seeing this. Only you have malware. You need to fix this yourself. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) That link works just fine for me and doesn't cause any odd effects, nor does it trip anything as far as security. It's a genuine link to BFI, and I strongly doubt they'd push crapware. Something very likely happened with your own machine (or you have malware on your machine; I'd certainly advise you check), but there's nothing malicious at that link. The rest is a content dispute; handle it as such. Dispute resolution is thataway if needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I see it now. The black pop-up came from the predetermined http://player.bfi.org.uk/ featured on that webpage. I have my own player though. No malware, just the apparent incompatibility of differing software. Anyhow, the poll is a joke. It includes 68 votes from quote-unquote members who listed this film as number 29 in their "Critics" poll, and number 48 in their "Directors" poll. Not exactly the greatest film ever made by "various polls". Poeticbent talk 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow. I would like to take you advice NinjaRobotPirate and fix the peacock wording by quoting this conversation as binding. I hope its OK. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has told you that you weren't seeing malware on the BFI website and that this is not the place for a content dispute; it's not come to any "binding" conclusion. If you do take the content dispute elsewhere, do be clear what you're disputing. You write above "Not exactly the greatest film ever made" but in your original posting quoted and took issue with "regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, ranking highly in various critics' polls" (my emphasis) and Shoah is indeed ranked highly, at least in various British Film Institute polls. NebY (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the heading of this thread because it was an honest mistake on my part. However, one poll is a one poll, and any other polls would have to be referenced separately. Therefore this is a WP:NOR issue, and I think that it can be addressed as such in mainspace. Poeticbent talk 17:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nor is it acceptable to accuse another editor of including a lie in an edit. This is an accusation of deliberate deceit, and shows an appalling lack of good faith. I advise you to strike out that claim from your post. RolandR (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Misleading would be a better word of course, but you RolandR could also chill out a bit, Poeticbent talk 17:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly chilled (and drinking a perfectly chilled Sauvignon). What difference does that make to a personal attack? RolandR (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you also like to strike out the fourth of your "sample" diffs above, which makes no reference to the BFI? NebY (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have that issue of Sight & Sound and it's quite an indeepth feature on documentary films, with plenty of coverage on Shoah. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I was the person who made these inexplicably contentious edits.

Anyone who is particularly interested in this dispute can see Talk:Shoah (film)#Sight & Sound poll cited in the lead paragraph. I have no affiliation with the British Film Institute. I add citations to their polls simply because the Sight & Sound polls are widely known among art-house and classic film circles, and because I am of these circles. For example, I added that various critics had voted for Mikio Naruse's film Floating Clouds (1955) in order to add relevant content to an article section which centered on reception and/or acclaim. I believe it is especially advisable to cite professional polls in the event that few written reviews are available, because polls are at the very least a way of determining present-day reception toward a work, which no Wikipedia film page will ever be hurt by including.

Now, needless to say, I'm not a fan of Poeticbent's conduct here. It appears that various parts of the user's original complaint have now been struck out, hinting at repeated fabrication on his part. I did not "call him names" on the talk page for the film, nor did I become "indignant." His assertion here that the polls are "a joke" shows once again that he is making no effort to truly read my responses, or apparently those of NinjaRobotPirate. Following his reversions, I posted on the film's talk page that I had assumed good faith, explaining why his rejection of the Sight & Sound polls' reliability had been in error. There were several reversions of his removals (some of which changed the wording) – but this was not done impolitely or left unexplained.

As it is now, the lead section for Shoah now informs readers that the film is regarded as one of the "greatest documentaries ever made" – and since I linked to a professional critics' poll of the greatest documentaries in which Shoah was ranked second, the truth of this statement is beyond dispute. Even to say that it is regarded as "one of the greatest" films ever made shouldn't incite all that much controversy, but it can be debated if one wants. To see more of my explanations and writing on these matters, you can once again visit the talk page for the film. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• So why is it, that the scathing criticism is attributed to Polish and American critics, who happen to have written about it at length, but the poll (which does not require the same effort) is not being identified as British in the lede? – The article has a long history of being the target of vandalism. All criticism was being removed as far as 2013 with abusive edit summaries (122.105.145.163). No wonder I got nervous. However, since I already admitted to making a mistake this time, there's no need to rub it in. If you really want to be fair, why don't you mention in the lede that the poll was British. Would you have a problem with that? Poeticbent talk 20:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

79.78.168.63

The IP 79.78.168.63 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account, who keeps edit warring and endlessly arguing about a cause which two experienced editors disagree with him about. Pages he visits: only Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays and Hebrew calendar. Unsubstantiated concern has been voiced that he is a sock.[115] I would like to ask for recommendations or help in dealing with this editor. Simply blocking him is the easy way out, but I am not sure if we can take that way, since his behavior is annoying, but not a violation of any strict policy, because he edit wars without violating 3RR. Unless he would be a sock, of which I am not sure. I have warned him in the past,[116] but apparently to no effect. Your ideas, please. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have left an edit warring note on the users page. Note that one can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't break 3RR. HighInBC 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Laceytown High School

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

---

This is interesting. This article was prodded last night and by all outward apperences, it appeared legit, so I reverted the prod. Upon further investigstion, the school's street address is a shopping mall, the phone number is a text only cell, and this is where it gets interesting, a Google image search turned up the photo on the article as photos of two different schools in Alabama. (here). Not looking for blocks or anything (perhaps someone could handle the CSD tho) n just leaving this here in case someone with more time than I wants to check it out. Somebody sure went to a lot of trouble for a scam. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuke the article (I've blanked it as a hoax) and indef the creator, User:Laceytownhigh. BMK (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Already idef'd in November. BMK (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

..for the username only. It's generally not a good idea to speedy suspected hoaxes because they're so easy to get wrong, and really benefit from wider scrutiny. Here we have at least four editors agreeing, including myself and the IP user who spotted it, so I've deleted it. Other users are free to conduct further checks for themselves. This would not be the first hoax school to be deleted, but probably the first one with a website, a sports team, and an active twitter feed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

The UAE troll is back again, new range block and page-protections needed

The troll operating from dynamic IPs in the UAE and who repeatedly targets both myself and other users is back again. For previous discussions leading to extensive range blocks, see ANI discussion in January ANI discussion in November]. The same trade marks, using different UAE IPs and going after my edits, calling me a troll etc. [117], [118], [119], [120]. As we've seen both in November and January, the only thing that works tends to be semi-protection of the articles this troll targets and range blocks of the ranges he uses. @Diannaa:, it appears that his preferred range this time is 5.107.XXX. Would be good if somebody could semi-protect Punjab, Pakistan as well. The troll has been duplication a section that already exists in the article, severely misrepresented sources and messed with tags, all of it pretty "standard" vandalism. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, has an SPI been created for this editor? I'm not sure which IP they used the most, so I can't search their archives. There should be a page somewhere where the relevant IP numbers are kept track of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked 5.107.13.237 and 5.107.7.39. (The range seemed a bit too big and busy to block.) The way these IPs have edited User talk:Gerua18, removing warnings and attacking you, Jeppiz, is interesting.[121] I'm thinking of blocking Gerua18 per WP:DUCK, especially considering they're disruptive anyway. Do you think it's all the same person, Jeppiz? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, I don't think it's Gerua18. My impression is that Gerua18 is a new and infrequent user with an interest in the Punjab region. Perhaps with a bit of a POV, but no other problem. The IP in the UAE is more a typical troll. He (trolls are usually males) does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great) but several users already in November pointed out that this seems more done to troll, not any genuine Muslim conviction. It could be somebody genuinely hating "Christianity" (broadly construed) but it could just as likely be a troll trying to give Muslims a bad name. The very repeated attacks on DeCausa ([122]), myself ([123]) and others seem more indicative of a troll, perhaps a blocked user with whom we interacted some time in the past. If we could do something more than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks, it would of course be good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, indeed it would be good, but Wikipedia is not set up to stop trolls. That's putting it mildly. I hope @Diannaa: takes a look, she's better with ranges and similar. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

I did have a quick look when I was pinged, but since there's been no activity on Punjab, Pakistan since 16:09, I did not see the matter as urgent (and he likely has already left this range). The range is 5.107.0.0/17, which is busy, with 80 edits in the last 10 days, most of which are not from this guy. But I see this is the same range as was harrassing a user at Talk:Mia Khalifa yesterday. We don't actually have any weapons other than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Liz, Bishonen and Diannaa. I originally had no idea who the sockmaster is, but Diannaa's comment above makes it almost a WP:DUCK that it is Xtremedood. What do we know about the troll in the UAE? That he is harassing users at Mia Khalifa, at articles related to Punjab, at articles related to Christianity and at articles related to Islam, as can be seen from this and previous ANI discussions about the troll. And what do know of Xtremedood? That he's an active puppet master [124] with an interest in Mia Khalifa [125], [126], in Punjab [127], [128], in Christianity [129], [130] and in Islam [131], [132]. We know the UAE troll goes after me, and I've disagreed with Xtremedood about Islam. Diannaa tells us the troll goes after Jobas and Jobas has disagreed with Xtremedood after Mia Khalifa. So we have a know sock-master, Xtremedood, with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me, and we have an active IP troll with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me. I don't think WP:DUCK gets any duckier than that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP in the UAE used to edit and to have account's in Arabic wikipedia and Wikimedia commons, (where he used to upload Anti christian files as here). He as user Jeppiz said does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great). He used to targeting articles related to Christianity in the Arabic Wikipdia (as insulting, trying to force false information, comments hostile to Christians) where he was blocked for vandalism the Christian articles and and having more than 53 sockpuppeteers, After blcoking him in the Arabic Wikipida he began to targeting our personal talk pages (From his UAE IP) - This was in 2014-. So we had in Arabic Wikipedia trageting form the UAE IP toll.

He also was editing befor blocking him for vandalim and sock puppet in these acount or what used to called anti cross 25 and here, as we found in the arabic wikipeida was related to the UAE IP.

I feel uncertain about the relation between this IP and user:Xtremedood, for his sudden appearance and for his strong defense to the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood and had after i had disagreed with him in Mia Kahlifa artcile, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, which is the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood and torolling after me after having issue with user.--Jobas (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A list of the UAE troll's IPs during the last months

@Liz, Bishonen, Diannaa, Jobas, Bbb23, Ponyo, Cliftonian, Harrias, Elockid, Drmies and DeCausa, I ping you as you've been involved in this matter either as victims or admins during the past months. Liz, I'm not very good at SPIs but I put together this list of IPs Xtremedood has used to troll Wikipedia in the last nine months. I'm sure there are others, but these are all obvious ones. After Diannaa's post, I don't think anyone doubts it's Xtremedood who's the puppet master behind all these troll IPs. Jobas already told us about Xtremedood's similar behavior at Arabic Wikipedia. Then we have the trolls' and Xtremedood's shared interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity (to insult), Islam (to extoll) (see diffs in the post above). Four topics so random that the combination can hardly be a coincidence. If further evidence was still needed, these IP trolls have targeted in particular DeCausa, Jobas and myself (and perhaps others I don't know of), and if the shared interests between Xtremedood and the troll IPs weren't enough, then there's the fact that Xtremedood is probably the only user who has locked horns with all main "victims" of the troll IPs not only at articles but at our talk pages as well. Here's is a non-exhaustive list of the troll IPs, I hope someone can move this matter forward.

List of IPs

103.10.199.149 103.9.77.106 104.236.132.30 129.232.129.157 153.207.109.188 176.204.171.201 176.204.179.35 176.204.181.45 176.204.186.17 176.204.25.226 176.204.27.80 176.204.38.78 176.204.42.122 176.204.44.189 176.204.45.69 176.204.48.40 176.204.60.56 176.204.60.82 178.159.10.78 178.73.210.178 185.65.206.157 189.196.129.102 192.71.213.26 2.48.131.211 2.48.32.105 2.48.45.231 2.48.52.205 2.48.58.235 200.122.128.152 200.73.20.100 200.80.48.34 206.191.148.66 2606:2E00:0:50:EC4:7AFF:FE55:69DE 2A00:1D70:ED15:151:236:23:165:1 2A03:F80:44:37:235:55:44:1 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:161:1 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:75:1 31.218.179.2 31.218.181.117 31.219.124.159 31.219.97.154 45.56.155.8 5.107.112.47 5.107.13.237 5.107.7.39 5.107.72.200 69.65.15.114 77.247.180.147 85.9.20.155 86.96.39.39 91.233.116.79 94.58.137.75 95.153.32.3

Jeppiz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia, this IP creates hundreds of IP and account's. Is there a solution to stop this toll, Because the solution to blocking him, according to my opinion it is useless. He will come back and continue to the same vandalism.--Jobas (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please help judging whether the proposed deletion of article Dew computing is fair

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

---

Dear Administrator:

I am sorry to bother you. Please help to check what have happened upon the article Dew computing.

From Jan. 11 to 26, 2016, I edited an article Dew computing to a new version. On Jan. 26, an editor (Mys 721tx) reverted my editing to a previous version, and commented 'spam'. Another editor immediately undid the reverting and commented 'It doesn't seem like spam to me. Good faith edit.' The first editor reverted it back again and the comment was 'Conflit of Interest. He cites himself in most parts.' I asked questions and discussed with related editors, and it turned out that the problem was my ID: Ywangupeica. It showed that I am the author of some papers I cited.

On Jan. 28, I explained my understanding about the COI issue in the talk page Talk:Dew computing, and in this page I also expressed that I think the 'spam' comment 'is not accurate and it is insulting'. Maybe I offended him in this post. Only 2 hours 47 minutes after I posted the above message in the talk page, this editor nominated deletion for this article with a comment "Not notable, with questionable minor journal as sources".

Here I explain my points related to the notability issue:

1. I understand that notability is an important requirement in Wikipedia. Last year, I submitted an article with the same title, and it was rejected because of notability reason. This year, an article written by someone else with more sources was submitted and accepted. Actually, the same editor who rejected my last year's submission accepted this year's submission. I think notability criteria have been carefully applied to this article.

2. The sources are not minor at all. Inderscience Publishers is listed in Wikipedia, it is "an academic publisher that publishes peer-reviewed journal". Beall list does not have Inderscience Publishers. Their review was pretty tough. It took them 13 months to accept one of my papers. "RonPub" was listed in Beall's list in 2014, and it was removed from the list in 2015. These facts show they are reputable academic journals.

3. Since the article was accepted, 5 editors have done some editing to this article before 'Mys 721tx' touched it. Because notability is an essential requirement, all these editors would already have evaluated notability when they read the article for the first time. The fact that they did not conclude this article was not notable clearly shows that they believe it is notable.

4. Even 'Mys 721tx' himself believed this article was notable at the beginning. On Jan. 26, he proposed to delete my other three pages (Cloud-dew architecture and the Chinese translations for Dew computing and Cloud-dew architecture) and reverted Dew computing to its earlier version at the same time. He applied his standard of notability to all the 4 articles, and decided that the other three were not notable, but Dew computing was notable. He decided to revert it to its previous version.

5. 'Mys 721tx' changed his mind about this article's notability at 22:38, 28 January 2016‎, 2 hours 47 minutes after I posted a message expressing my opinion on his reverting decision. I guess some of my writing in my post made him not happy. My message triggered his deletion decision.

To summarize, the notability issue does not exist at all. It was taken as a measure to deal with the dispute about reverting.

I read the policy regarding deletion, and in the following situations, 'speedy keep' could be taken by an administrator.

"Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course." "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (this includes editor harassment)." (see Wikipedia:Deletion process)

Could you please check what have happened and make decisions at your discretion?

Thank you very much, Ywangupeica (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've just blanked this article and listed it at WP:CP as a foundational copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The nomination is perfectly in order. You need to make the case for the article there. Right now several other Wikipedians disagree with you, and no administrator is going to "speedy keep" this. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with editor Justlettersandnumbers's decision regarding copyright issue of this article. This is one of the reasons that I revised the article. Although the current version (which was an old version that editor 'Mys 721tx' reverted to) has copyright issue, the version I revised does not have this copyright issue. Ywangupeica (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already notified the editor according to the rules in the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mys_721tx#Dew_computing_reverting.3F. This page also shows that I asked questions, but he did not give me advice. Another editor went in his talk page and gave me some suggestions, I conformed with all these advice but he still did not answer me, simply reverted and deleted the article. Ywangupeica (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to ask a question: is Finlay McWalter the Administrtor? Is this the final answer to my message? Ywangupeica (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is just venue shopping. The two articles about "Dew computing" and "Cloud-dew architecture" are at AfD and that is the correct venue for discussing their future. They are both already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing so it is not like the matter is being conducted in secret or requires wider publicity. The fact that they are already gathering Delete !votes at quite a pace may be frustrating but I am not sure what bringing it up here is meant to achieve. I assume that the intention is not merely to draw even more Delete !votes, although that is quite possibly going to be the effect. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (Not an administrator. Just a reader of this board.)

The original report is too long, didn't read. What speaks for itself is that both articles were blanked as containing copyright violation. Wikipedia does not permit copyright violation. Don't try to make a tedious case for improper deletion when the copyright issue is self-explanatory. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Shootseven's constant vandalism of Billy the Kid

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

---

The user Shootseven has been targeting the article Billy the Kid and vandalising it, even after a 4IM warning (and several other warnings by Winkelvi and I). Winkelvi recently took this user to AN/EW but very little has been done. Here are the diffs, courtesy of WV:

1. [133]]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. 05:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "See "Unauthenticated photographs" section of talk page for explanation."
5. 04:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Please see "Unauthenticated photographs" on "Talk" page before undoing this Undid revision 702374581 by Winkelvi (talk)"
6. 04:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702374237 by Winkelvi (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 04:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) to 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed unauthenticated photo of Tom O'Folliard; photos from the "Phillips Collection" have no provenance."
   2. 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed "croquet photo" because the entire section claimed it had been authenticated when every credible BTK historian disputes that - should be put back as alleged."

I have left WV's annotations as they were at AN/EW. Considering that this article has been nominated for GA status, this particular user and their edits are a serious cause for concern. I would appreciate an administrator's help on this matter, but I personally feel as if a block is within the best interests of the article and its editors. Kindest regards, Ches (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to say I stand by my edits and despite claims, they were all sourced. The last one was very minor, just changing "authenticated photograph" to "alleged authenticated photograph" with source material to back it up. I've tried to discuss this with User:Winkelvi and User:Chesnaught555; but never receive a response when I ask what they'd rather have me do instead or ask to discuss the photographs in question. Shootseven (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy close with a block of both Shootseven and Winkelvi. (Uninvolved comment) This is forum shopping at its worst, copying a a case from AN/EW [136] and pasting it here. As I commented an AN/EW, it's obvious that both Shootseven and Winkelvi have engaged in very extensive edit warring with each other, and both users performed four identical reverts in less than an hour. There is no point in having an open case here at ANI, so I suggest a speedy close, and the obvios blocks for both Shootseven and Winkelvi. Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I placed WV's diffs here because, since his filing of Shootseven at AN/EW, the latter user has continued to vandalise BTK. Call it forum shopping, but it's justifiable here considering Shootseven's behaviour. It is evidently clear that Shootseven's edits are pure vandalism, whereas WV is actually contributing, and has contributed to the article majorly; in fact, he has helped get the article nominated for GA status. Ches (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that I offered a compromise to the user being reported here, stating I would consider adding to the croquet photo section that there are historians who doubt the authentication of the photo. The user ignored the suggested compromise and continued to edit war, remove sourced content, and return to the same behavior again today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, Shootseven's edits are problematic but they are not "pure vandalism". As an experienced user, Chesm you should know what vandalism is. And yes, WV is a good user with a lot of useful contributions. But the simple fact of the matter is that both Shootseven and Winkelvi violated 3RR. Being right is not an excuse for violating 3RR. You know that, so I think there's very little here to do. Shootseven is a new user who should learn how to edit. Winkelvi is an experienced user who should know better. I hope they both can return to edit constructively, but this matter is so clear I don't see why it should take up more time. 3RR is a very clear policy, and reverting 4 times in less than an hour, as both users did, should lead to a block. Nothing more to add, really. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Shared/compromised account

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

---

These two versions of the user page belonging to Jukebx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was created after some obvious vandalism by the account, indicate a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT violation. Since the user is attributing vandalism to others who have used the account, and then later claims to share the account with them, I think the guidance from WP:COMPROMISED would be to indef the account and encourage creation of a new account with better security practices. I know WP:COMPROMISED is more precisely dealing with unblock requests, but I think the concept is applicable. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOSHARE, you're not allowed to share your account. Also, user admits that some of his friends are WP:NOTHERE, which would be reason enough to block even if shared accounts where allowed. Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Jasper P. Logan

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

---

• Jasper P. Logan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone needs to stop the CSD tag edit war. —teb728 t c 07:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has protected it and done some CUblocks. DMacks (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

St Mary's Church, Haddenham - copy/paste from ext website

Two editors have been repeatedly adding copy/pasted material from an external website. The website has an "All rights reserved" notice, but the book itself is apparently public domain. I am adding this here as I do not know whether it belongs on 3RR, or due to possible copyvio, here, or somewhere else.

• Apparent source: William Henry Page (1 January 1902). A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, Parishes: Haddenham. pp. 281–286. ASIN B00MG5KYIK. Retrieved January 2016. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• 80.177.210.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dog7005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Dog7005 Has restored content once, but not since an EW notice was left on talk page.
• 80.177.210.212 Has added / restored content five times or more. Once since a EW notice was added to 80.177.210.212's talk page.

Dog7005's account was created about when 80.177.210.212 reached uw-delete4. Page's book was cited by Dog7005, but then the cite was removed by 90.17.210.212 Much, if not all, of both editors' edits appear to be copy/pasted from Page's book. I have left a number of messages and suggestions on the editors' talk pages w/o a reply. Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably one to take to WP:SPI I'd say. Mike1901 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The text is the public domain and available here, so it's not a copyvio. It is however, disruptive to copy/paste the entire text into the article, and he's edit warring to keep it in. I've semi-protected the page for a week to stop that disruption; perhaps in the meantime someone can take this PD source, distill it into some cited references, and remove those maintenance tags. Katie^talk 12:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RFPP backlogged

We have a usual Sunday backlog at WP:RFPP, help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)