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

Constant arguing over parapsychology

Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Wikipedia a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum [[1]] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here [[2]]

PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)

69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)

If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Wikipedia. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Wikipedia. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.

To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Wikipedia editor who talks about Wikipedia editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." [3] amongst other nonsense.

I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Wikipedia to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, so the correct venue for this would be WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. N^oformation ^Talk 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think PhiChiPsiOmega needs to learn about Wikipedia policy in general and WP:AGF, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTAFORUM in specific. However, as a slight mitigating factor, he is a very new user and I don't want to bite the newcomer. It's clear that he believes very passionately in his topic and there's nothing wrong with that, however the situation on the constellation of parapsychology and pseudoscience articles shouldn't be changed just to accommodate one passionate editor. I think the best thing to do would be to pair PhiChiPsiOmega with an editor who has absolutely no involvement with anything even remotely related to parapsychology as a mentor. Encourage him to learn the ropes of Wikipedia somewhere where he's less likely to enter into antagonistic situations with long-standing editors. After all, passion speaks to boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Wikipedia. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Wikipedia, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" [4].

Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Wikipedia is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:

• [5]
• [6]

Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:

• [7]

Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia he's created countless blog and forum posts against Wikipedia like this, and even an entire website against Wikipedia policies [8]:

Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.” In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize. Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [9] "I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education." [10] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [11] "The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [12]

And you only need to look at his Wikipedia user page and comments on Wikipedia to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Wikipedia and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative [13] On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi [14]. I have no idea why this editor is still on Wikipedia considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Wikipedia (he's even hosted online petitions against Wikipedia). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Wikipedia, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Wikipedia.

PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of Parapsychology to read "Parapsychology (or psi phenomena) is the somewhat controversial scientific study of psychic and paranormal phenomena." (diff). Clearly PhiChiPsiOmega's edits will need extensive scrutiny, and WP:AE can be used if nothing is learned within a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Wikipedia isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the inevitable result of this will be that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) gets shepherded away from Wikipedia articles. He's going to waste editor's time because he seems incapable of understanding basic policies. The break is either going to be voluntary or enforced under WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolfie, WP:AE limits us to providing diffs of WP:ARB/PS issues. Tom has a long history of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Wikipedia protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Wikipedia talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of references! Your failure to look at them is indicative of something else other than objectivity at work. I gave you plenty of articles from scientific journals and I could have given you more! It's not trolling. There are several authorities who claim psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, even though you still represent the counters of those who support psychoanalysis. They're saying many people refer to it as pseudoscience, not that it's completely pseudoscientific. And even if it is disagreed with, cite the esteemable people who actually support the stuff and are credible enough to get the material published in academic lit: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Parapsychology_5th_ed.html?id=rPlsF2BJiHUC. This counters several of the criticisms, and I don't see you even looking at it once! It's hardly something not worth citing like SIGNATURE IN THE CELL for evolution or something similar. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Wikipedia have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Wikipedia.

As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Wikipedia nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.

You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby: How does parapsychology fit in with flat-Earth and YEC nonsense? They have no peer-review, no textbooks, and no wide range of academic literature behind them. Parapsychology, on the other hand, does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom, you serve no purpose on Wikipedia but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Wikipedia and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Wikipedia which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Wikipedia in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.

If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?

And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Wikipedia for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.

I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.

I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.

I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: I've talked with Radin before. He only responds to stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the comments here if you don't believe me: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructive-criticism.html. That said, if you press him enough, he will respond in a private conversation. I've shared emails with him, and I've kept them. If I'm correct, the skeptical criticisms usually repeat themselves like a broken record (you're defining psi by what it's not, lack of replicability immediately means bad experiment and no further investigation is needed, it'll defy the laws of physics as we know them, etc.), and I'm suspecting Park's criticisms are no different. Radin has responded to criticism, but he doesn't have to respond to every single skeptical writer directly in order to do that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Wikipedia. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the current scientific consensus, which is that paranormal phenomena are fringe science (at best). Neutrality does not factor into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note another user has correctly removed the comments from me to the sock puppet 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) and his comments to me as it was off topic and he has openly confessed to being banned on his account Blastikus and others. I apologise for thinking this sock was PhiChiPsiOmega. Tom Butler's behavior is being discussed elsewhere by admins at Wikipedia Arbitration so I think this discussion should be closed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChiPsiOmega, you just need to contact James Randi to set up some tests. If the results of these tests are positive then that will be a notable enough result for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Count Iblis: I'm familiar with the Randi Challenge, thank you, but the Ganzfeld has undergone far more skeptical scrutiny. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: No worries. It's the internet. It happens. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What matters is to get results that are widely accepted. So, assuming for argument's sake that you are right and that in Ganzfeld experiments a positive result does show up, one still has to demonstrate this in a way that will gain acceptance within the scientific community. If we also assume for argument's sake that you initially don't gain acceptance because of unreasonable skepticism, you still have to deal with that problem before you can claim a positive result (however unfair this is).

Randi was dealing with the opposite problem in the late 1970s, at that time certain results like Uri Geller's mind of matter results were accepted as proven by the parapsychology community while his criticism of these results were totally ignored. It took several years for him to prove that he was correct and that the entire parapsychology community was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles follow WP:REDFLAG—the science which makes planes fly and phones ring finds there is no evidence to suggest that parapsychology is any different from all other junk FRINGE stuff. Of course some eye witnesses dispute Randi's claims—that's what fringe people do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at WP:AE for WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT still stands. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue debate on policy. Unless an admin plans on handing out sanctions, there's nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this thread should be closed as no action is likely, Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The situation has not been resolved, there's now PhiChi with an abusive IP editor promoting conspiracy theories of censorship on the parapsychology talk-page and others. Goblin Face (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

NO! I'm not "presenting a conspiracy theory". I'm presenting EVIDENCE. Please learn to tell the bloody difference, stop accusing me and others of bias, and start acknowledging your own. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you've not provided "evidence." You've provided your opinion, which is against consensus. This is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has come to a dead end. Just to clarify why an admin should close this discussion:

• Tom Butler (talk · contribs) has been topic banned from editing the Rupert Sheldrake article and has left Wikipedia.
• 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) has admitted to being a banned sock puppet (but he says he is not PhiChiPsiOmega and I believe him based on the available evidence).
• PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) has not been active for a few days.
• 159.118.158.122 (talk · contribs) has vandalized articles and attacked editors but has not been active recently.

As no action is likely the be taken and the trouble has probably stopped, this should be closed now. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: The reason I haven't been active is because I have a life outside Wikipedia and thought I could wait until you've calmed down enough to have a decent discussion. It has nothing to do with the idea that I'm hiding from you. Tom Butler left Wikipedia because he found that it wasn't worth talking over the screeds people have published. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins: I will present a case for parapsychology in the near future, once I've taken a bigger dive into the rather labyrinthine work on the subject, and become more acclimated to Wikipedia. I hope that, when I do, more light will be shone on this unbelievable interesting and misunderstood topic. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hand: Do you want me to present the evidence again? Do you want me to cite the article "Parapsychology is Science, But Its Findings Are Inconclusive"? Do you want me to tell you, again, that skeptics like Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman only represent one-half of the academic debate, as can be seen if you just do a Google Search? Do I need to point out how this invalidates their claims that parapsychology is "rejected by the scientific community"? Do you want me to say that whenever I've suggested people to include the responses to the criticisms, which include replication studies and other citations, that I've been given question-begging arguments that the skeptics are right no matter what people say? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• PhiChiPsiOmega, I would caution you about diving into this contentious area. But if you want to pursue this, familiarize yourself with the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and be able to back all of your assertions with well-sourced material. Know that you will meet resistance that is fierce. Be prepared for that. Look at the disputes that have already occurred (you can find them an AE), see where editors went astray and avoid that behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi writes "Admins: I will present a case for parapsychology in the near future" and nobody is objecting against you doing this but you need to find the correct venue for doing it instead of on article talk-pages where some of your posts have caused disruption. You said you want to take it up with the Arbitration Committee then that is what you need to do, not here like another user said. I would be interested in seeing your case but this discussion here is not about Wikipedia policy, it was about editors misbehaving on the parapsychology article - as that issue seems to have been resolved then an admin should close this. Goblin Face (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement filing

I have filed an arbitration enforcement report about PhiChiPsiOmega. The issue with Tom Butler remains unresolved. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong: Stubborn, Page Ownership, Profanity/Abuse

User:Ryulong has had a long history of being difficult to work with when it comes to editing pages on Wikipedia, most notably The Amazing Race pages. He is very often insurmountably stubborn in his own views. Ryulong will make a decision about how the TAR pages should be formatted or organized, and will instantly revert any one else's edits if they conflict with his own views. This is clear page ownership (WP:OWN). When confronted on Talk pages or User Talk pages, even if the opposing party is being reasonable and willing to discuss the matter, Ryulong will constantly either lash out against the user (User talk:174.1.50.249#TAR24) or give one-sentence responses saying everyone else is wrong and he is right (Talk:The Amazing Race 24). It often takes a great deal of "prodding", for lack of a better term, to get him to actually engage in discussion, and if the discussion goes on for too long he will become angry and use large amounts of profanity. (See TAR24).

Both myself and many other users are tired of his totalitarian reign over all of the TAR pages. We are tired of his constant views that everything he thinks of is automatically right, and everyone else is automatically wrong. We are tired of him ignoring others' views, ignoring others' comments, and basically being closed to discussion. He acts irrationally when people do not automatically bend to his will, even when his opinion is in the minority.

Please intervene. We are tired of this. Shadow2 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and does not belong on this board. The discussion is currently underway on the talk page and Shadow2 is just trying to remove me from it so he can have his way. I did not lash out at the IP editor who is probably just Shadow2 because he repeatedly notified me of replies. I do not see how not being convinced of the arguments on the talk page is equated with WP:OWN when the edits he's complaining about were made two days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, recognize that this goes beyond the current TAR24 discussion. This is a long-lasting issue. You did not lash out at the IP editor (Which is me, yes), but you lashed out at both myself and Masem on the TAR24 page. Shadow2 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this is pretty much just about the discussion over the final placements. And my patience in dealing with the constant repetition of reasons why we should ignore the reliable sources has worn thin. Just start a WP:DRN thread instead of crying wolf here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are unbelievableShadow2 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are framing your arguments through the content dispute over edits I made over two days ago. What am I supposed to think?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly you can also file a RFC/U but he is right the complaint does not yet belong here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not bow to his demands, and so he felt the need to swear like a sailor at me. This is not related to this single content dispute. Ryulong feels he has complete and total control over all of the TAR pages. It's his word all the time. No-one is ever allowed to challenge himShadow2 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Every single argument I have with you over these pages' content is over such trivial nonsense though. What flag to use for Northern Ireland. What nations to include in the section headers. Do we use finish line order or departure order. And then Gsfelipe94's complaints about image usage when I wasn't even the first person to revert him. This is so unnecessarily exasperating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If they are so trivial, then why do you so vehemently oppose my proposed changes? You can say what you want, but this is clear WP:OWN. Shadow2 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

why not link us to the diffs of the attacks? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This one and this one come to mind as "attacks". I am not accusing him of always attacking, however. I am also accusing him of Page Ownership. Shadow2 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't remotely worth bringing here. There are no attacks, he uses profanity but we don't care. Of he was calling you a shit instead of saying people shit themselves, you'd have grounds for a warning but wow this are exceedingly minor. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well. Then we are left with the issue of WP:OWN Shadow2 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those are extremely minor and one wasn't even directed at you. There's no rule against using slightly salty language on Wikipedia (in fact, past attempts to establish such a rule have failed by a landslide). Overall, this looks more like an attempt by Shadow2 to gain an advantage in a content dispute by tattling than any genuine and actionable wrongdoing on Ryulong's part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am being accused of things I am not doing here. I can try to dispute such claims, but I know how that would turn out. People would just accuse me of more of the same thing. The fact remains that I believe Ryulong is exercising Page Ownership over the TAR pages. Gaining an advantage is not really my mission here. I simply want Ryulong to be more reasonable and open to discussion instead of cementing his stubborn belief that everything he decides is the way things will be done. Even when two people disagree with his opinion, he still believes he is right and will revert any edit made that contradicts his own views. If you are fine with his cussing, then fine. The issue is now something else.

I hope to have a discussion that doesn't end with people simply saying "He's trying to gain the upper hand" and leaving. I will be very disappointed otherwise. Shadow2 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I doesn't settle article content disputes, though. Wikipedia has several means of settling such disputes, and if you do decide to go that route I'd recommend Wikipedia:Third opinion, although there's also RFC. I can't promise you'll win, but at least you'll come off better than trying to get an editor sanctioned for using curse words. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat myself? I am not here (solely) because of a content dispute. I am here because of Ryulong's Page Ownership. Shadow2 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you haven't shown us anything where he actually claims he owns a page or otherwise violates WP:OWN in any remotely actionable way. Merely disagreeing or reverting edits isn't WP:OWN. Again, you'd be better off going through dispute resolution with this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment that these are not bad enough for ANI, I do find it rather troubling the frequency of which people feel the need to report Ryulong. Isn't it becoming like a weekly thing now? Even if he's right every time, he's still riling a lot of people up. Ryu, can you please tone it down a bit, if for no other reason, just so you can stop wasting your own time in having to respond to these issues all the time? Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

He got reported a couple of times by IP block evaders just to get him in trouble. I hardly think you can blame Ryulong for that. As you can see from the below comment, the block evaders immediately pounce on these type of threads and suggestions such as yours just encourage them.--Atlan (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to speak up in Shadow2's defense. Ryulong has a long track record of picking fights (particularly on Anime and Manga related projects) and has attempted to help topic-banned editors (LuciaBlack) evade sanctions. Wombshifter (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about them. Just this week a long term, good standing editor expressed frustrations with him. Asked whether it should be an RFC or ANI thing. I told him RFC, but another user already had reported him to ANI for the same thing. Not to mention the month-long-spanning issues and failed mediations with a handful of people from the Anime Wikiproject. Like I said, I'm not really suggesting a block or anything, I just wish he'd all save us a bit of trouble, himself included, and work on his "beside manner" a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any other examples besides DragonZero? Because otherwise, not counting the block evaders, you're only talking about DragonZero and your worries about the frequency at which Ryulong is reported is quite exaggerated. Other than that I agree with you that rephrasing some of the more uncouth posts Ryulong has made would go a long way.--Atlan (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I admonished Ryulong on this board recently for making a personal attack against someone, but neither of the examples that Shadow2 has shown above rise to that level. I also don't see sufficient examples to show ownership. Usually it's necessary to give diffs to show specific examples of misbehavior rather than linking to a page and hoping that others will be able to figure out what you're trying to convey (which is why this noticeboard states on the top that you should provide diffs). -- Atama頭 21:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This diff is a recent example. (IP user is me). I had given a large paragraph describing my meaning, and his response was "Whatever. You're wrong." Shadow2 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I can dig for more if necessary, but generally this is the kind of thing that happens with Ryulong and TAR pages. If someone disagrees with him, he tries to end the argument in his favour before discussion is even made. Shadow2 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your diff doesn't support that accusation, Ryulong is giving an argument based on an interpretation of consensus. That's a far cry from saying "whatever, you're wrong". I've seen that kind of behavior before, and I find it very disruptive (on this page I recently supported a ban for an editor showing that behavior). But although you may be feeling like Ryulong is simply saying "I'm right, you're wrong", that's not what's happening. Ryulong is not going overboard on politeness, but there's a big difference between the diff you provided and the examples I've seen where an editor literally says "I'm right and I'm done talking". -- Atama頭 21:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong shows up at ANI a fair amount because he's a prolific editor with a focus on areas such as anime and reality TV where editors are often young and opinionated and things can get heated. Ryulong's editing isn't perfect (none of ours is, is it?) but it's telling that when a Ryulong thread does show up it's rarely Ryulong who's found to be more at fault. We should never assume that someone mentioned on ANI a lot is necessarily a bad editor or in the wrong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"I'm right and I'm done talking". Such as this? And this. As well as the previously linked diff on Gsfelipe's Talk, where he basically said "Holy shit, stop. You're wrong!" Shadow2 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me sum up what's already been said (using your own words): "Holy shit, stop. You're wrong!" Or at least you've failed to post a single diff that shows "holy shit, you're right" DP 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I said "Holy shit stop changing the god damn images and their layout. It does not have to be 100% identical to other pages."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And this goes back to what I was saying; while not hard-policy-breaking, all parties, you included, would be better off if you didn't waste everyone's times with these pointless profanity tantrums like this. If you haven't noticed, it's not doing you any favors. It just rubs people the wrong way and leads to further conflict and time-wasting. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's a matter of style and having some patience with other editors. Impatience seems to be common with editors who are prolific and productive. Collaboration takes time and work, it can be messy and frustrating to have to explain yourself repeatedly. I understand the desire to take short-cuts but having to spend time on AN/I defending yourself is a time suck when you could be doing other work. But, as I was told at AE, there is no way to make people be nice but try to see it in your own self-interest to avoid all of this drama. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you just say time spent here is a time suck? LOL! Then don't spend time here.;-) I for one feel an obligation to spend some time here. It is as important as collaboration, but not as important as content creation.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• having to spend time on AN/I defending yourself is a time suck

I was talking about his specific situation and didn't intend for this statement to be generalized to all editors. Most do not have cases brought against them on a weekly basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It does seem as if there is a special class of editor one sees brought here often and the waste to everyone's time is certainly an issue, but more important is it takes away resources to more serious issues. One can easily get burnt out having to go through the all of the filings here that don't really need to be brought up. Some times just trying to get along better is the real answer. We can't be parents to editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Some cases here are unnecessary but it's essential to have places on WP where disputes and conflicts can be resolved if agreement can't be found on talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet, again, Ryulong shows himself utterly incapable to change his abusive language, his predilection for profanities, and, in general, complete disrespect for decent human behaviour towards other editors. But, he is under Administrator Protection, so nothing will change this time, either. It is the cabal of Ryulong-protective administrators who are most to blame here, Ryulong himself is beyond helpArildnordby (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rude.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It is the type of chastisement you, and the involved administrators deserve to be met with. See if you can manage for a week or so to abstain from profanities? That will be really, really tough for you, but after a month or so, it might become easier for. Being decent is also a skill that must be developed; you are lacking in it.Arildnordby (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to change my behavior when it is not against the rules of the site. And I've probably already gone a week without using profanity. Simply being exasperated in a single argument and getting reported here does not indicate I have a behavioral problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Stating people are "beyond help" and have a "complete disrespect for decent human behavior" is far worse than some profanity out of exasperation.--Atlan (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Arildnordby is hardly coming here with clean hands. A quick glance at their talk page revealed this incredibly WP:BITE-y jab directed at a younger editor who was apologising for poor spelling. "Well, if you cannot improve, you will probably be blocked. We aren't here to listen to baby-babble, OK?". Wow. Just wow. That's ten times worse than anything I've seen from Ryulong. To think how the young editor must have felt reading that response to their apology is just sickening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Wallow about in the logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque for all I care. Emotional fluffery like Tu Quoque is so much better to wallow about in than logic, don't you agree? Logic is scary stuff!! PS: You are still wrong about having this protective zone of administrators around Ryulong.Arildnordby (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

One more personal attack on anyone here and you will be blocked, whether or not the concerns about Ryulong are or are not valid. If you come to ANI, your behavior is going to be given just as much scrutiny as the "subject of the thread", and you will face the appropriate consequences. So I'd suggest being just a bit more civil instead of throwing around comments like that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I make more than one ping?Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not that he's got "a ring of Admin protecting him". I'm rather tired of his antics. The problem is, there's no precedent to block him or do much else in response to how he currently acts. A few around the project have mastered it - being rude without quite falling into personal attack territory, or being incivil enough to warrant a block. If you want to cite some policy, provide some links to examples, and show precedence that people have been blocked similarly, go for it. But if you just keep with the mudslinging generalities, you're going to fall on deaf ears. And its because of your sloppy argument, not any admin protecting him. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Have I said that there are anymore than, say, two or three admins doing this? That's bad enough, of course, just check the times Ryulong has been reported, and how typically the same protectors come around. Secondly, a persistent behaviour of "small"-scale disruptive behaviour should, of course add up over time (until sufficient numer of instances warrants a block), rather than Ryulong getting his slate wiped clean each and every time. Progressively lower thresholds for block enactment for persistent abusers as policy, that is.Arildnordby (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The same should apply to your continuous casting of bad faith aspersions then. Also, Ryulong was blocked twice last month for disruptive editing, so saying he gets away with anything is nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The same should apply to your continuous casting of bad faith aspersions then" Of course. Have I said something contrary to that? " Ryulong was blocked twice last month for disruptive editing, so saying he gets away with anything is nonsense". Relative to others, he certainly is. Others would have gotten months long blocks for proven persistent misbehaviour.Arildnordby (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The "I" in ANI is incident. -- it's not the best forum for chronic issues; WP:RFC/U is. NE Ent 11:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas again

Viriditas appears to be starting throwing his aggression around again at Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol: [15][16]. This is clearly inappropriate. Can someone nip this in the bud? I'm not sure how anyone is expected to interact with someone as hostile as that. Cheers, Second Quantization (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Viriditas, he is certainly being very aggressive, but the "other side" could also stand to stop cherry-picking terrible studies to use as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems almost like baiting to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

All involved need to just relax and smoke a joint (where it's legal of course).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume I am on the other side? I picked some well cited papers (50-60 each) which discuss related topics, then I faced a barrage of attack. I didn't cherry pick them, (where are these alternative studies, indicative of the literature, that you say we are ignoring?) I picked the most highly cited I could find which were within ~5 years. I have no preformed views on this topic, and could not care less if cannabis is legalised or not. There is a reasonable discussion we could have about this topic, but Viriditas is jumping in with comments like: "Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing. Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job. It's only a matter of time now. It's over guy, pack it up and go home. ", "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense. You're no skeptic, that's for sure.". How are we meant to address someone that claims that scientific peer review is a "Peer review, as in the political process which publishes anti-cannabis propaganda on a daily basis based on small sample sizes but won't allow pro-cannabis studies based on large sample sizes to see the light of day? You mean that broken, biased process which serves the interests of the government and the pharmaceutical companies, but not the interests of the public and patients? Is that what you mean?". Also "Where are all the bodies of the dead cannabis users and why are you hiding them?" Second Quantization (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems according to Viriditas I'm not cherry picking but that: "The cannabis literature is more than 90% negative and chock full of false assumptions, half-truths, and scaremongering because it is funded by first and foremost by drug "abuse' and drug control and prevention programs, and this starts at the United Nations and works its way down.". Seriously, when someone claims mass conspiracy in the literature ... There is no reliable source we can use to show anything, because he will instantly trump it by saying that's all part of the conspiracy. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely why I said you were ignorant. You appear to know absolutely nothing about the United Nations drug program which is seeking to outlaw cannabis in every country. This is reported on in reliable sources virtually every week. BBC did a story two days ago, and it's been all over the news since Uruguay voted to legalize it in 2013, which greatly upset the UN .[17] There is nothing conspiratorial about this at all, you're just completely ignorant on the subject. The UN repeats misinformation and propaganda about cannabis to further their anti-cannabis agenda.[18] Virtually every claim they've made about cannabis has been totally debunked by experts in their respective fields, so one wonders what's going on here. With all the problems in the world, with all the war (which the UN has totally failed in their stated mission to end) and hunger and suffering, one wonders why the UN is threatening other countries who legalize cannabis. To whose benefit? The only people that benefit from the criminalization of cannabis are 1) drug dealers, 2) the prison industry, and 3) authoritarian governments, who prefer to restrict the freedom of their citizens to alter their consciousness (cognitive liberty), which is ironically a violation of the human rights charter that the UN is supposed to uphold. This is an historical fucking fact, not some crazy conspiracy. Heck, you didn't even know we were discussing deaths from Marinol, yet you responded to the topic. And now you say you've never heard of Marinol? Is this some kind of a joke? Stop discussing topics you don't know anything about. You are wasting a great deal of time. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a random look at the article and this is what I found when I zoned in on what I find to be the most controversial claim:

Impact on psychosis A literature review on the subject concluded that "cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis." Arseneault, L.; Cannon, M; Witton, J; Murray, RM (2004). "Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (2): 110–117. doi:10.1192/bjp.184.2.110. PMID 14754822. In other words, THC and other active substances of cannabis may accentuate symptoms in people already predisposed, but likely don't cause psychotic disorders on their own. However, a French review from 2009 came to a conclusion that cannabis use, particularly that before age 15, was a factor in the development of schizophrenic disorders. Laqueille, X. (2009). "Le cannabis est-il un facteur de vulnérabilité des troubles schizophrènes?". Archives de Pédiatrie. 16 (9): 1302–5. doi:10.1016/j.arcped.2009.03.016. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

This is what I see as cherry picking - the first source is a primary source journal. It is not a secondary source interpretation or analysis of the journal's contents or conclusions. This is a misuse of the primary source. We cannot make this claim: "A literature review on the subject concluded that...." and then make our own conclusions or analysis in Wikipedia's voice. Then the next source is a non English source and you will have to excuse me here but...why? The US and the UK have all done studies and there are tons of journals. Are we saying that there are no English sources of equal validity? This does seem outrageous to me and I can see why some would get a tad tired of having to deal with this kind of thing if it is persistent and I think it may be. Then, when I go to your talk page I notice what appears to be a non neutral notification to you about other contributions to these "Cannabis" related articles and in turn a quick discussion of "Ideological warriors pushing their viewpoints and ignoring the science because peer review is a means of subjugation by "the man" or whatever". You will excuse me if I say you been here long enough (since 2006) to know that you are bringing the attention to yourself in a manner that makes me wonder who is the one pushing what agenda. I suggest that this is a heated content dispute and you may want to take into consideration what it looks like to others and not just what others look like to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"I took a random look at the article and ..." Erm, no one has claimed this article is perfect and I have never defended that subsection. The specific issue under discussion is THC and myocardial infarction. There is no discussion related specifically to psychosis, so I don't see why you are talking about it? I see no one who has defended that subsection and has nothing to do with the myocardial infarction which was. The validity of viriditas argument that there is a conspiracy [19] amongst Stroke, Lancet etc to exclude pro-cannabis publications related to myocardial infarction is not related to the psychosis section. Second Quantization (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it is a historical fact. This was published in the Los Angeles Times eight hours ago: "For years, scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials...Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Suzanne A. Sisley, clinical assistant professor of psychology at the university's medical school...has been trying to get the green light for her study for three years...scientists have had difficulty getting approval to study how the drug might be employed more effectively...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects...In the last 10 years, the government had approved just one U.S. research center to conduct clinical trials involving marijuana use for medical purposes...The scientist who runs that center, Igor Grant, said his success in getting Washington's sign-off was due in large part to something other scientists do not have: the full force of the state..."Every one of those studies showed, in the short term, a beneficial effect," Grant said. "There is very good evidence cannabis is helpful."[20] Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That does not say what you think it says. It does not support the specific conspiracy you were advocating that positive research about the health risks can not be published. Funding in relation to exploring medical research is a different but unrelated issue. I should also note your hypocrisy. You said "But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of". That article only uses that term when referring to cannabis. You berate me for the very things you do while yet again conflating separate issues. Second Quantization (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not advocated any "conspiracy", that's your claim, and the source says exactly what I just quoted to you verbatim; how could it say anything else? It most certainly does support the idea that "positive research about the health risks can not be published" and I quoted it directly from the article: "Researchers say...the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has long been hostile to proposals aimed at examining possible benefits of the drug...Federal restrictions on pot research have been a source of tension for years. Researchers, marijuana advocates and some members of Congress have accused the National Institute on Drug Abuse of hoarding the nation's only sanctioned research pot for studies aimed at highlighting the drug's ill effects", emphasis added. Of course, I'm sure you'll continue to misrepresent this until the end of time. There are roadblocks in the US to publishing "positive research about the health risks", and if you had bothered to follow the saga of just two scientists quoted in that article, Suzanne A. Sisley and Igor Grant, you would have acknowledged your mistake. Exactly what do you think the sentence "scientists who have wanted to study how marijuana might be used to treat illness say they have been stymied by resistance from federal drug officials" refers to here? It refers to the inability to study and publish positive research. Would you please stop whatever it is you are doing and actually educate yourself on the history of cannabis research in the US? I mean, just this once, try to educate yourself. You say you have no clue as to what Marinol is, yet you participate in a discussion about it without even educating yourself on the topic. Do you think some people might find your behavior frustrating, perhaps even disruptive? Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You are just continuing your content dispute here and I was avoiding that by using a completely different sampling of the article. I suggest DR/N.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By looking at samplings of the article rather than Viriditas' behaviour you are turning it into a content dispute. I am concerned with the aggression by viriditas, as shown by the diffs above and the claims of conspiracies. It's purely the behaviour that I am concerned with, and that should be under discussion here. Second Quantization (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seriously though...that Marinol section has a huge chunk sourced to About.com. More eyes are needed on that article. The argument on the talk page seems to have wandered a bit and it does indeed show that individual primary source studies are being suggested as references and your own (or other's) interpretations or analysis of them are being used. Don't. Per WP:RS/MC: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I don't think that is happening in that discussion. Also...everyone needs to stop talking down to each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already left a message on Viriditas' talk page but your behavior will be looked at as well and I do think there was some baiting going on and a little bit of "I don't hear you". Look, it wasn't sweet roses but it wasn't a personal attack in my view but a rather odd analogy with terms you simply zoned in on. Tell me...do you really think he was calling you a chicken fucker?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I don't think your message on Viriditis's userpage, in which you tell Viriditis that you "agree with him entirely", think his "chicken fucking" insult was "hilarious", and that he is "free to ignore" your tentative advice to edit himself was helpful. It only encourages disruptive behavior. It also seems unfair to the other participants in this discussion, because your language here strongly implies that you admonished Viritis, but the language of thea actual note borders on encouraging him. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't referring to me since he made the statement on the 11th and I had never commented on that talk page until the 12th ... Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly more eyes are needed on that article, and I encourage people to edit it, including yourself, so that's it is compliant with WP:MEDRS. Now you draw a comment, this time, about the Marinol section. I know nothing about Marinol before, my comments have not been about it, and I am not particularly interested in learning more about it (if there is something big in the USA about Marinol; I'm not American). My issue was with the myocardial infraction content related to cannabis. I have never edited the Marinol section nor proposed edits to that section so it is of no relevance to me. My comment "edit looks good" is in reference to: [21].

I have not proposed any changes to the article as of yet, nor have I made any changes to the article ever. I'm perfectly capable of being reasoned with, and if someone can dig out secondary sources they think are better from the literature I'm perfectly happy with that. I haven't made up my own mind what the article sections should look like. That is why I notified wikiproject medicine to hopefully attract some medical editors who would be more aware of the best sources in the literature: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Cannabis. I highlighted a section of a peer reviewed article (the part of the paper which describes the literature generally), and some others that may be relevant and all of which had a decent level of citations (~50-60 from google scholar) which I had obtained through Google scholar. I think my editing history shows that I don't have some sort of secret ideology against cannabis (in fact I'm in favour of the legalisation of and taxation of cannabis, but that doesn't mean that this scientific literature shouldn't be accurate summarised with regards to heart attacks). The criticisms being thrown around by Viriditas are that there is a conspiracy (read his comments) within the literature itself followed by lots of invective. Constant claims of conspiracy amongst reliable sources, and ceaseless hostility are behaviour issues. Second Quantization (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...the section this entire transaction took place in is the "Marinol, Cannabis, and Mortality" section of the talk page. If this is your claim: "I have not heard of Marinol before and am not particularly interested in learning more about it " then I suggest you stop further discussion in that section and leave it to those who are interested in the subject in question. I am sure you are a reasonable editor and you do seem highly intelligent...I just don't think you know what you are doing and where you are doing it at, at the moment. I really don't know what else to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the section heading but not what I discussed (I don't think I have commented in that section about Marinol at all), there are two edits under discussion as far as I can see 1. [22] 2. [23]. My comments are related to the later, not the former. I see well cited papers about THC generally, cannabis specifically, in the area of myocardial infarction. It seems there is some weight to mention something about this. I responded to claims of conspiracies about these sources and that I am a bad skeptic etc. It is unreasonable to have people respond to peer reviewed sources with claims about conspiracies etc. Second Quantization (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, there's a bad astronomer, so why can't you be the "bad skeptic"? Think about it: major street cred, hot chicks/guy magnet, whatever. It's a bit sexier than "Second Quantization" (you don't get out much, do you?) Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Scientists who study cannabis in the U.S. are only able to get permission if their study results show something negative about cannabis, no matter how contrived. Researchers who want to study positive aspects, such as the benefits of medical cannabis, have been blocked by bureaucratic processes run by agencies who want to keep the drug illegal and classified as lacking medical value. I gave you a link to today's Los Angeles Times article up above as a source. This is common knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You were/are alleging a conspiracy amongst journals, not a lack of funding into medical applications. Second Quantization (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to this I suggest you create a separate section for "cannabis / myocardial infarction " and then I am requesting that you copy paste the exact sections of the source that I presume are journal articles and not individual studies as it is clearly being challenged and I myself cannot access the source. Accessibility of a source is not a requirement, but since it is being directly challenged you are required to show exactly what passages are being summarized and how the sources are being used. This may not settle your distress about the editor, but I feel it is the source of the issue as you have explained it and I for one want that settled as clearly it is at the center of this. Don't hurry or anything. I'm outa here for the rest of the day and will be returning later this evening.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Mark, I think you missed the point here. I don't think anyone came here asking you to immerse yourself in the content dispute, but simply Mark, if I could redirect here, I believe the main point is to address disruptive editing. The timeline, from my POV at least, looks like this:

1) I noticed a section in the article that claimed that smoking cannibis was safer than using Marinol. The supporting reference was a FIA document in which cannabis activist group asked the FDA for Adverse Event Reporting System data on deaths from Marinol. The document stated that five deaths had been reported, and pointedly stated that these were merely case reports, and no conclusions could be drawn regarding causation. Since the supporting reference was simply case reports, I deleted the comment.

2) Viriditas reverted my edit, offering "Nothing is being compared. It is a documented fact that high does of Marinol lead to death. It is also a documented fact that high doses of cannabis /does not/. End of story, no comparison was made." as his only explantion.

3) As his explanation for the reversion was did not address my explanation for the edit (He simply insisted that the inadequately sourced statement was true), and he did not engage on the Talk page, I undid his reversion and explained myself on the Talk page.

4) Viriditas responded by calling my arguments "bullshit", reiterating his claim that "high doses of marinol kill people", once again not addressing the sourcing issue, and called me a "chicken fucker". I think if you will read his response again, you'll agree that it was pointlessly insulting, and that it once again completely failed to address the explanation for my edit. I pointed out that it was a non-MEDRS citation and could not be used per the source itself to prove marinol "kills people". He simply insisted that marinol does kill people and insulted me.

5) At this point (to be honest, I was pissed at his behavior), I went to the literature and dug into some of the issues behind the safety of smoking cannabis. Its quite possible that my motivations at this point were somewhat vindictive, but it is also very clear at this point that there is a basis for a content discussion about including this material in the article. Viriditas has responded to every attempt to rationally discuss this by engaging in personal insults and other disruptive behavior.

From my point of view, we can handle the content dispute among ourselves so long as everyone debates in good faith and treats each other with respect. You have made it abundantly clear that you regard my position on the issue of cannabis toxicity with skepticism. It is also possible that I am guilty of baiting Viriditas to some extent. But nobody likes to be called a ignorant, a chicken fucker, or to have their painstaking efforts at literature review summarily dismissed as "bunk. Give it up and go home". Nor can one reason with such a person and achieve consensus.

I respectfully request that you I think the main thing is that we address the behavior issue here. Once that is done, we can settle the content dispute among ourselves. If you want to block me for a few days for my role in this, that's fine, I'll take my punishment. But order needs to be re-established if Wikipedia is not to become a version of Lord of the Flies.

If the content dispute is to be discussed here, I'd like to make the point once again that unlike marinol, cannabis (as least in the smoked form) is not an FDA approved drug, and has not been through the usual clinical development process. While MEDRS generally indicates that the best sources are meta analyses of phase 3 trials, no phase 3 trials have been performed on smoked cannabis. Nor have phase 2 trials. If we are not going to include any remarks on the potential risks of smoking marijuana in the article, because the sources fall short of the aforementioned standard, then we really shouldn't be saying anything about it's potential benefits either, as these lie on equally shaky ground. And then we will not have an article at all other than the chemical structure of THC. On the other hand, if mainstream opinion expressed in review articles is that marijuana may be useful for epilepsy, and may increase one's risk of heart attack, it may be reasonable to include both of these mainstream views in the article, even if both are based on weak underlying data. Someday large randomized clinical trials will be performed, but for now, the data available is all there is. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. "Keep fucking that chicken" means "keep up the great work", it does not mean "keep having sex with animals". Look it up yourself. And try to read for context. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry V., I'm an old man and do not keep up with the latest slang. And in particular, the following comments seem to support that your comment had a less benign intent than you are claiming above. How do any of the following comments support concensus building?

Frame it anyway you want out of context, but there is no consensus that cannabis causes the strokes and heart attacks you are proposing, which is precisely the problem. You're only as old as you feel. I feel about 1,500 years old, if that makes you feel any better. When I was a kid, we kindled fire and hunted buffalo, and we liked it. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody is buying the propaganda anymore and pretty soon, you guys are gonna be out of a job.

• Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up.

• You're content to cite political propaganda as fact

• But you'll continue to cite sources sans evidence that use the unscientific fear-mongering term "marijuana" instead of the medical term "cannabis" because those NIDA dollars have to keep rolling in and the DEA must meet their quota. Pure fucking nonsense.

• Someone is vastly ignorant in this discussion, and it isn't me

• At what point did you stop critically evaluating the medical literature and start accepting it without question?

• Don't let little things like facts get in the way of reality. You seem to be ignorant about a great deal.

• Sorry, we're not buying the usual round of bullshit. Sell your pharmaceutical snake oil elsewhere.

• Your argument from ignorance stinks.

• Unbelievable. You actually appear to be ignorant of the most demonstrable medical conspiracy of the 20th century

Please sign you comments. I am losing track of who is saying what here. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The bulleted items above are quotes from Viriditis in the discussion on the tetrahydrocannibinol Talk page and were posted here by me. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, taken completely out of context by you. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why don't you tell us then exactly what context justifies calling a fellow editor a "chicken fucker", repeatedly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant", making personal attacks, and the like? In particular, how does it help build consensus and make the editing process more effective? Formerly 98 (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You were not called a "chicken fucker", and I've already answered this above at 06:43, 14 March 2014. Furthermore, you have made no effort to build a consensus of any kind. You reverted two different editors and then quickly injected POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes. If you were trying to build consensus, you would have reverted once and then quickly gone to the talk page to discuss it. You didn't do that. You reverted two different editors twice without discussion because you felt that they were unfairly representing a synthesized THC product produced by the pharmaceutical industry to replace cannabis, a product that doesn't work and has been implicated in multiple deaths, according to the sources. As an act of revenge editing, you then proceeded to add without consensus the statement that cannabis is associated with heart attacks and strokes, a statement that has poor evidence to support it and is highly controversial. At no point did you ever make an edit based on any kind of consensus, so please stop claiming that you did. You engaged in outright POV pushing, removing negative material about a pharmaceutical product intended to replace cannabis while adding speculative, negative material about cannabis in its place. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• To the best of my understanding, my reverts were within the rules described at WP:BRD. And I clearly was active on the Talk page, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

• You're back to the disruptive editing behavior of insisting that "Marinol kills people", arguing off-topic from the actual issue, which is that the supporting reference was not MEDRS compliant. If you find a MEDRS compliant source for that statement, you can add it to the article, and I'll be the first to defend your right to do so, as long as you do so in a way that does not involve making comparisons that are not supported by the data.

• I've freely admitted here that a small part of my motivation for continuing to dig into the cardiovascular AE profile of cannabis after that first exchange was that I was angry. (But you'll notice that the sentence I added describes "possible association" and does not go beyond the strength of the supporting evidence.) I apologize and will endeavor to do better in the future. You, however, are still insisting on your right to behave abusively to other editors. That's where the problem lies and what we would like to see changed. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• What is this, an episode of Fringe? Quick, someone tell Walter that Formerly 98 has crossed over from the other side where in his alternative world, BRD means revert-revert-POV push-without discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I became curious about the surprising claim that "fucking the chicken" means "keep up the good work", so I Googled it. The phrase originates from something newscaster Ernie Anastos said to another person who misspoke on air, and Anastos did compare the phrase to "keep up the good work", but he was making the comparison sarcastically, not as a compliment. It is a sarcastic phrase applied to someone who has put their foot in their mouth in public. Here's a link: [24]. Now if you look at the context of the diff in which Viriditas said it, it's obvious that he is not saying it as a compliment, and it becomes equally clear that his attempt here to re-frame it as a sincere statement of "keep up the good work" is not accurate. It is clearly a confrontational use of a phrase that is either (depending on one's cultural inclinations) vulgar or blunt. It is not conduct that helps move a discussion towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Formerly 98 had no consensus to edit war and revert two different users. Formerly 98 had no consensus to add controversial content claiming cannabis causes strokes and heart attacks. Yet you are here complaining about me not helping move a discussion towards consensus? Crazy. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA

• I'm not here to get involved in the THC content discussion, but as for the aggression noted in the opening post, there is also [25] and [26]. Those personal attacks were not justified by what came before, and took place well after Mark Miller's advice: [27]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking you at all. I've said that the reason I've ignored you for the last year (almost) is because I think you are intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, you've been following me all over the place trying to get my attention. And the reason I've said you're intellectually dishonest is because you deliberately violated WP:SYN last year to push a POV, and when I confronted you with it, you dismissed it by giving me a "these aren't the droids you are looking for" line of bullshit. I called you on it then and I'm calling you on it now. An admin should not be defending and promoting the violation of our core policies. Block away. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• After looking at the diffs Tryptofish posted above, I am certain I do not see "personal attacks". Frankly, I see candid discourse – and I see Viriditas' part as the rebuttal of what came before it.—John Cline (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

John, is your assessment of the comments I posted above the same as those cited by Tryptofish? Maybe I'm being Miss Manners here, but I did not think this language was helpful in consensus building. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus building? You mean your two reverts and injection of POV about cannabis causing heart attacks and strokes—without any discussion? Is that the consensus building you are talking about? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to this aboveFormerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I've noted that the rules of BRD are different in this dimension. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In reality, I have never said anything remotely like "these aren't the droids you are looking for", even allowing that it might be some sort of paraphrase instead of a direct quote. In the time between Viriditas' return from his block and the message here that I left on Thargor's talk page, my interactions with Viriditas have been zero. Zero. If I'm incorrect, find the diffs. Otherwise, the comments above are exercises in fiction (and pretty bizarre at that).

It's an unfortunate situation that, in Wikipedia today, editors who have been contributing content over a long period of time can get away with stuff that would get a new editor blocked in a nanosecond. It's a real double standard, and a regrettable one. Despite what one member of Viriditas' fan club says here, the diffs I've provided are about as clear a violation of NPA as anyone is ever going to see. Some civility issues are ambiguous; this isn't one of those. I don't really care about blocking Viriditas. I care about getting him back into acceptable conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The comments directed at you Trypto were NOT personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were, in any reasonable interpretation, but that comment reinforces my point about a fan club. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no fan club. Mark and I used to fight like cats and dogs, but we learned to respect each other and now we ask each other for guidance and help. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Given the tiresome task of explaining the metaphor of the Jedi mind trick in relation to what you actually said (of course you never actually said anything about droids, my gosh), I would much prefer a block. I keep forgetting the cardinal rule: never, ever use a metaphor on Wikipedia. Tryptofish, you did show up in multiple discussions where I was involved, and while it is true that you did not interact with me directly, you interacted in those discussions, which to me, means you are trying to get my attention. Wikipedia is a big place, just try to avoid me. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess learning a lesson about metaphor use is a start, especially if it is followed by learning another lesson about the use of insults. And I suppose it's a tiny bit of progress that we have gone from "you've been following me all over the place" to "it is true that you did not interact with me directly". But still no diffs! Trying to get his attention? How? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not this shit again. You and Thargor have been trying to troll the fuck out of me recently. In December, Thargor was trolling my contribs and decided to nominate an obscure article I created for deletion, at which point you showed up to play good cop bad cop. [28] Between then and now, you've showed up on my watchlist quite a bit. Thargor most recently stalked me to Abby Martin, where he began to disrupt the page. Then, in a discussion related to that disruption, you showed up on surprise, surprise, Thargor's talk page.[29] Both of you cannot seem to get over your obsession with me, and you both seem to just "show up" on random pages out of the blue trying to get my attention. Isn't it time you stopped trolling? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

erm ... Using the phrase you did is not an innocent metaphor as you now seem to assert, and you ought to have owned up to it in the first place. Your demeanour is, at this point, worse than Andy the Grump's. Say you are not "personally attacking" someone and then calling them "intellectually dishonest" might cause any outsider's eyebrows to rise. Wikipedia says we use "reliable sources" even if we "know" they are not the "truth." You see -- Wikipedia is not about the editors - it is only about what sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Erm" right back at you. "These are not the droids you are looking for" can be nothing but a metaphor in that context. The user appears to think that this figure of speech is meant literally. My justification for avoiding an editor is not a personal attack, it's my description of their argument that they used to defend WP:SYN. Your use of the word "innocent" here has no meaning nor relevance. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In most places in this world, "droid" is not quite the same with regard to civility as "fucking." Clearly you are not a denizen of a section of society which regards the tenor of the phrase as relevant to how the phrase is seen by outsider. Collect (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

True. As long as you are an arbitrator for Wikipedia you can say just about anything and use the "fuck" to your delight and nothing happens but a quick close to the discussion here. LOL! Get the "fuck" over it. I really can't say that Viriditas has a pattern of misusing the word "FUCK". Please demonstrate as much our just "fucking" stop. I see this come up all the time and I am "fucking" sick of it. As for Andy...why bring him up. That is just "fucking" rude and discusses the contributor and not the content. What the "fuck"? what does Andy have to do with this and why drag him into it. If you want to begin naming names here....I have a very long "fucking" list of editors who get away with telling others to "Fuck" off and worse. Shall we go down this road? It is a very long road so I suggest everyone rest up for the hike.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your tone is as culpable as is Viriditas' in that case. I consider your vocabulary to be less than civil, and your tone in that same category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You've confused two different discussions. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I rather think that is not the case. I read the diffs and the original discussions and find your vocabulary reprehensible. Have a proverbial cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You conflated two different discussion, one about the use of a popular culture reference to chickens and a completely different one about a popular culture reference to Star Wars. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

I've read the discussion above. Would a topic ban on Viriditas be helpful, given that this user seems over-invested in the topic to the point where they are cursing at those who do not share their point of view? --John (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Over-invested, as in the fact that I've made approximately two edits to the article in question, one in 2008, and one in 2014?[30] John, considering your most recent conflict with me on John Barrowman and RS/N where consensus was clearly against your disruptive removal of Daily Mail sources, isn't it too soon for you to be exacting revenge on me for scuttling your little campaign? You are clearly not disinterested here, so please stop pretending you are neutral. And for the record, I have "cursed" at nobody. "Keep fucking that chicken" is a euphemism for "keep up the great work". Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You flatter yourself greatly if you think this is about the Daily Mail and your misunderstanding of BLP a few months ago. Here's a question for you. You're obviously a clever guy. Do you think your use of "Keep fucking that chicken" was a wise choice of words? And yes, like it or not, fuck is considered a curse word by most people. --John (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My misunderstanding of BLP? That's a laugh. The community has had to personally intervene multiple times to stop you and correct your gross misunderstanding of BLP. To recap, your erroneous view of BLP was corrected in August 2013, then most notably by 18 editors in October 2013, and then most recently in February 2013 on the Barrowman talk page and on the BLP noticeboard. Is that a record of some kind, John? Talk about being over-invested! I could learn from you... Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Well, if you feel like answering the question, that'll be interesting. If you continue not to answer the question, we will draw our own conclusions from that. So, Viriditas does not want to be topic-banned. Does anybody else who is uninvolved feel it might help, given the user's behaviour? --John (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out that you are trying to exact revenge for your failure to win consensus on the BLP dispute we had last month. Block me, topic ban me, I don't care, but I certainly don't think I've deserved either, especially when it's being proposed by an admin still bruised and hurting from his last run-in with me. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't you be topic-banned? I would rather see that than a block, for what it's worth, but it's clear you cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on those who are proposing a topic ban, and there is a presumption of innocence on the accused. I should not have to prove otherwise. As for "going on like this", the only reason I'm even participating here is to dispel your false pretense of neutrality. It seems that when you aren't too busy threatening to block people as an involved admin, you're proposing empty topic bans on your enemies. Is that what it takes to be an admin these days? Looks like we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd actually support a block right now per this edit which indicates an ongoing problem with this editor. Failing that, I think a topic ban may be called for. I would be interested in other opinions though. --John (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you need glasses. That diff indicates no "problem" whatsoever. The link shows me making a joke in the spirit of camaraderie by proposing a "sexier" user name similar to the famous skeptic Phil Plait, who uses the term "bad astronomer", where "bad" is used in the sense of "awesome". Plait is generally considered "sexy", in the sense that he's a "bad ass" astronomer. Do you really need to have every joke explained to you? Block away, dude. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be about building consensus. Viriditas exhibits a pattern of simply insulting everyone who disagrees with him and insisting that they are wrong, naive, and actively supporting oppression and bad science. If he can modify his behavior, his POV is a good one to have represented here. But I suspect he can't/won't, even in response to sanctions. I think a topic ban is a big step, but I don't see what else to do. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

At what point were you building consensus when you edit warred and reverted two different editors[31][32] and then added controversial material that claimed cannabis causes heart attacks and strokes?[33] You're POV pushing and telling me I have a problem? That's rich. But please, keep arguing for a block and topic ban. You're bound to fool someone, anyone. Looks like the gang's all here. Congrats on turning a content dispute, where you've edit warred and pushed a biased POV, into a behavioral problem on the guy who caught you with your pants down. You are clearly admin material. Oh, and don't expect John to understand what you mean about "building consensus", as he refuses to recognize consensus. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note that I find the DM to be RS other than for "contentious claims about living persons", and certainly do not always agree with John, but I suggest he is right that a hiatus from the topic at hand might improve your use of parliamentary vocabulary when dealing with other editors. Attacking John on that unrelated issue, by the way, is quite unlikely to make others take your position as valid, nor is your use of profane expletives indicative of one who seeks consensus rather than confrontation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I don't see how anyone could discuss anything at this article while Viriditas launches his pointless insults [34], straw men, conspiratorial ideation [35][36][37] and screeds at any comment [38][39][40]. Second Quantization (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a fucking joke. This from someone who follows me to a discussion he knows nothing about and admits he knows nothing about it. How can you participate in a discussion you know nothing about? This is nuts. Yet, here you are, the OP of this thread, successfully distracting from the POV pushing by Formerly 98. Nice work, Second Quantization. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it is time to discuss some sort of sanction, but I'm not sure which "topic" we are discussing here. Is it cannabis? The problem is that Viriditas moves from one topic to another, and when he gets sufficiently annoyed with other editors over a content dispute, he starts to ascribe bad motivations to them, and from there he moves to disruptive behavior. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• The trouble is that at this point it is apparent that if a topic ban will not fly, we would have to be looking at a longer block. He just came back from a three-month block; the next would normally be for six months. I would very much rather not see a well-meaning and intelligent editor taken out for that length of time if a topic ban could be as preventive. I also have some sympathy for the proposition that our article on THC is a mess, and desperately needs a cleanup. Its just the manner that Viriditas has adopted that it unhelpful. If he could just cool it, apologise for the fucking the chicken comment (and no, euphemism is not the right word for that), then we could all just get on with things. It seems that this is beyond them at the moment and we are heading for some sort of administrative action, which I would far rather avoid. --John (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• You're right about my misuse of the word "euphemism". It's an anti-euphemism. Thanks for the correction. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, and I somewhat agree with your desire to avoid losing the good along with the bad. And I infer that, yes, you are talking about "cannabis" as the topic for the topic ban. I'm willing to try it. But I fear that it won't work, for the reasons that I already said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume the topic ban would be on "all articles concerning marijuana or health, reasonably construed". Or the Hobson's choice of a six month simple block / Wikication. Collect (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Block history

I think that, at this point, it is useful to look back at Viriditas' history over a longer period, and particularly the context, now, for considering a possible block. Here is his block log: [41]. More directly relevant is the rationale for his most recent block, a three-month block from August to November of last year: [42]. I urge administrators looking here to read that diff carefully. It notes a history of successively longer blocks, based partly on edit warring, but based more on:

"persistent assumptions of bad faith, multiple unsubstantiated accusations, and so on and so on: it has mostly been pointed out to you before, so I don't need to go through the full list. One of the most striking features of what I saw was your own apparent blindness to the extent to which you make the very mistakes of which you accuse others. For example, you have repeatedly accused others of WP:IDHT... but you are one of the biggest perpetrators of that error; you accuse others of "making false accusations"... , despite the fact that you have a long and still continuing history of making accusations without substantiation, and in some cases accusations which the simplest checks show are demonstrably false. Perhaps the most fundamental problem is that you appear to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes your position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against you must have ulterior motives."

Viriditas has been back from that block since November. During that time, he has gotten cautions from various editors about resumption of that behavior: [43], [44], [45]. The expectation of the community is that an editor returning from a block will learn from the reasons for that block, and do better going forward (and we have lots of good editors who have done just that).

The question now is whether, on the evidence of how Viriditas is replying to other editors in this ANI thread, he has reformed the behaviors that led to past blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Trypto, you and I go back years and I generally respect your views, but you have had a running disagreement with Viriditas for some time. This section is unworthy of you, in my view, for a number of reasons but most notably because you fail to mention that fact. As you know I have followed Viriditas and often, but not always, agree with his stands. I don't agree that his blocks have all been what I'd call "justice." This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all. Again, I strongly suggest you redact the above as unworthy of you. Jusdafax 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the discussion here has focused on how to keep him around while getting him to adjust his style. So I'm not clear on how the comment "This is a valuable editor and while I don't subscribe to his style, I believe the 'pedia is better off with him around, warts and all" is topical. I think we all agree that the style is problematic. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree. Viriditas' style is what it is. It seems to me that the section is pushing a block or other sanctions, given the lack of consensus for a topic ban and the section's title, and personally I feel that remedial action is uncalled for. Viriditas is edgy, as seen above, and has a lower tolerance for certain types of edits than many of us do. That said, he is useful in that he does good work often and is refreshingly candid. Viriditas deserves better than this discussion. I do suggest Viriditas review WP:WQ. In fact, many here, including myself, should. Jusdafax 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, that is your answer to years of problematic behaviour? Read WP:WQ? Second Quantization (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I am fully and pointedly staying out of any calls for a topic ban or anything like that because I have a history with Viriditas, but, Jusdafax, I think the double standard complaint is valid in this case. No one is disparaging the work Viriditas puts in. The question is how long we're going to allow a rope to be in this scenario, and the uneven treatment. You, yourself, question Tryptofish's history with Viri as a motive here, yet that same skepticism wasn't welcome when it was Viri attempting to get someone he's had longstanding conflicts with blocked two weeks ago. Viri has written better articles than I'll ever get around to writing here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his contributions amount to a net positive when it comes to issues of fringe science or political topics, for example. Again, I'm neutral on this because there's no way I can possibly be objective, but the apparent double standard is troubling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I salute that neutrality here, TO. You refer, I assume, to the recent calls to block you here, which on reflection appeared unsound to me. I struck my !vote to do so, which I am sorry to see you fail to mention, on deeper consideration of the larger issues. Wikipedia, as many have noted, isn't always fair. Viriditas may not attach the same importance to a clean block log that you (I assume) and I do, but I find that his willingness to stand up for what he believes in is inspiring, characterizations aside, and suggest you work to put history aside. I admit it is not always easy, and I have failed myself badly at times. I consider Trypto a friend and feel he can take my views honestly and in good faith. If Wikipedia is to continue into the future as a vital, growing project free from feuds, we all must make that effort. Jusdafax 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor, I think you're mistaking "abusive" for "refreshingly candid". We all have subjects we feel strongly about, and most of us take secret pleasure when someone lashes out at a third party whose incomprehensible viewpoint irritates us. But when those of us on the other side of the issue, equally convinced that we are "right", start calling our opponents "morons", telling them they are "ignorant", and dismissing their viewpoint out of hand, it just turns into an ugly free for all. I think you are imagining a world in which those you agree with are "refreshingly candid" and put those other people in their place. But I guarantee you, those other people are just as capable of being rude, hostile, and offensive as those you agree with. It really doesn't work in the long run, and that's why we have WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was Jusdafax, not Thargor, who said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jusdafax, I'm saddened to find that you feel this way, and I'm going to try to give you a detailed reply. As best I can remember, my first interactions with Viriditas were: [46], [47], and [48]. I'm not exactly being hostile there, am I? What you call a "running disagreement" started last year, when I saw an RfC about March Against Monsanto. I went to the talk page there with no agenda. My first two comments there were un-noteworthy; here is the third thing I wrote: [49]. And my fourth: [50]. Shortly later: [51], [52], and [53]. I'm not pursuing anything like a disagreement with Viriditas anywhere there! As discussion went on, I began to see nastiness directed mostly at other editors, not at me, but there were things like [54] (lower part), that met my collegial comments with assumptions of bad faith, and [55] that, while seemingly polite, appeared to question my intellect because I had a different opinion. And those examples are very mild, compared to what was directed at other editors, who appeared to me to be acting in good faith, and mild compared to what came later, and led to the block. Jusdafax, it simply is not true that I'm here to push an advantage in some sort of editing disagreement. I'm not currently in any content disagreement with him, anywhere. And, Jusdafax, I'm pretty sure that my first interactions with you were in respect to CDA, where we both agreed that editors who have some sort of track record do not get to get away with things that new editors would be blocked for. I'm trying to stay true to that belief here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Trypto, it could be that the four years since our work at WP:CDA (which of course was more about admins and the community, than longstanding content builders having a "civility edge" over "lesser" editors) has given me a more realistic view of the Realpolitik we face here these days. I am aware of the Monsanto diffs and, as you recall, urged a more moderate tone at Viriditas' Talk page back then. To be brief, after warnings he was blocked and he served his time. I ask you to join me in now urging this thread be closed as unproductive. From here on out, it's gonna be more heat than light, and we should agree the issues are noted and agree to move on. Jusdafax 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you are really aware of those diffs, then you have to know that I'm not here to push a personal agenda. I wasn't then, and I'm not now. I stand by what I've said here, and I'm not calling it back. If you look at everything I've said here at ANI, I earlier said that I'm not really interested in getting Viriditas blocked, but more interested in getting him back into good behavior (see above). Since I said that, he has engaged, in his subsequent comments in this discussion, in more of the conduct that got him blocked the last time. In my opinion, the opinion of the blocking administrator, that I quote above, was not at all unjust, but was sound and very thoughtful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I probably won't comment here further unless directly necessary, but my comment was not meant to disregard your second look, Jusdafax, but rather just to point out the good faith in one area (where an editor has been blocked repeatedly for the same thing) but not another (when an editor you've barely interacted with, if at all, is accused by someone who has been blocked repeatedly). That's all I mean by double standard, and I raised it with you directly because you've shown me as someone who is willing to revisit issues when necessary. That's all, no offense meant by the line toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I'll be "refreshingly candid" here, but mean no offense: My question is, why have rules at all if you are not going to enforce them? We seem to all agree that the rules have been broken, and that it is a recurring situation. I would suggest there are three possibilities here. 1) We have civility rules and consistently enforce them. 2) We have civility rules and enforce them selectively, depending on whether we "like" or frequently agree with the offender, or other discriminatory criteria. 3) We just get rid of the rules altogether. I'd strongly prefer 1 or 3, each of which pretty much constitutes the old adage of "the law is no respecter of persons". Number 2 has a lot of problems. One of which is that it opens up the system for a lot of abuse. Another is that it breeds contempt for the rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been on the side of 1, as many here know quite well, for many years. I have urged 3, with sardonic intent, at times when I have not gotten the feeling 1 was respected. As I am sure most here are well aware, 2 is operative much of the time. We could debate much further on that, with multiple citations and examples, but I prefer not to. Bottom line: A debate over civility is not what is called for on this page. Again: suggest we close. Jusdafax 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Content manipulation on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea

Antonioptg with the assistance of a few other Italian origin users/IPs are deleting [56] a vast amount of internally cited or already sourced content on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea article page with vague reasons for their edits. He does however state on the article's talk page that Since no final decision has been taken by any court, (see decision of the Indian Supreme Court on January 18, 2013) every disputable content should be removed. Beginning with the place and time of the event because the version supported by the Italian authorities does not coincide with that of the Indian authorities. to justify why Indian court rulings and investigation reports can be deleted pending a closure to the legal case. I do not want to resort to an all-out edit war especially after the long long discussions that I have already participated in regarding this article on the talk page of the article regarding POV deletions/inclusions. Robertiki (who has been in repeated content disruption and text tweaking [57] on this specific article because of wanting to include WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS) has also weighed into the discussion and has stated [58] : "Extensive discussions had already been made. We expected that, in all the places where you had unilaterally imposed upon, your unique point of view, you would correct your writings. You have not done it. After waiting some days, and commenting where corrections where needed, I would say that we have moved to WP:BOLD. In any case there is no abuse, you can offer your criticism and discussion is open in the talk page." as the reason for the content transformation. Insofar as I can see there is no unilateralism and also I cannot see what corrections he/they are talking about. Their repeated attempts WP:GAMING [59] to insert speculative content WP:CONTROVERSY into the article is what the entire discussion is centred around. The Italian contributors are insistent that details of incident chronology and investigation reports which are covered in Indian court documents be deleted. However, instead of bringing Italian court documents or investigative reports to the discussion table, they are bringing in journalistic speculation and controversial hypothesis by an expert who has the dubious reputation of questioning official version of the NYC 9/11 terror attacks. Kindly review talk page discussions where-in I have tried to extensively explain [60] why speculative and hypothetical content should not be included and also where I have repeatedly requested to refrain from deletions of text that has already been sourced to official documents and authenticated statements/media-reports. But, discussions are going nowhere. Based on past ongoings centred around this article, I have WP:BRDWRONG concerns. The Italian users are bent on shaping the article to fit the Italian narrative and as you can see the article is increasing looking that way. I would prefer that the article stay NPOV and have therefore reverted the latest set of template data related deletions after seeing the comments made by Ravensfire on the talk page [61]. However, Antonioptg has 3RR by deleted/reverting legitimate content for the third time. I hope that the deletions can be reverted and the page be protected whilst this issue is sorted out adequately. The Italian users/IPs are coordinated in taking turns at content deletion and therefore I request a review of these edits.

• Maybe I am here (on ANI) at the wrong place but if that is the case, can someone take charge to move this elsewhere ? I came here because of the WP:BRDWRONG concerns after being made to repeatedly endure various discussion. I read on WP:BRDWRONG page If they continue reverting, put in an RFC or report them for edit-warring on WP:ANI. You may not abuse WP:BRD to force users to engage in overwhelmingly unnecessary discussion. Please advise.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects a point of view completely unilateral and corrections are necessary. In essence, the user Onlyfactsnofiction and others have built an article based solely on Indian sources passing them off as truths clearly established and using Italian sources only when useful to support their point of view.--Antonioptg (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why I have been referred for Antonioptg edits. --Robertiki (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to notice that, during some of the dispute mediations to which miself as well as other editors recurred in order to try and resolve the frequent diatribes we had on the talk pages, it emerged that, as a side effect of the deeply polarized views about these facts, the article eventually had become too long, overdetailed and difficult to read -- please see f.i. here [62]

Now, to the credit of Antonioptg, he is the first who is actually trying to resolve this problem by effectively rewriting and simplifying the article. I do not think he is purposedly trying to move the narrative to mirror the Italian official position. Viceversa I think he is trying to show in every part of the article that there are two conflicting views, the Indian and the Italian ones, and descrybing them, which I think is generally correct, and the only way to be really neutral in this dispute.

Of course every single editor can object to single entries and deletions on a case by case basis. -- LNCSRG (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Can inclusions to put forth the Italian POV be based on verifiable Italian investigation reports and court documents instead of dubious journalistic speculations ? Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not freely endorse journalistic speculation and hypothesis by experts and has instead to be read alongside WP:RELIABLE, WP:ORSOURCE and WP:DEL-REASON. While discussing about WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS inclusions, it is normal that you consider WP:REDFLAG and also WP:WEIGHT given to these controversial issues. Deletions of text content from authenticated sources and the justifications for article tweaking provided by Antonioptg, Robertiki and now LNCSRG seem shallow.

I have repeatedly engaged Italian origin users and even expressed support to work in improving the article if the content edits are based on WP:RELIABLE sources. I am unwilling to subscribe to alternate reconstructions by "Luigi Di Stefano" and "Toni Capuozzo" which according to LNCSRG is "admittedly highly speculative and based on uncertain assumptions" even if this line of thought may have traction with a certain population within Italy.

I repeat my offer to work with the Italian editors if they can come with official court documents, investigation reports, etc., to corroborate and lend credence to certain Italian perspectives which they wish to highlight. Concurrently, I have made an effort to seek-out feed-back from users who have previously weighed-in on this article including from those who did not necessarily agree with my perspective so as to reach-out and get as broad a view as possible.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, those court documents are not allowable sources: please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Thank you for raising the WP:BLPPRIMARY point. Please see that the article is not exclusively created by citing court documents. Kindly refer to the discussion about court documents on Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard at [63] and where-in we all agree that an article should not rely exclusively based on court documents.

If you scrutinize the article, you will see that the court documents are only used as one among many additional reference points to validate/invalidate information published in secondary sources. Use of primary documents was in a bid to improve/measure/validate the verifiability of a piece of information. It seems to me in-congruent to compare statements which have been cross-checked with statements/affidavits filed in a court of law by involved parties/actors versus free flying journalistic speculation and controversy theories which have no official backing whatsoever.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the "statements/affadavits filed in a court of law" cannot be used to source BLP issues (which this is), as they are being used "to support assertions about...living person[s]". The "journalistic speculation and controversy theories", however, can be used in the article as they're published in third-party sources with editorial oversight. Although they should be noted as "X reports..." or "X states...". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, most of the text content in the article regarding chain of events, victims, location, arrest, court happenings, etc., has come from the english-language media can stand on it's own. The "statements/affadavits filed in a court of law" only serves as a back-up to cross-check information that already has a secondary source. If you check the citation references of the article you will see that text is linked to news media or book publications.

Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources where available. If there is a question of whether a source is reliable it should be brought to WP:RS/N - for that specific source. Being an Italian (or an Indian) source != being an unreliable source automatically, although I'd suggest both sides, in keeping with WP:NOENG try to find some high-quality English language sources for the English language version of Wikipedia; as reliable non-primary English sources are the preferred standard.

What has concerned me as I've monitored the talk page lately has been the refusal to assume good faith by some editors involved here. This has been particularly pronounced against the Italian editors - it seems like having an Italian IP automatically has led to a disregard of WP:AGF and that needs to stop.

If there are specific contentious edits by specific editors regardless of where they are from these should be discussed in the appropriate talk pages, but going forum shopping with moderately vague claims that the Italians aren't being fair is getting tiresome. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Point noted regarding WP:AGF. So, in this context I wish to know whether this discussion should be moved to WP:RS/N so that the merits of the content inclusions/deletions can be decided in the most appropriate manner. Is this the solution to move forward so that we don't stagnate in endless discussions ? I'll wait for more feed-back prior to moving to WP:RS/N with the concerns centred around WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS inclusions which remain yet unanswered.

About forum shopping: As written here earlier, I contacted all persons who had weighed-in for RfC about this article including those who opposed my views. I believe that that is good faith. If I had really wanted to forum shop, I could have posted on the Indian versions of the article on wikipedia (using Google translate) and had a hoard of Indians weighing-in (like what can be seen on the Italian talk page). However, this is something I did not do.

Also, please review the edit history of the article over past 2 years and see which origin are the IPs and users who are trying every few weeks to include journalistic controversies and hypothesis ? That is the reason why after thousands of lines of discussions on the talk page which refer to requests to settle/answer/address the content related questions, I pointed out that these types of swarm-type edits are predominantly from a known set of Italian users/IPs (see edit history list of disruptive page edits relating to inclusion of controversies that even the Italian Govt. is not supporting). Mind you, the Italian users have pointed out to my Belgian IP origin when referring to my discussions and text inclusions. I therefore see no problem in referring to an user by IP origin. However, when you start to call persons names, then it is rude and against wikipedia rules and etiquette. Although I have been curt at times due to frustration, I have never called anyone names. However, the Italian users (see the Italian talk page) resorted to name calling by referring to me as Indian while very well knowing from my IP that I am from Belgium. Is this not racist and WP:VULGAR? Would anyone accept that I called Italian IP users Mussolini just because the editorial content that certain Italian users are submitting is the very same as what Italian ultra-nationalist and fascist parties are supporting ? What next, should I accept being called a Nigger or Red-Neck or Paki ? Also, there have been personal taunts like when LNCSRG wrote "While I blast editor 81.240.144.24 (aka Onlyfactsnofiction aka etc.) obvious anti-Italian bias...". I just ignored this WP:PERSONAL verbal attack just as several others in hte past and did not respond in kind.

I also highlight the fact that I have consistently supported and cooperated/assisted in non-controversial text inclusions on this article as long as WP:RELIABLE sources are concerned.

You will not see me packing the article with so many [64] "Citation Required" tags (even in areas where information was sourced within the article) as it has just been done by an anonymous user who uses an IP from you know where. Now the article is littered with "Citation Required" tags at the end of almost every paragraph. Addition by "217.201.225.102" of 30+ tags in a single edit and this without any explanation or discussion on talk page apart from a repetitive "Reliable source needed for the entire sentence". Wow !

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I question some of the tags but other ones are valid. Handle it by reviewing each tag, find a source for the information and add that source to the article. If the source is already in the article, reuse the existing cite. One of those tags is on a direct quote from someone and there is no reference for that quote. That's a completely valid tag. You need to at least partially assume good faith on edits. Ravensfire (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I will assume good faith over the inclusion of a fresh set of 10 "Citation Required" tags by Antonioptg hoping that it is not a step towards the fast/easy deletion of text-content where those tags appear. I would caution against the idea that "every disputable content should be removed" as stated by Antonioptg on the talk page.

It is possible to stop adding "Citation Required" tags at the end of every other line and instead report them instead onto the talk page ? Because, the article is starting to look really weird with so such intense use of "Citation Required" tags. Also, maybe it is possible to start and move section by section instead buzzing of all over the place.

To all the persons who are presently involved in text inclusions I make 3 requests : please (1) keep in mind the WP:REDFLAG concerns centred around WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS that have been raised (2) give the appropriate weight/coefficient WP:WEIGHT to fringe theories and (3) before deleting something, kindly verify if the information is noteworthy to be retained.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and failing to engage by user Bryski 25

Bryski 25 (talk · contribs) has been extensively editing on Marikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A number of issues have arisen recently, whilst many of the edits are useful, the user consistently fails to add an edit summary, despite myself trying to request on several occasions as seen on their talk page. However, not using an edit summary is not the biggest issue here.

But more significantly, Bryski has been engaging in large scale changes and deletion of valid text of section to the article with no explanation or at least an edit summary. these large changes are [65], [66], [67], [68]. I also have given the user 3 recent warnings with no success. Warning diffs are here: [69], [70], [71]. I seek admin response/action to this issue. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Dispute resolution noticeboard is thataway. You really shouldn't template the regulars and while I agree that edit summaries should be used, as yet it is not a policy or guideline that can be violated. But both of you are edit warring and gee...look who reverted first with what looks like a less than good reason. Just because there was no edit summary is no excuse to revert. There is nothing I see from the original that was constructive to begin with and you might notice all those "Citation needed" tags. These are the only tags I see and they were not all removed.

Wouldn't working on getting sources be a better use of time and be far more supportive of your position?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I came here because despite repeated attempts to ask bryski to explain their changes, I reverted repeated removal of valid text. Continually removing valid text is a cause for concern, and furthermore making no attempt to justify changes. If bryski made an attempt to discuss I wouldn't be here. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your explanation, I just don't agree that this is a matter for intervention at the moments because, believe it or not, you are as guilty of edit warring and the same sort of behavior you are referring to this board, except that you use the edit summary. However you have not attempted the talk page yet and haven't really tried to "engage" the other editor. You just warned them in a rather formal manner. You are not following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Remember:"The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD". So, while I agree, whole heartedly that the other editor has not engaged you, you have not engaged them. This is a behavioral issue that you must share some responsibility in. So, try the talk page, or even the user's talk page to talk about the article and what they may be attempting. Seriously though, the content that was challenged was returned without the burden of evidence being satisfied. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.".--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously think bryski would even respond to a talk page message? I have made several offers previously including not using a template if Bryski wanted assistance in using an edit summary, yet the behaviour just worsened. What more should I do to engage, you've even just tried to engage and I really do wonder if there will be any response. It's obvious bryski understands English just refuses to engage. This is a problem that should not be dismissed/defended. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said...the talk page has still not been used. You do fall somewhat short of exhausting all options if you haven't even begun a talk page discussion and as I said...the burden was on you to cite those claims when you returned them. Look...I am not sticking this all on you but your hands are not clean here so it does make it a tad difficult to say its all the other guys fault. I don't know if Bryski will ever respond...but as long as you try the three basic things, use the talk page, use the user page and attempt to cite your claims...when they don't, it becomes far easier to make the case that they are the one at fault.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I highly highly doubt Bryski is applying WP:BURDEN when removing text with no explanation, that is a big big assumption on your part. WP:BURDEN and WP:CITE are not the issues here. because there are other uncited chunks in the Marikina article that could easily be removed for the same reason. I have now used the talk page... let's see if Bryski engages. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt it as well....since the burden rests with those that return the content not those that remove it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Again the issue here is not WP:BURDEN, there is nothing to point to the assumption bryski was applying WP:BURDEN. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Head's up: Reddit's MRAs focusing on Men's rights movement

A user mentioned that Reddit's MRA board has a post regarding Men's rights movement. This page is under 1RR and is semi-protected, but I thought it worth mentioning. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And... StevieY19 is proxy-editing for non-autoconfirmed users organized through that Reddit thing like here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, more gender war Reddit brigading. First it's the attempted feminist censorship on Woozle effect, now MRA whitewashing. How tedious. Reyk _YO! 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add, I was mistaken on this, and while I did edit the article, I edited it based on my own writing, and my own use of words. If this is not allowed, I'm ok with that and will not do it again. However, I did edit the article as I felt it was wrong and tried to correct it to a more neutral level. Thanks. steviey19 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieY19 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reddit MRA's noticing our article about the MRM happens every few months. A few extra sets of eyes on the article can't hurt (especially admin eyes w/r/t 1rr and the article probation currently in effect,) but it usually dissipates pretty quickly. Our article about the MRM isn't amazingly written, but it does use pretty much all of the reliable sources about the movement currently available, so usually offsite organizing about the article dies down after a few days with offsite groups realizing that trying to approach the article as if it should be written in false equivalence with the women's rights article instead of written as available RS'es present it doesn't actually succeed in getting the article changed in the ways they'd like. For anyone considering taking action (or even, really, editing) the article: be aware that offsite brigading by MRA's has escalated to outing/harassment issues more than once before, so only step in if you're not in a particularly vulnerable position. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On that note then, if I, someone who is involved in these types of works given my line of work, disagree with how the article is written, how would I correct it if it would be ignored? I feel that this is the problem here. I can come up with the opposite view point, but seeing as how it seems people who are running this page don't want change, what is the neutrality of it? I don't understand what the issue with being shown the article, and actually feeling it is wrongly written, editing it, and trying to better the whole of it. StevieY19 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remove any change I've made, as in speaking with people on the talk page of the article, I have been given some good advice, and will do some work before changing things. I jumped the gun a bit, and would like to properly approach things for the futureStevieY19 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said last time--that article is a disaster. It tars a wide variety of movements with an extremely broad brush and while well sourced, has NPOV problems like mad. Many of our more heavily disputed topics end up with well-written articles as the two sides butt heads and improvements get made. This one hasn't had that happen for whatever reason. It's the second article I've read today that suffers from this problem (the other is one about Jews and Communism currently at DRV). Hobit (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Citizen150

WP:SPA Citizen150 editing only on Ted Nugent and related articles (his guitar brands etc). Repeatedly edit warring in poorly referenced information, and removing information that is well referenced, and has a strong consensus for inclusion (see RFC Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC) . (additionally, using misleading edit summaries repeatedly, not mentioning the removal of information)

Recently blocked for 31 hours for 3RR, resumed edit war immediately on expiration of block (Diffs included in 3rr Reports)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Citizen150_reported_by_User:Gaijin42_.28Result:_31h.29
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Citizen150_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29

User has indicated they have no intention of stopping warring "I'm not the one warring. I am providing accurate information about guitars this artist is notable for. Others continue to revert multiple times, surely beyond the revert rule. Will continue until their warring ceases" [72].

Propose page/topic/community ban for willful disregard of policy and consensus.

• support community ban - They need the topic ban, and as a WP:SPA its the same deal. Since they have explicitly said they intend to continue warning, even though they are aware of 3rr and other policies, no reason to show leniency. Also, I would not be surprised if an WP:SPI were to turn something up, but its just by SPIdy sense, no evidence. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support page ban at least. Appears to be a fairly new editor so perhaps some time getting acquainted with WP policies and guidelines outside of this article will be enough. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Let WP:ANEW do its job. Per WP:ROPE if they continue edit warring they'll be blocked for longer periods of time soon enough and eventually indeffed if they refuse to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I saw the ANEW thread and was prepared to block but I saw that he has stopped editing. I watchlisted Ted Nugent and will keep an eye on it in case that he resumes edit warring. I agree that a topic ban might be a good idea, but not just yet. → Call me Hahc21 14:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21 He was just AFK I think. war resumed. [[73]] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I expected him to pay attention to what has been said to him, but he didn't. I went ahead and blocked. Let's hope he lears this time that there are no excuses to edit warring. → Call me Hahc21 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry by Ring Cinema

After committing 4RR and being warned on his talk page about it, Ring Cinema decided to canvass for support from another editor (link is here [74]). While doing so, he starting throwing out accusations of sock-puppetry, having no grounds for such accusations. I requested he redact the false accusations and he chose not to. In fact, rather than letting the accusations go, he repeated the accusations in an edit summary at an article talk page. Being accused of sockpuppetry is bad enough. Using an edit summary to repeat that kind of accusation without any basis in fact is disturbing. I don't know what can or should be done about this from an administrative standpoint, but at the very least I feel the accusation should be redacted by Ring Cinema. He's ignored my request for him to do so, possibly an administrative action could convince him? Links to the accusations can be found here at an editor's talk page: [75] and here in the edit summary [76]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema's wildly wrong on the sock puppetry matter and his claims are unwarranted and only came about because he didn't get his own way. But he's severely testing Schrod's and my patience on the matter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As the "editor canvassed for support", I wish to make it clear that I have never edited the article in question, Annie Hall, nor have I posted on the Talk page. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose here? I made the accusation for good reason and I haven't stopped monitoring the question of Winkelvi's possible use of sock puppets in cases apart from the current question. The last time I came across sock puppets, it was sufficient to stop the behavior by pointing out that it might be happening. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema, the ONLY time the accusation is "for good reason" is if you actually file your WP:SPI. Otherwise, it's a personal attack. It is unacceptable to make accusations without filing the report as you're simply attempting to chill discussion DP 13:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the advice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You were told this, and told to file at SPI or withdraw such a facetious and baseless accusation. You didn't, but continued to use it in threads and edit summaries with no further aim than to insult others, which is unacceptable. – SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That is untrue, SchroCat. In fact, you said that, since I didn't file an SPI, you considered the accusation withdrawn. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Really? Not that untrue then... - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Completely untrue, to be accurate. Please correct the record. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Schro isn't the only editor you accused and I don't consider the accusation withdrawn. Especially now since you (unbelieveably) have further accused me of sockpuppetry in this ANI thread ("I haven't stopped monitoring the question of Winkelvi's possible use of sock puppets in cases apart from the current question.") -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple highlights from my exchanges with SchroCat: Diff: "If you weren't a gutless coward you'd have reported it by now. I'm out of this discussion while you're being so childish. I provided the link to report on Gareth's page: use it or shut the [expletive deleted - Ring Cinema] up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)"

Even worse. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So, Ring Cinema has been doing personal attacks through false, unfiled accusations and that raised the hackles of others. Just proof of why WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL exist - to PREVENT stupid escalations. So, Ring - cut it out. Schro - don't respond with things like "stupid". Case closed. DP 14:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat's unusually foul language

(this sub-section was originally a separate section, but was moved to go along with related discussion) DP 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat has used bad language and made personal attacks on more than one occasion.

A couple highlights from my exchanges with SchroCat: Diff: "If you weren't a gutless coward you'd have reported it by now. I'm out of this discussion while you're being so childish. I provided the link to report on Gareth's page: use it or shut the [expletive deleted - Ring Cinema] up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)"

Another outburst. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't make tit-for-tat filings, they never go well. This situation was closed above - you caused a situation by making personal attacks, they responded. Two wrongs don't make a right, so STOP ffs DP 14:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm well within my rights to file this action and you are out of line to object to it. Thanks for your attention to it, although your response is incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no "rights" on Wikipedia :-) Here's the reality: you started with the personal attacks. You could be blocked for them. Schro replied with personal attacks, and they could be blocked for them. So, if you would like someone to be blocked, then we would have to block you both ... seems like punishment instead of prevention (WE DON'T DO PUNISHMENT!), because it seems like you both have stopped. However, if you refuse to drop the WP:STICK, we might just need to block you alone - after all, you were the one to baited other editors. By the way, "bad language" is a red-herring, we don't block for occasional swearing. DP 09:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, let me officially say that the diffs you link to above are clearly attacks, but as DP stated before they were in response to extensive provocation by yourself. While that doesn't excuse such actions, I don't believe that any additional action is needed as a response. Also, it's worth noting that while personal attacks are disallowed, foul language is not. -- Atama頭 20:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rights? I tell any five year old melting down on his parents on a department store floor that they should wait to throw a fuss when it involves a car. Any thing less is a let down on one's chums.76.170.88.72 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Visigodo Latino

Looking at this user's contributions [77] this appears to be a vandalism only account, either that or someone rambling on and on everyplace they see fit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just needs a reminder of what Wikipedia is NOT and will likely disappear. Current event social blogger putting his thoughts on Wikipedia articles. Can always block the account if it continues beyond the warning. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning given. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Highly offensive edit summaries from IP editor

Should anything be done, and if so can anything be done, about an IP editor who includes higly offensive slurs in their edit summaries? I am referring to 124.184.193.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has used such edit summaries as (Redacted) and (Redacted) Based on the language, the fact that all the edits relate to same-sex marriage in Scotland, and the fact that all the IPs belong to the same ISP, I believe this to be the same person as 121.216.21.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who posted (Redacted), and 121.218.125.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who posted (Redacted). - htonl (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm struck by the idea that an immediate block without warning might appear WP:PUNITIVE rather than preventative, but this is disgusting behaviour. Such prolific activity from an account after warnings would deserve an indefinite block, IMO. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the second edit makes insulting references to a living person and, I believe, should be dealt with in a similar way to how we deal with WP:BLPABUSE-usernames. Aware that it could well just be a troll, out trolling for a response, but still it's pretty vulgar. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The second IP (121.216.) was warned about their edit summaries. In any case, I see the current IP has now been blocked. - htonl (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain that it's the same person. Unfortunately, their offensive edit summaries are often used on what are otherwise fair edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

An admin should redact these edit summaries immediately—they are grossly offensive and shouldn't be made public. Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

On it... Yunshui 雲‍水 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article

There has been some non-conclusive discussion over some sources on the Jung Myung Seok / Providence [Religious Movement] article. This article has been brought up here on the WP:ANI page a couple times before, but the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled. More recently, 12 third party news sources and 4 direct quotes of the organization’s founder have been removed without much discussion. You can see the removed content in this revert [78]. The article has two editors immediately removing the content and two editors arguing that the material should at least be up for discussion. The last admin to really get involved with the article, Richwales, gave some useful advice for the article and even did the work to verify some of these sources [79], but much of the content following his suggestions keeps getting removed. He has since removed himself for being too wp:involved. If we could have some more editors take a look at the material in contention perhaps we could make some progress on this article. Macauthor (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sam Sailors removal of the 12 sources and direct quotes also restored sourced content deleted/whitewash? by Macauthor here Much of the editing on the article appears to be whitewashing. Jim1138 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute, as "the particular issue of sources wasn’t settled" could seem to indicate, or is it a follow up on your remarks here where you say I am inserting pornographic material in the article, and that you believe my editing is contentious and in supposedly violation of WP:NPOV, which I have asked you to bring up for community discussion? Either or, as I in my reply on the article talk page, in this edit, have argued the case quoting guidelines and policies, I'd apreciate if you did the same here.

Uninvolved editors trying to grasp the situation in Providence (religious movement) should be aware, that MrTownCar (t c) has disclosed that both he and Macauthor (t c) are members of this movement. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I said that it had the appearance of contentious editing and I was pointing out that you had only commented on the pornographic source without discussing the other sources. I apologize if I offended you but the real issue here is whether the content being discussed is valid, if or how much of it is white washing, or whether it is informative to keep all or some of the content in the article. I feel that it is holding the article back to keep reverting to previous versions that do not include more recent events about the subject. Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

MrTownCar (talk · contribs) may speak for himself but he does not speak for me. He disclosed that he is a member which is clearly Wikipedia:COI and his edits have not always been sourced very well, but his knowledge of the movement may be of some use. Do you have an opinion on the material you have removed? Macauthor (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So this is a question about contents then. That belongs on the article talk page, and would be facilitated had the two SPAs not retorted to accusations[80][81] on the second lowest level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement without substantiating them the least bit quoting guidelines and policies. Despite being asked to. [82][83]

What does belong here is a discussion of the long-term tendentious editing we have witnessed on Jung Myung Seok and now on Providence (religious movement) (the former was recently merged into the latter). Previously this has been brought up in e.g.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page, and
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Jung Myung Seok.

Yes, large amounts of contents with challenges related to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS have been added to and removed from the article for years (long before I started watching it in October 2013), and has been discussed in length on Talk:Jung Myung Seok and has been up for discussion on e.g.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?,
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive169#Jung Myung Seok, and
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147#Use of unverified or planted references in article about Jung Myung Seok.

To put it briefly, the hallmark of Macauthor (t c) and MrTownCar (t c) is to stick in various amounts of apologetic material casting doubt about the fairness of Jung's two convictions of rape and his 10-year prison sentence, and material questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of their testimonies, while at the same time removing material critical to Jung. Prompting Drmies to say I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. ... I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics. A few examples out of hundreds: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff. Among the reverting/restoring editors I see e.g. Shii, ukexpat, Ravensfire, Lectonar, Richwales, Harizotoh9, Drmies, and myself.

When the two editors continued editing in January and February, including a SOAP edit like this deleting sourced content at the same time, and in apparently perfect English translation of a Korean source add:

Template:Sure?

then I find that Harizotoh9's revert one day later was well done and well within BRD. Harizotoh9 followed up by posting three new talk page sections with his concerns. Macauthor responded to none of them, but posted their own new section suggesting Harizotoh9 to ask before you remove content (WP:OWN), before Macauthor reverted back to their latest prefered version. And here is where I come in the following day first posting my comments on the talk page, then reverting clearly indicating WP:BRD in my edit summary to get the dialogue going and avoid warring.

Since bans have already been mentioned in previous ANI threads, I suggest other editors chime in with their opinions on the situation. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any suggestion by Sam Sailor that he has taken the time to carefully review the material posted by Macauthor. I am sorry no neutral sysop is weighing in on this.MrTownCar (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Censoring and blanking out on the talk page

User:Ichek has blanked out the talk page discussion I and another editor have done on List of countries by average wage in an attempt to censor the existing consensus, claiming that I "read the consensus" which he censored. This kind of censorship must stop immediately and sanctions must be imposed on this user to stop this kind of horrendous behavior. User:Ichek also appears to be a sockpuppet of Abdulnoir75, appearing out of nowhere only to promote his agenda on List of countries by average wage. Both show very similar agendas, both of them are reverting the existing consensus on that articlce and not joining the discussions. Massyparcer (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• He deleted once and didn't repeat once reverted and warned, so sanctions would be premature. I think you may be overstating that particular issue. If you think he is a sockpuppet, you need to report him to WP:SPI rather than here. Be sure to provide diffs and a paragraph or two explaining the connection. At this time, there isn't anything to do at WP:ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation of an admin

• MegaGardevoir68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It has been brought to my attention that this user impersonated me with this edit. When I asked them about this their response was less than encouraging. Impersonating any other user is unacceptable per WP:SIGFORGE. Given that the edit was nearly two weeks go I might have been minded to just let it go if the user showed an understanding of what a serious issue this, but instead they refused to engage at all on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also peculiar is this "new" user's interest in the accuracy of page protection templates.[84][85][86][87][88][89] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

He did it another time here. I'm just going to go ahead and block. Clearly, he knows he's being disruptive intentionally. We don't need that stuff around here. --Jayron32 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More of them: [here and here. I'm going back and rolling back this silliness. He's already been blocked by me, if he has a good explanation, he can give it in the unblock template. If anyone thinks that this user's behavior is acceptable, feel free to let us all know. --Jayron32 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That editor is not as new as their 231 edits would indicate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Confirmed to PrivateMasterHD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I went ahead and dealt with the underlying IP. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrivateMasterHD for tracking this drawer? DMacks (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access and email access disabled. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for your prompt attention to his matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and NPOV at Logan River Academy

Logan River Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1LastManStanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

This is an interesting little squabble that has been going on for months. The page started as largely a smear campaign at the beginning of November created by SPA Mgottesfeld. 67.177.32.215 started whitewashing the page the other way. At this point. 209.6.193.140 reverted him. Then the page creator began edit warring over the article, until he stopped after a 3RR report. Everything stayed this way until early February when another SPA 173.14.238.190, now inactive, white washed it again. After he goes inactive, 67 comes back, lo and behold, and carries on his work. 209 reverted once during this time. From Feb. 25 until the 7th it stopped, until 67 again just reverts some constructive edits, and continues to edit-war until the 11th. Then a fresh SPA, 1LastManStanding, comes into the picture and begins to whitewash. 209 asked WPPilot to check out the article and he made one edit. Now 67 and 1LastManStanding are both tag team edit warring over the article, with 209 reverting them. 209, incidentally, is now at 5RR.

All of this article is NPOV one way or another, and it may7 just need to be nuked and started over. KonveyorBelt 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

While on the point of nuking and starting over, I suggest full protection as well as another report directly to WP:ANEW. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For whom? KonveyorBelt 20:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was asked by a IP user to review the page and boy does it have issues. To me this page has been a tool to attack the subject and not much more. I am trying to avoid conflict, when I added something that I felt improved the Wiki it was promptly reverted. I had also requested a page lock but that was denied? WPPilot talk 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• As the major warfare has been waged by I.P. numbers I really think that a semi protect is in order. Granted that named users have been a part of the battle, the IP semi block would at least put the edit warring to rest as far as the IP numbers listed above are concerned. WPPilot talk 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Work/edits being attacked.

Hello, my work/edits are being attacked on many pages by user SmartSE. This user claims I'm part of a group of sockpuppets, OK fine Smartse is intitled to think this. Until proven I'm a sockpuppet or part of a group this user should stop referring to this in the Edit Summary boxes as the reason for my edits to be removed. Example HERE & HERE & HERE . Now when I undo the edits Smartse then attacks me on the Talk Pages by STILL accusing me as part of a sockpuppet ring Look HERE at the bottom of page Now if Smartse never mentioned me as being part of this sockpuppet ring HERE would the other 2 users left a comment? I think not, I feel that because Smartse added the negative sentance of me being part of this sockpuppet ring it gave the 2 other users a negative view on my edit & a reason to agree with Smartse, very unfair. You will notice [HERE that I have explained to all Smartse questions & he/she is still attacking me when yet nothing has been proven, again the edits/work of mine have never been questioned by another user, this is clearly a personal attack I feel because I'm not playing the Smartse game & shutting up like a good newbie. This is very unprofessional for an experienced editor. Sarah1971 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, because 1. we are not idiots, and 2. regardless of the result of the sockpuppetry investigation the edits are still problematic. Seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring. Given that Smartse has attempted to engage you on the talk pages and you chose to come here instead, please also review WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This really just comes off as another clumsy attempt on your part to manipulate the Wikipedia community, as you admit to attempting here. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia & before I carry out many edits & start new pages I'm concentrating on 1 project to learn this, walk before I run. But while I'm walking & trying to add as much info as possible on my new projects I'm being accused of something. Until proved should all my work be slandered with this new label of being a sockpuppet. Sarah1971 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to say, other than pointing to the diffs I've linked to at the SPI here. It seems extremely unlikely that those accounts aren't linked. As I've already explained - I haven't reverted anything purely because I think Sarah1971 is a sock - it's the content that has been added which is problematic. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In my role as a Junior Wrangler at the WP:TEAHOUSE, I should point out the editor has also been forumshopping at WP:Teahouse/Questions, where they've been plied with tea and sympathy although not much else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, they were directed here from the Teahouse. That doesn't really look like forum shopping to me as much as not getting the hint that the problem is stemming from their behavior. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sarah1971: I believe that the concerns by SmartSE and others are valid. The investigation seems justified, and if you aren't linked to the people that you are suspected of being linked to, you should be cleared. If you aren't engaged in sockpuppetry, don't worry about a false accusation tarnishing you. Even I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of someone in the past, it's not a big deal if you're cleared. -- Atama頭 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, SmartSE's edits are defending Wikipedia from a nest of sockpuppet spammers. I've seen the fiverr page showcasing subjects such as Graffiti Kings examples of successful promotion. It is clear that you are being paid to advertise certain subjects. These edits are reference spam and are not tolerated. ThemFromSpace 20:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the Sarah1971 account needs to be blocked as a sock/meat puppet who cannot reconcile their promotional interests with our goals as an encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried about temporary having a sockpuppet label as yes the truth will come out. What I'm worried about is the many times Smartse has removed my edits while calling me a sockpuppet in the Edit Summary boxes? Right away Smartse labels me as a sockpuppet & gives me a nagative label, a label for other users not to trust. Its not even been proved. Sarah1971 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In none of the edits you linked to above did SmartSE use sockpuppetry as a justification for reverting you. Yes, there were links to the sockpuppetry case, but only because the promotional nature of your edits were outlined in that discussion and it would help explain the reason for the revert. We don't generally undo the edits of a sockpuppet, unless the main account is banned, so it wouldn't be a good idea for SmartSE to be doing that anyway. Whether or not you are a sockpuppet, it has been put forth by a number of editors that your edits violate WP:SPAM in that they seem to be done to advertise rather than to actually improve articles. Because of that, there is the risk that you could be blocked for that behavior regardless of whether or not the sockpuppetry investigation clears you. -- Atama頭 22:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Theres no reason for Smartse to add a link to the sockpuppet case in Edit Summary boxes & on the talk pages - Example again HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE the only reason would be to give me a nagative label/label me as a none trustworthy user or its a personal attack. Why else mention the sockpuppet case. I find it strange that many other users on here would also call me things? even though its not proven. Granted they can think what they want but by going on record saying they think its true is mind boggling? is Wikipedia their site? do they have the final say? Just asking. Is there any point of discussing my problem here? does anything get resolved by anybody? Is there someone with authority to say agree or not agreed & case closed? if no then can someone please advise to to the correct page please to make a complaint. Sarah1971 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's my signature, by the way. KonveyorBelt 17:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I knew I've seen it somewhere... ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Combination POV push/personal attacks on Islam-related article

Sorry to bring this to ANI first but the talk page in question has been exhausted and since this involved both conduct and content, I'm not sure where else to go. The gist of it: I have contributed extensively to Rabee Al-Madkhali, a hardline Muslim cleric, and Madkhalism, his movement which is mostly of Muslims in the Western world. The fact that I created the latter caused controversy among Madkhalists, some of whom were my former college buddies. The group tends to deny its own existence and dislikes attention, but I stuck only with mainstream academic sources to be fair.
Maybe a week ago or so a new account comes along called Amerrycan Muslim who only edits this article. He did a massive POV push, trying to use the article as a soapbox and in the process outed me twice. I requested the edits be suppressed via oversight and they were because I don't want that stuff out there, but I don't feel shy saying that it happened. User:Risker can confirm that the information posted can only be known by someone who knows me very, very well. I don't want to know who they are but suffice to say that based on what they said specifically, they know who I am, are quite angry and see this as some sort of existential battle.
At Talk:Rabee Al-Madkhali, things have been difficult. I have tried to remain civil and to be fair the guy is new and most likely unfamiliar with site policies and guidelines, but until now he has refused to take heed every time I explain why such-and-such suggestion violates such-and-such policy. The last straw was tonight when I had to go through Wikipedia:Other stuff exists with him three times and it became clear that this is a massive issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
I'm here as I'm not sure how to deal with the guy. He isn't edit warring anymore, and he says he didn't know that outing other editors isn't allowed, but I know for a fact there is a bit of battleground mentality with me personally as well as refusal to get the point about the soapboxing and weasel wording he keeps suggesting. He has said twice now he wants arbitration and the discussions are getting a bit more tense. It's difficult to avoid the conduct issue here to be honest. I hope the community can comment and make suggestions as to how this can be solved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For those concerned, then one or two diffs would be tough as it's the whole conversations but the major "I didn't hear that" issue is at Talk:Rabee_Al-Madkhali#A_Question_of_bias_in_sources while the major POV push is at Talk:Rabee_Al-Madkhali#The_initial_intro. The conduct issue and tense relationship is pretty much all over the page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, First off I would like to thank user:MezzoMezzo for bringing our issues from the aforementioned page here for help and council. I also appreciate Mezzo's fairness in SOME of what he wrote here. I AM a new guy, who has academically researched salafism within Europe and upon coming across the wiki page of Dr Rabee, I was outraged at what was in my opinion an extremely unbalanced page on someone I have previously researched. I have only edited this page because I feel it needs so much work and I have been so busy going through my old research to bring information and sources to show that the same sources being quoted currently also give positive information which I fail to see on the current page. That's solely why I haven't moved on. And for the record, I do not know Mezzo.

However, Mezzo is extremely wrong in almost everything else he says about me. This is in no way about him, nor a battle against him. It is about balancing a wiki page of someone I have researched. And I am in no way angry. Just perplexed, for reasons which shall follow.

I did asked Mezzo why sources which are used on other pages of figures which are like-minded and directly connected to Dr Rabee are not allowed, such as Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi and Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi'i. He gave his own personal opinion about why Middle Eastern research was not usually up to scratch while not offering any empirical data to back his claim up, and because of that, books offering an alternative view to what he wrote on the page were rejected. However, sources like this have been added on the pages of Wadi'i and Shah, so I asked why there were sites which he claims to be biased and unprofessional on these other pages. I never mentioned the content, ever. Then he told me about "other stuff exists" and I read that and saw it was about 'content' and not 'citations' so I politely asked him about that. I could continue on, but I wish for all to read the talk page.

I am more than happy to have moderation on the page of Dr Rabee, as he and I will be unlikely to agree. However, in my defense, as I wrote on the talk page of Dr Rabee's page, I have never EVER attempted to delete criticism of Dr Rabee which was posted without citation. I merely, looked to balance out the page with facts and praise from other Islamic scholars of greater and equal standing with Dr Rabee. It is all about balancing a page regarding a controversial figure based on academic sources as well as opposing view points, which should also include the person in question: Dr Rabee. Thank you for your time. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

While the tone here is much nicer, the comments above are a demonstration on why the the content issue has become muddled with the conduct issue.

To start with User:Amerrycan Muslim, I never said that I rejected "books offering an alternative view" because of my opinion on the quality of research at universites in the Mideast.

• You asked me my opinion of peer-reviewed research in Arabic.
• I replied with my opinion only, and not with comments on the article. I even made it abundantly clear just a few comments later that I was only giving you my opinion, not advocating any specific changes to Rabee Al-Madkhali or any other page.

The Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is also being demonstrated right here. To say that the community culture regarding that essay only refers to content and not citations is clearly semantic and borderline trolling; even a newbie can see that. I explained to you two times why that isn't relevant and your dwelling on the point comes off as pointless and argumentative.

Additionally, your proposal for a new lead before editing the rest of the article contains so many weasel words and soapboxing, it's difficult to ignore; it's about as bad as the original 23,000 bytes you tried to slip in without discussion. I mean, an Arabic language audio recording of a private phone conversation hosted on archive dot org where the subject of the article simply denies he has a movement and calls his group the only true Sunnis? That's a reliable source and valid reason for inserting denial that his movement exists into the lead?

That, with all the "I didn't hear that" behavior, accusations of me inventing my own policies when I quote and link to actual policies in just about every comment I make, and your two separate attempts to reveal my identity in a malicious way make it real tough to deal with you and make any headway. This is actually overshadowing the content issue at this point, to be honest. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit contradictory to say you don't have a movement but admit you have a group? Just my two cents. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked whether you were aware of peer-reviewed articles and books written in the Arabic language, because much of the currently sourced research relies on it and I intend on including it, not your opinion on its reliability- you added that as a side point saying "keep in mind that reliability is low" and "peer-review consists of yes-men".

When I asked about citations being used elsewhere, it was about using biographical sources such as fatwa-online or the subject's biography written by his students or followers, being fine when sourcing non-controversial factual material, such as lineage. My questions were asked because you explicitly stated that certain sources (fatwa-online and the subjects website) are "biased" and "unprofessional" thereby negating validity of those sources that are key for the subject matter and strongly relied on with current academic sources, such as meijer, lacroix, and others.

I was quite hasty as a newbie, and I'm still learning the rules- there's no need to assume malicious intent. In the interest of fairness and unbiased information, both sides of a story should be told. I never stated that the movement doesn't exist, I said even though the subject denies the claim and some of his contemporaries/followers deny its existence. This is not taking a side, this is showing the subject's denial. If it doesn't belong in the lead, that's my mistake, and it can be moved to a separate section. I do not intend to be malicious, I would just like some balance in the presentation of the information. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amerrycan Muslim, I know that there is a measure of malice there. Nobody here at ANI has seen what you posted the second time you tried to out me but I remember, so keep that in mind; I know why you're here.

Secondly, many of us (myself included) have made your newbie mistakes and even more, but the issue now is that you are so combative that explaining politely why such and such suggestion doesn't work out had no effect until things came here to ANI. There is also no assurance, currently, that once we leave this open forum and go back to the talk page without so much attention, you won't revert to the same "I didn't hear that" schtick again. I would assume good faith, but for reasons I have stated several times here, that was obviously exhausted early on.

Basically what I am trying to find out is where to go from here. WP:DRN and WP:3O are for disputes which are solely about content, any conduct mediation measures are too serious for disagreements with newbies, and there isn't much I know of for disputes which are both content and conduct. Some sort of outside assistance is necessary because, after seeing you reply with the same arguments over and over again even after I explain why most of your suggested changes to the article (not all of them) violate multiple policies and guidelines, I honestly have little patience to continue replying. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat. There is no malicious intent. But, I'm excited that you now why I am here; to simply demand an article that is a balanced and fair portrayal of the subject. Showing the POSITIVE, as well as the negative. Under your recent stewardship I feel that is lacking. While looking through the edit history of the page this seems to he a new phenomenon as previously your stewardship was, in my opinion, excellent. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tivanir2: Yeah, I guess it is contradictory, though my main concern isn't the contradiction. It's that my fellow editor here thinks that an Arabic-language recording hosted at Internet Archive of someone calling the cult's leader on the phone counts as a valid source, or that random Muslim proselytizing sites with no editorial boards count as valid sources, or that the websites of Madkhalism count as valid sources. And that when I explain how they don't, I am told that I am making up my own policies. This is what I need assistance mediating. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Amerrycan Muslim's largely reasonable engagement above appears to have turned into random vandalism of this page. DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks more like what happens when one edits an old revision despite the warning, which could easily be by mistake. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes sorry for that, I'm on my phone and finding it a little difficult. So I will stop until at computer. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

In here, user:Zedzem is accusing me of both vandalism and working for a regime. A quick look at the talk page shows my edit was towards the discussion there, in which the consensus voted for removing the material he is trying to include -yet again- in the article. Your help in preventing an edit war is very much appreciated. Also, for the records, I live in the USA and have no association with any government whatsoever.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that edit as saying that you are working for the regime, to me when it says you are "for the Islamic Republic" the message is only saying that you are biased towards the country, or at least you are editing in a manner that is changing the article's point of view to reflect more favorably on the country. I'm not saying I agree, necessarily, but I'm just pointing out that I'm pretty sure that's what Zedzem was trying to say. As for the vandalism accusation, that is different and an accusation of vandalism without sufficient evidence is a form of personal attack not allowed on Wikipedia. People far too often misuse the phrase to mean just about any action that they personally dislike. I will leave a note for the editor who made that claim. -- Atama頭 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't really belong at the general administrators' noticeboard (which is for announcements and other notifications), this is more suitable for the incidents noticeboard. I'll move it there now. -- Atama頭 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

HELP

I need some help editing Wikipedia. will somebody plz help? thanks Malayhotgirl (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Teahouse is where you want to go to get an introduction and ask questions. WP:Help desk is another option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Dennis, I'm going to go out on a limb and propose that the hot girl isn't here for editing Wikipedia. I'm also going to suggest that the picture they just put on their user page, File:Miss Malaysia 07 Deborah Priya.jpg, might not be of them, and that this picture was placed with another strategic interest in mind. Then, I will announce that I have removed said image from said user page considering all kinds of possible BLP problems. Now, should I block them already, or would you like to ask them for more pictures, maybe some of her sister? Or should I start sipping from the other cup, the one marked "Good faith"? Dr. "Super Hot" Mies (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Now Doc Mies, if I had any suspicion of anything unusual, don't you think I would have done something, such as log into IRC and talk to a clerk? I expected to just AGF and monitor. That said, if I had to wager on one of us, I would bet on you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd bet on those odds! ;-) (wink and a nudge...knowwhatImean, knowwhatImean?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on MH370 page

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

---

There appears to be an edit war happening between User:Kendall rayanne and User:TheAirplaneGuy, both of which appear to be continually reverting changes to MH370 in a fashion that is making it difficult to add verifiable information to the article without it changing underneath other editors' feet. In the middle of a current event, an edit war is the last thing that should be happening on an article of this importance. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User blocked TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That solves the problem then. It's not really my place to, but this is now resolved. I just realized there is a 3RR noticeboard anyway. Whoops. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note, if you need to post something at ANI again, don't forget to notify the editors in question of the discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Racism on talk:Human

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#Replace_male_with_a_bigger_penis

Editor Maunus has kindly presented sources demonstrating that race does not exist immediately in the preceding section and now editors are using the word 'Asian' to talk about humans and implying that Asians have small penises. It has been asserted that there are clines and that variation is not correlated, so this is not possible, nor is it possible for there to be "Asians". I demand that this kind of pre 1900s racist terminology not be allowed on the talk page. 118.219.86.71 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was a trollfest. Blocked both this IP here and another (possibly unrelated) one for disruptive editing and trolling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

118.219.86.71 is an obvious sock of User:Mikemikev. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right, thanks, that's the one. Had a hunch about it, but couldn't quickly remember what the name of "that human-race troll who posts from Korea" was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverse Sandstein's false accusations and destructive warnings

In February 2013, four editors -- SMcCandlish, Noetica, Ohconfucius, and myself -- were falsely accused of misconduct by Sandstein. As a result, three have walked out, and a fourth continues to edit, but with understandable bitterness.

I am asking that the community repair Sandstein’s damage by 1) striking the false accusations 2) vacating the actions based on the false accusations and 3) advising Sandstein to recuse in any future dealings with the four editors. _

I find the above statement in poor taste, referring to "damage", etc ... nothing like poisoning the well. DP 12:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

NewYorkBrad is fond of quoting Othello III.iii.155 in this matter. If it's good enough for The Bard, and good enough for NYB, it's good enough for me. —Neotarf (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I and others have been personally harmed as editors by this, the project suffers the loss of our contributions, and the community's faith in the equitability of policy enforcement by admins is certainly damaged. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Personally harmed"? Seriously? Now THAT is inappropriate - nobody dropped by your house and hit you with a rake. Nobody fired you from your job. This is a website, and you got your feelings hurt ... THAT is not the definition of "personally harmed". DP 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the fallacies of equivocation, argumentum ad absurdum, and straw man, all at once. I don't need to argue with you at length about this; the facts of the case are clear, and while you're entitled to whatever opinion you want, you're not entitled to pretend that you magically know who in the real world has noticed this dispute and what effects it may have had or could later have off-Wikipedia, especially with regards to editors who use their real names here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to deal in caricatures like being hit by rakes or being fired. Harm can come in many forms, and DP's dismissiveness risks oversimplifying. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if it is possible to vacate Sandstein's bizarre attacks on these editors, it would be good to do so. If this could help Noetica and Neotarf and SMcCandlish return as WP contributors, that would be a big win all around. These were very serious, productive, and scholarly editors, and Sandstein's dislike for their style and their positions somehow led to these inappropriate accusations that they rightly took much offense at. Let's fix this if we can. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other about overturning results in this discussion. But I do care about whether all the so-called "bizarre attacks" were truly bizarre. I was one of the editors who was unjustifiably harassed by SMcCandlish. That led to a boomerang block for his bullying. I don't recall if he apologized or not but it was harassment to me that I shant forget. I didn't ask for any block at the time but I didn't want that to ever happen to me again. The others I have no idea about... but the SMcCandlish harassment solution was not a bizarre attack in my mind. Do I trust him not to do it someone else after all this.... not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Remove Sandstein’s false accusations from the case page

The accusations came about in the aftermath of a request filed by Apteva, who, in spite of a topic ban resulting from an RFCU endorsed by 38 editors, was allowed to open an arbitration enforcement case seeking to preempt a pending sanction under discussion against him.

Sandstein was advised by another admin to retract the language about casting aspersions, but refused[90]. To add further damage to our reputations, we were publicly mocked by Sandstein for having been accused by him.

Sandstein has admitted I have not done anything to merit even a warning, but he has steadfastly refused to officially retract the accusatory statements. Another admin removed the accusation, but even after Sandstein acknowledged the accusation was not true, he reverted the other admin's edit to reinstate the false accusation into the case record.

In case someone comes up with the less-than-brilliant idea that it is “impossible” to remove a notification from a case record once it has been placed there (yes, someone has actually said this), here are two recent examples: a notification that was vacated and stricken from the record as a result of community action, and an entry in the case record simply removed by an arb. The world did not end and the Wikipedia did not explode.

Sandstein's false accusations against the four editors SMcCandlish, Noetica, Neotarf, and Ohconfucius should be removed from the case page here.

• Support. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I've been trying to get this resolved for about a year now. Sandstein (and others) keep trying to pretend this is about some kind of totally nonsensical "you can't 'unwarn' someone" gibberish. No one has asked to be "unwarned". The notices we received from Sandstein contained both accusation wording and warning wording. This has only ever been about the accusations; not one of us has ever disputed the idea that we've been notified of ARBATC and warned about the discretionary sanctions surrounding it. Any further pretense that that's what this is about, and that it can be dismissed or ignored on the basis that warnings cannot be undone will be just shamelessly, transparently dishonest. Every single person who could possibly be involved in and care about this dispute has already been informed of the actual accusation-related facts behind it numerous times already. No more games. I could even live with it if the false accusations by Sandstein were vacated, the relevant log cleared, then the same four editors got re-issued new but properly-worded WP:ARBATC warnings (without attached slander) using the current, non-accusatory language of said warnings Of course, dealing with it this way would be vindictive, asinine and petty: If your position is that people cannot be unwarned, then removing the accusations will have no effect on our having been warned and issuing new warnings will simply be antagonism. But it would still be preferable to the present circumstance.

  I don't even care if Sandstein ever admits doing any wrong. I don't care if admins do or don't in the majority agree or disagree with him. It requires absolutely nothing but common sense to delete the logged actions of Sandstein in this case as procedural matter, rectifying that something intended as a warning actually inadvertently included text that is a blatant accusation, which without proof makes it a personal attack and (at least with regard to those of us who use our real names here, like me) blatant defamation. You can even hold Sandstein totally blameless if you want. JUST FIX IT. The WP community has already lost somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 productive edits by me in the intervening year, and I have no idea how many thousands more by the other falsely accused editors Sandstein's actions and Wikipedia administration's collective refusal to correct them has driven off. I'm not going to even get into the pattern of personal harassment of me by Sandstein, and his un-recusal (after recusing because other admins said he was INVOLVED), to personally ban me in a WP:ANI case, etc. If the accusation is voided, and I'm not further harassed by him, I don't have any desire to protract any dispute with him. Clear my name, and keep him away from me. PS: I also want to point out that ArbCom actually promised clarifying action on these "warnings" and their text, shortly after this issue arose, and never actually came through. It is now, a year later, clearly time for the community to act and just resolve this.

  A wrong has been done here, whether intentionally or not, the ArbCom isn't fixing it, and the admin responsible for it steadfastly refuses to resolve the problem, pretending that no problem exists now matter how clearly it's demonstrated. Enough. This can be resolved in five minutes. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

2) Vacate SMcCandlish's topic ban

Two of the editors immediately announced their departure as a result of the Sandstein’s false accusations, but SMcCandlish attempted to continue editing, and was immediately engulfed in dramah.

Sanctions were requested against SMcCandlish at Sandstein’s talk page for using a word in ALL CAPS in an edit summary. [91] When that accusation didn’t stick, another request for AE enforcement was made against SMcCandlish saying that comments made at an RFA constituted "personalized remarks". Finally, in yet another action at AE (Fyunck(click)), Sandstein deleted a part of SMcCandlish’s evidence, including diffs, [92] saying it was too long, then topic-banned SMcCandlish, calling his request frivolous since it only had one diff left after Sandstein’s deletions.

SMcCandlish's sanctions here should be reversed/vacated.

• Support. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's notable that Sandstein recused himself from that case after it was pointed out how INVOLVED he was. He then un-recused himself - the first time in any context I've ever seen that happen - and deleted my evidence to make the case against me look sane, then summarily banned me, even though others were saying this wasn't justified, and one of the few who did suggest a ban did so on the totally unsupportable basis that I was somehow "going too far" when I filed an ANI case against someone attacking me in contravention of their own topic ban, and ANI *agreed* - i.e., I properly used official WP dispute resolution processes and that dispute was formally resolved in my favor. I was, however, attacked in my own case for it, and even after others pointed out that the "going to far" criticism made no sense at all, I was summarily banned by a vengeful Sandstein for it. This is the second action by Sandstein that I could have launched a big ol' ARBCOM case about (and he wouldn't been have a lone party in that one), but I'm not a legalist busybody, and was not here to get into disputes, but rather to work on an encyclopedia. Anyone still wondering why I quit editing, and why this issue hasn't gone away a year later? I was publicly abused by multiple admins on the flimsiest of excuses, that undermine faith in the equitability of WP administration processes and dispute resolution. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Note: My support of this proposal is secondary to and severable from the one above, concerning vacating from the log Sandstein's false accusations against me and the rest of the affected editors. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I have no involvement here and did not notice at the time the actions against the other 3 editors, only at the time against SMcCandlish. I thought at the time it seemed inexplicable, but because I was not aware of the other 3 cases, said nothing, or virtually nothing. From what is visible on the surface (and if it isn't visible it should be made so) there seems to be no clear reason, or benefit to the project, for any of the actions taken against these editors. My natural inclination is to err on the side of discipline in all such disputes, but this case seems egregious and disturbing, and has been bothering me since I noticed it. Without some substantial evidence of a concrete problem a full restore of status for all four editors seems to be called for. (However at this time I am only commenting in this section) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• This summary omits links to the last two AEs, raised about SMcCandlish and Fyunck(click). The critical comments by several uninvolved admins there (and the closure of the first one by User:Gatoclass) contradict the Lone Rogue Admin narrative developed above. Kanguole 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Kangole, yes, I did include diffs to the Fyunck(click) request, but I have now added a more obvious link to the entire request page as well. I didn't include the request about the Birds matter, since the outcome was just a reminder. The admins mostly commented on his tendency to be long-winded. Looking at the Fyunck(click) matter again, how was it that LittleBenW, now indeffed, was able to present evidence in violation of his topic ban? Some of the AE admins were actually critical of SMcC for taking the matter to ANI, but two other admins enforced the ban with a block. And SMcCandlish withdrew the AE request, when he was told there weren't enough diffs to make it actionable. At that point, Sandstein was the only admin who was willing to close the case. —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The first one produced one of the entries on the ARBATC log that you're trying to get removed, after the uninvolved admins criticised SMcC's battlefield conduct, so that's an important part of the sequence. The one initiated by SMcC five days later, alleging a "jingoistic attack on non-native English speakers categorically" was criticised as baseless and frivolous by four admins, one of whom proposed a block while three favoured a topic ban. After that, it's not surprising that he wanted it forgotten. Kanguole 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as "How dare you complain..." Verbosity isn't grounds for a topic ban. Raising a complaint against another editor at AN or ANI isn't grounds either – it's what the forum is for. It's necessarily "personal" and I don't think the issues raised in that targeted the individual in "personalised" manner more than was necessary to identify the salient issues.

  The duty admin is the judge and can close any complaints that are frivolous or vexatious, and admins often close AN discussions on such bases. Topic banning an editor like what happened to SMcC seems to be justified by "I don't like your face" or "I don't like your attitude, boy" arguments. We are now all familiar with Sandstein's MO; his mobilising Enola Gay was just typical of his usual sledgehammer approach to problems. Such an approach actually deters long-term dispute resolution and forces their escalation elsewhere without resolving them. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

3) Declare Sandstein WP:INVOLVED

Sandstein continues to refuse to recuse himself from matters involving these 4 editors, even though other editors see him as WP:INVOLVED. He has been told, “your threats and punitive sanctions against this, and other editors, has the marked appearance of hopeless conflict of interest” [93] and “you should just avoid the appearance of involved and let someone else handle it.” [94] Instead of listening to those who advise him to avoid the appearance of COI, Sandstin has threatened me with regard to any future disputes, that his actions towards me will not be determined by the circumstances of a particular situation, but by my having “disputed a mere [sic] warning”. [95]

Sandstein should recuse himself in any future matters pertaining to WP:ARBATC, and the four editors SMcCandlish, Noetica, Neotarf, and OhConfucious.

• Support. —Neotarf (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• God no, impossible, implausible and tremendously inappropriate to suggest DP 12:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sandstein should certainly be prohibited from enforcement, maybe even interaction generally, with the four affected editors in this case. Even aside from the false accusations, and the direct personal harassment, Sandstein makes it clear generally and broadly that he's intolerant of disputes that have anything to do with style and article naming. His goals here are not to see disputes resolved in the ways that best serve the readership and the editorship, but to shut people up because these topics piss him off. Probably no admin on the system is less temperamentally suited to having anything to do with ARBATC enforcement. That said, my support of this proposal is completely tertiary to and severable from the matter of clearing our names of Sandstein's false accusations, and voiding from the log Sandstein's bogus ban issued against me. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not an interaction ban--I can't find any policy justification for this, but here's how it's being enforced at the moment. —Neotarf (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Absolute support. I have noted before, and continue to fervently believe that Sandstein is hopelessly involved and pathologically unwilling to objectively examine his/her own actions in regard to these editors. I have had no direct interaction with Sandstein, and my association with the subject area was as an uninvolved editor (maybe as a closer, maybe via rfcbot invite, I don't remember), and I came away with essentially no distinct feelings regarding the subject area, but an absolute lack of confidence in Sandstein as an admin in any capacity. Sandstein's actions in regards to these editors has damaged the project and damaged his/her moral authority to use sysop tools. VanIsaac_WS^cont 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I think he is just a binary authoritarian who bullies everybody he considers misbehaving. I'm actually pretty sure that Sandstein feels he is just doing his job, and would apply the same approach to everybody. I just want this affair over with, and not be afraid of going up to say "stop being such a bully" without the fear of his using the discretionary sanctions on this page against me just because he feels he needs to keep his hand permanently on his big rod. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment

For a long time, Sandstein sat like a spider at the centre of arbitration affairs. He/she seemed to function as arbitration's chief executioner, grimly driving content builders from the project. I'm not sure whether Sandstein has ever offered solutions other than blocks and bans. The notion that there might be effective means that could result in resolving problems with problematic but productive editors apart from blocking or banning them doesn't seem to be part of Sandstein's skill set. Hallmarks of Sandstein's style include the use of his/her notorious term "broadly construed" as a catch-all to hammer content builders into the ground, together with demands that blocks on content builders should always be indefinite blocks and additional demands that arbitrators should be permitted to make their decisions in secrecy. It seem to me that Sandstein has unnecessarily driven away many fine content builders, builders who have often made much more substantial contributions towards building the encyclopaedia than Sandstein has. Sandstein's behaviour is part of a larger syndrome which is crippling Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit dramatic but a nice analogy and in my view does sum up the way Sandsteins way of running with ARBCOM, I'd be inclined to SUPPORT all three proposals. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll are not going to get traction complaining about Sandstein here -- the best way to pursue that line of thought is WP:RFC/U. NE Ent 16:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - that's kinda what I suggest below - but I doubt that comes with the desired drama quotient. I sense that only a blood-letting will suffice here, and that's what makes this personality fight utterly inappropriate.

But this is wiki. And why I rarely bother any more. This case just happened to put all I abhor about wiki infighting right up front. So I commented. Mea culpa. I should have settled for repeating "pathetic" under my breath. We live, we learn. Begoon ^talk 16:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You "sense" that because you're not reading, Begoon. I really don't care that much if Sandstein is ever personally taken to task for his abuses of me, and have made that very clear. He should be, but it's the least of my concerns here. Just void the accusation (and ban) from the log, no more issue. RFC/U? That would be twice as much of a pointless waste of time and energy as an ArbCom case; at least the latter would actually conclude something enforceable, and about the actual problem, while RFC/U would only be about Sandstein and people's personal opinions of him, without any ability to deal with what our complaint seeks to resolve (false accusations against us in the log as disciplinary matters, and a further policy-violating ban against me as a separate but closely related matter), nor would an RFC/U (for someone who really wanted it to) do anything to personally rein in Sandstein; RFC/U's are just popularity contests, with no teeth. Now that I think of it, I'd even be satisfied with a consensus admin decision, e.g. here at ANI, that the accusations were wrong, and not Sandstein's fault but the fault of the wording being new and imprecise, and secondly that Sandstein's ban was also wrong because he'd already recused himself and the basis for it was faulty under policy anyway - without removing either of them from the log. I'd prefer a clear log, but having something I can link to that effectively vacates those entries would be good enough. I don't think Sandstein should be enforcing anything, ever, to do with ARBATC or MOS/AT more broadly, but that's just an opinion. His accusations and ban, however, violated policy, in multiple ways, and that's an incontrovertible fact. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about Sandstein, it's about getting a review of his actions. The policy against personal attacks is very clear:

Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

We were neither presented with diffs nor given a chance to defend ourselves against the accusations. These accusations are all the more serious because they were done in the official voice of Arbcom by an official representative of Arbcom. —Neotarf (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It doesn't matter who made the accusations; they were not backed up, and as such they constitute the very definition of personal attacks, against policy. Been saying this for a year, too. The four affected editors should not have had to escalate this matter for this long. It has been obvious since the first five minutes that either Sandstein had to prove the accusation, delivered in his official administrative capacity, was valid, or it has to be retracted. There is absolutely no way around this basic reasoning. It's ridiculous and shameful that it should take a year to get this resolved, all because other admins don't want to be seen as criticizing the decisions of another admin. The fact that ArbCom is effectively delegating its most dangerous role, one that can directly harm people's reputations, to random admins, and institutionally blind and deaf to complaints about their actions, is a very serious problem. It's like a court that decides it would rather let the sheriff determine guilt and hand out sentences. It's a problem that the admin community, if not the entire WP community, has to address, since ArbCom can't fix itself and won't admit that it has any kind of problem. No one but the admins' noticeboard is really in a position to do something about abuses of the ArbCom/Admin interface, especially when ArbCom for its part ignores its responsibility here and won't lift a finger. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

unproductive discussion

Oh. My. Word. Grow up y'all. That's it. Really. Our feelings were hurt a year ago and we want someone punished or the record set straight. This is an incident requiring Admin attention? You might be "in the right", you might be "in the wrong", but really guys, you think this is a good thing to do - or an appropriate place to do it? This is WP:ANI, not, WP:CENTRESTAGEFORITSTIMEMYGREATWRONGWASRIGHTED-ANDINEEDEVERYONETOSEEIT. Get a room, or a talk page, an RFsomething, or, Bob forbid, a life. This is not the purpose of this board, and you know it. Shame on you. I can't close this, having commented, or we'd no doubt have to have a 6 month debate on the propriety of that. I encourage anyone else to close it as utterly inappropriate for this venue, though. Begoon talk 14:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) What's with the grossly incivil attitude? And the huge pile of straw men and misdirection? Let's look at the facts, instead of "get out of my clubhouse" histrionics for a minute here. I raised this issue, as did all other affected parties, the very day it happened. Various of us have escalated it, after exercising a great deal of patience, and avoiding getting into a full-blown ArbCom wannabe-lawyer festival, after failing to get any resolution, for about a year now. It's not some random old crap being brought up suddenly after a year. It's an issue that everyone's been passing the buck on for a year, continuously, mostly because they just will not take 5 minutes to understand it, and keep assuming it's some kind of irrational whine about a warning. It has nothing to do with being warned. See above; we've already tried even pretty recently to get this dealt with at both the ARBATC request page and at ACN, but in both cases Sandstein derailed it by trying to make the issue be about this "un-warning" nonsense (and people are STILL buying it - see subthread immediately below!). I've made a major point, again and again, of the fact that this matter can be resolved without "punishing" Sandstein or anyone else. I've made that point twice today, here, already. So, by all means, please make up another argument I'm not advancing, because it's fun to make crazy assumption and go ballistic on people rather than read and think about what they're saying, and by all means have fun attacking that silly straw man instead of addressing what I'm really saying, just to prove to everyone how clear your reasoning is. To answer your snide questions: Yes, it's obviously an incident requiring admin attention; only admins can fix it; QED. Yes this obviously an appropriate place; there is effectively no other avenue of recourse at this point but the community of admins, since ArbCom is too busy to even notice, unless someone makes a full-blown case out of it, which really doesn't serve anyone's interests; the last thing Wikipedia needs is more f'ing wikilawyers. Shame on who, again, for what? How about for being another admin castigating lowly editors for using Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, stepwise, patiently, and in good faith, to attempt to resolve a long-standing dispute? If you think that some other admin noticeboard like WP:AN would be better, you could have moved it there or suggested it be moved there. Trying to imply that we just need to "get a life" for having concerns that you don't personally share and need to "grow up" for daring to use the proper channels to address them, well, that is what is "inappropriate". Where is it that there's a maturity deficit again? Are you really an admin? Seriously? Must be some kind of joke. If not, I'm not going to wonder too hard how long that'll last if with your editor-hateful attitude. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 17:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note the case page section clearly states "Listing here indicates only that an editor has been notified. Listing here should not be taken to mean that the user's edits were in violation of discretionary sanctions." You're not going to get the notification removed via an ANI thread. The best bet with be arbcom, and that's a hard case to file successfully, given the committee's past statements, the recent trend allowing non-admin notifications, and the fact the ongoing DS review is tending to change the actual wording of the protocol to "alerts." NE Ent 16:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's NOT ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION/WARNING. I must have said this 75 times in the last year. It's about the accusation of "continued wrongdoing" in the notification. The notifications today do not have this wording in them, and the "Listing here should not be take to mean...violation" caveat applies. It cannot apply when the very wording of the notice specifically states that a violation is occurring! It's very, very simple; there is nothing complicated about this in any way. It was a false accusation, which needs to be rescinded and cleared out of the log. Sandstein won't do it himself. Just fix it. No one is ever going to be under any pretense that they have been "un-notifed" or "un-warned" about ARBATC. If they did, too bad for them, since ARBATC sanctions will still apply. If you're concerned about it, you could even re-issue a new notice, just one that doesn't have the false accusation in it. The end. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ent,

• There is *no* trend towards user notifications, in fact, arbitrator Roger Davies just removed one, saying it was "malformed". It has been proposed in the discretionary sanctions review, where it went over like a lead balloon, and has also come up recently in two separate ANI threads, where it was generally regarded as an invitation to POV pushers and trolls, and a potential tool for harassing neutral editors. (See: A Quest For Knowledge's "uninvolved administrator" warning should probably be removed from the case decision and Requesting removal of a stigmatizing ARBCOM case log entry)

• Of course the community can decide this. Nobody elected Sandstein God. His actions are open to community review, just like everybody else.

• I have already taken this to arbcom, where they predictably joined ranks to protect Sandstein. They pay plenty of lip service to the principle of "no casting aspersions" when it comes to blocking and banning non-admins, but when it comes to one of their own inner circle, they are strangely silent. I don't really blame them, I would probably do the same thing, but that's why it needs to be decided by someone with no COI.

• The last discretionary sanctions review, in 2011, took two years to complete. The current proposals do not contain anything at all to address our situation. In fact, the current proposal specifically says any old situations will be handled under the old rules. So you are trying to tell us we are site-banned for at least two years, and probably indefinitely, waiting for something that no one has ever proposed and no one believes will ever happen. I have a better idea. Decide what is fair now, and get this issue out of the way, so it doesn't cast a shadow over the ongoing discretionary sanctions review.

• Sandstein did not merely use a template which has since been changed. He added his own specific language accusing us of misconduct. There has been no misconduct. He has admitted it. He was asked to change the language about the misconduct, and he refused. I want that language changed. Officially. By community agreement. And closed by a neutral admin. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. —Neotarf (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My "dog in this fight" is not exactly the same ad Neotarf's (it was the defamatory accusation being attached to my real name here, and the fact that it turned up in Google searches). Regardless of where the accusatory language came from, Neotarf is correct that Sandstein didn't just unthinkingly use language that happened to accidentally include an accusation of misconduct. He has both defended making the accusation and begrudgingly admitted (at least with regard to Neotarf) it wasn't justified, yes defended it anyway. Is maintaining an air of admin infallibility and unquestionability more important to him than equitable application of policy? It has consistently seemed that way throughout his administrative tenure.

I'm happy that, so far, the proposed solution (at least to the false accusations in the log, one of three separate action items here) is sticking. I understand that it did not go far enough to satisfy Neotarf, and I agree with that editor's insistence that the new "warnings" be purged from that log page. I have no objection to them having been delivered on our talk pages - I suggested it in the first place - but Neotarf is correct that the ARBATC discretionary sanctions log page has a contentious history of being abused. To the extent it serves any legitimate purpose, that purpose is being undermined by its blatant misuse as a shitlist. And the new notifications don't actually serve any ARBATC interests, since they're not in response to any ARBATC concerns at all, but were a side-effect of trying to resolve this dispute in a way that addresses the complaint raised without pillorying Sandstein. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Solution

I've just churned the four user's talk page with a pointless second notification-without-allegation-of-wrongdoing about the sanctions, which hopefully will make them happy, and logged such [96] on the arbcom page which will hopefully make the folks insisting there be a record they were notified happy. Does that work for everyone? NE Ent 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Sandstein reverted the last attempt to change that log (with regard to Neotarf only), but maybe he'll see this is a win-win-win (for him, since it's a log change w/o blaming him, without an RFC/U as people keep suggesting, and without an ArbCom case as people keep suggesting; for the four wrongly-accused editors, obviously, though it may not be enough to mollify all of them in every way; and for WP as a whole since the issue goes away, at least for some of us "plaintiffs"). Hard to see a down-side here, or a good-faith reason to object. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The case was closed two years ago, so I'm just confused at receiving the notification because it seemed neither relevant nor necessary. It had me wondering if I had recently done something that might be construed as some violation of the case in question. But I'd just say NE Ent's notification is a stark contrast to the one that is the subject of this complaint that refuses to lie down.

It should be clear by now that although admins need to apply strong discipline occasionally, the perpetual Robocop-style "put down that banana or I'll shoot" and pre-emptive gun-toting accusations of malfeasance that was used against us four productive veterans (and is probably still being actively employed in the forum where Sandstein has made his home) were uncivil, unwelcome and wholly overblown. This style of policing is detrimental to the project. It's been shown to be disruptive – just look at how much discussion and bitterness this has generated plus the loss of three valuable contributors – and needs to stop FORTHWITH, with some sort of belated up front acknowledgement of overzealousness.

I would have been less upset if the insinuations had been even acknowledged ex-post facto as being even a teensy bit regrettable. People want closure, if justice is too much to ask for. More than one year on, nothing has been forthcoming. Only stonewalling. Even Robocop has a heart in the films. The system lacks balance because whilst Sandstein has apparently found his role in Wikipedia where he can exercise his brand of authority unchecked. The system desperately needs admins to stand up to his bullying. I'd like to see a "good cop" to attenuate the over-powerful and over-powering bad cop. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sceptical that a RFC/U will change anything. It's always been a talking shop although only occasionally becomes a springboard to an Arbcom case. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these new warnings, Ent? Weren't they destructive enough the first time around? Why am I being singled out? There were 19 editors who commented on Apteva's request, including Apteva and Sandstein. Why are none of them being warned?

All four of us participated in the original ArbCom case (it was my 30th edit ever, as a new user), and no one at the ArbCom found any problem with any of our editing at that time. It is appalling that anyone can now put our names up there on a whim, alongside the names of editors who have been blocked and banned in a formal final decision after having the their diffs weighed by 15 impartial arbs.

Don't forget the real purpose of these notifications. Does anyone really think the four of us have never heard of the case before and we need to be "informed"? Of course not. The notifications are for blocking and banning. They do away with warnings. They are so the admins don't have to actually bother to talk to you if they don't agree with you. Once you get one of those on your record, you are "pre-warned". They can just get rid of you like dust under their shoe.

If you want to use my name like that, Ent, start an RFCU, the same as you would do with an actual disruptive user. —Neotarf (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

About a year ago, while working as an administrator at WP:AE, I noticed that four editors (Noetica, SMcCandlish, Neotarf and Ohconfucius) were, in my view, unduly personalizing a dispute concerning the manual of style, contrary to the Arbitration Committee's admonition not to do so. Accordingly, per WP:AC/DS#Warnings, as a routine admin action, I warned them that discretionary sanctions applied to this topic area, and logged these warnings on the case page. SMcCandlish and Neotarf, in particular, do not only disagree with these warnings but have launched very many (and, in SMcCandlish's case, often very lengthy) threads on multiple fora, accompanied by sweeping assumptions of bad faith, retirement announcements, calls for sanctions against me, and other drama. This is the most recent iteration of this drama.

I am of the view that these editors are beating a dead horse and should find something else to do:

• Neotarf appealed the warnings to the Arbitration Committee. The Committee declined the appeal in December 2013, just as they declined to act as a result of a previous clarification request about this matter. Because the Committee is our final dispute resolution authority, this settles the matter, whether or not one agrees with the outcome. Repeating these complaints (again) on ANI looks like forum-shopping.
• Even if I were now to agree that the warnings were incorrect, which I am not, and that they can meaningfully be undone, which I think they cannot, I would not agree to undo them as a result of this thread. Arbitration enforcement actions must be contested through the appeals process set forth by the Committee, and not through what amounts to a series of angry shouting matches on public fora. Otherwise, we would give sanctioned editors an incentive to engage in these kinds of shouting matches rather than in an orderly appeals process, which I think would not be helpful. If anything, the aggressive manner in which these warnings against aggressive conduct have been contested (by some of their recipients) indicates, to me, that I was probably on to something there.
• SMcCandlish was topic-banned for a month by me, under the discretionary sanctions regime, for misconduct related to the manual of style. Despite vociferous complaints, SMcCandlish chose not to actually appeal this sanction, probably because they are aware that, for the reasons Kanguole explains above, an appeal would have been meritless and without success. Now that the ban has long expired, an appeal against it is moot.
• A particular concern of (some of) the four editors seems to be that I should declare myself "involved" with respect to them. However, per the policy WP:UNINVOLVED, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role (...) is not involved (...). This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, (...) do not make an administrator 'involved'". That is the case here. You can't gain immunity from future administrative actions merely by contesting an administrator's decisions, no matter how often or loudly.

This section should therefore be closed without action.

I would like to note some procedural problems with this thread, because they illustrate how unsuited an essentially unmoderated forum like WP:AN(I) is to processing appeals or doing any sort of dispute resolution:

• I was not notified of this thread.
• Nothing prevents long and repetitive walls of texts being posted, which has already commenced above and will probably continue for weeks, making it difficult for editors who are not already emotionally invested in the issue to form an opinion.
• The complaints and proposals are unsigned, as is the section below incorrectly accusing me of wheel-warring.
• One of the involved editors, Ohconfucius, hides a comment on this page that is critical of their complaints.
• A non-admin editor, NE Ent ([97]), and one of the involved editors, Neotarf ([98]), are removing log entries from the arbitration case page, including the log entries of the warnings against which the Committee declined an appeal. This appears to me to be a disruption of the arbitration process. (I am asking arbitration clerks to determine which if any version of the page should be restored.)

I am writing this mostly from memory and have not included links to all previous discussions or events mentioned above, because I do not have the time to look for them. But if an editor asks me to link to anything in particular I'll do so. Apart from this, I don't think that I'll comment further about this matter.  Sandstein  10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Did Sandstein wheel war?

[99] [100] [101]

Definition of wheel warring: WP:WHEEL

User vandalism for extended period of time on Physics topics

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

---

The user Chjoaygame (talk) is changing very frequently Physics topics, often removing valid content and adding less meaningful or even confusing information (See another user finds his edits confusing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chjoaygame#Iontophoresis_and_electrophoresis or here hes accuses someone falsely to be a sock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Douglas_Cotton . See his contribution page for all his edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chjoaygame, discussion on his edits need to be on a case to case basis - example edits: User removes important content and adds his own without providing reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_energy&diff=prev&oldid=598849626 User adds confusing definition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_entropy_thermodynamics&diff=prev&oldid=598712167, the reference is citing a part of a book covering speculations and remarks (Chapter 8) http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c7688.html Here he removes historic quotes (cited by Princeton) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_law_of_thermodynamics&diff=prev&oldid=598531366

Recently, the user moved a page without discussion and removed valid content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissipation_(thermodynamics)&diff=599723963&oldid=599719584, which after his page move didn't fit the article scope any longer. The user is unresponsive, not replying to talk page entries.

Last September i edited his contributions to Radiative equilibrium, you can follow the process via the talk page there and read how Experts responded after Chjoaygame (talk) claimed "This article has rapidly been changed, from a more or less systematic account of the various physical notions of radiative equilibrium, to an expression of some ideas of climate theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiative_equilibrium#RfC.3B_this_article_has_rapidly_been_changed.2C_from_an_account_of_the_various_physical_notions_of_radiative_equilibrium.2C_to_an_expression_of_some_ideas_in_climate_theory. Look up the article history and compare it with the current "partial fixed" state. To conclude, most edits seem to be lacking for the various reasons outlined here and my impression is that the user is acting with bad faith (or incompetence) to complicate the various subjects on Physics, Thermodynamics etc. and i suggest a topic ban. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Prokaryotes is describing a difficult content dispute. Has anything that Chjoaygame done actually amounted, as claimed in the section heading, to vandalism, or is this a content dispute? If it is a content dispute, then I would remind Prokaryotes that the allegation of vandalism is a personal attack, and is, in my opinion, blockable. Watch for the incoming boomerang before labeling a content dispute as vandalism. If there really has been vandalism, provide evidence. Otherwise, use a more reasonable section heading. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a silly complaint. I don't always understand or agree with Chjoaygame's edits, but he is clearly editing in good faith. Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Help with new page please

I'm trying to learn like everyone else new & using a subject I know about (street art), I'm not linked to the subjects I'm working on, I'm just trying to make good of my edits that are being taken down. I'm trying to walk before I run, rather than editing/messing up many other pages. The page I created Graffiti Kings was up for deletion for 3 weeks & was just approved as OK. Now the page content has been ripped to shreds days after it was approved as OK. Surely if the content was wrong then people would of said this when it was up for deletion. I have since tried to follow advice & ask for advice but keep getting knocked down or no replies. Can someone please help with my new page please, I would like to finish it & move on to new work. Sarah1971 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - it isn't 'your' article. I can see nothing in the editing history to suggest anything but normal editing, carried out to improve the article, and ensure it complies with Wikipedia standards. Deletion discussions aren't intended to provide 'approval' for specific versions of an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See these other related reports about or by the editor who opened this section:

• SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimeQueen32
• AN/I from yesterday: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Work.2Fedits_being_attacked.
• Teahouse: [102]
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Graffiti: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Graffiti#Darren_Cullen_aka_SER_.26_Graffiti_Kings_help.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sarah, I can understand exactly why the investigation was opened, but for now I want to assume the best of faith and just address the ownership of articles issue. This is Wikipedia. If you read the WP:Five pillars, you will learn a great deal. The Five pillars trump all policy here. One partial quote from them is "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." We mean it. Every article will be edited, over and over and over. Even if you create an article, you have no special rights over it. We all contribute as equals. I know this is a tough idea to get used to for a new user, but it is important that you accept this early on or you won't have a good time when editing. Once you do get used to it, you discover the power of interdependence and will appreciate the help of others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also, it's worth mentioning that an AfD that is closed as keep is not "approving" an article - nobody "approves" content on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yambaram again

I previously reported Yambaram (talk · contribs) for his edit warring attempts at removing relevant delsorts during an AfD. This he had done quite obviously to limit the awareness of an AfD to a preferred select group of editors. [103] This time he thought it would be a good idea to selectively ping users who voted delete in the AfD during an AfD closure review. [104] Can I get some oversight on these actions? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the opposite of what he said is the truth. When PRODUCER realized that the responses of this deletion discussing were mostly in favor of deleting the article while he wanted to keep it, he decided to over-apply deletion sorting pages to countries that had nearly nothing to do with the subject of "Jews of Communism", hoping to get more votes in favor for his side. I find it important to note that PRODUCER was accused of canvassing by USchick (talk · contribs) as well and suspected of sock puppetry by Galassi (talk · contribs), please take a look for yourself in that report and see for yourself. Now, regarding his current accusation: I did not select only "users who voted delete in the AfD". He's again not saying the truth, and this is an understatement. User:Carolmooredc for example was in favor of keeping or merging the article, as evidence shows, and I "selected" him/her too. I also left a message ON THE MAIN Jews and Communism ARTICLE TALK PAGE, asking "Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion" to participate in the current new deletion review discussion. PRODUCER is again playing tricks, this time on me, and this cannot continue and must be enforced by admins. -Yambaram (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You had two uninvolved users very clearly explain to you that "Deletion sorting is not canvassing in any way, shape, or form. Even inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting, if that was the case here, is not canvassing" and that "nothing wrong with applying deletion sorting". This is just more evidence of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. One can only assume posting Carol was a clumsy mistake when one looks at all the others you diligently cherrypicked to canvas in effort to delete an article by any means:

1. Dougweller [105]
2. Antidiskriminator [106]
3. Altenmann [107]
4. Binksternet [108]
5. Steeletrap [109]
6. Marokwitz [110]
7. USchick [111]
8. Hot Stop [112]
9. AndyTheGrump [113]
10. Topdiggie [114]
11. Evildoer187 [115]
12. AnkhMorpork [116]
13. Nomoskedasticity [117]
14. Dralwik [118]
15. GHcool [119]
16. Anonimu [120]
17. Johnuniq [121]
18. Galassi [122]

Hate to break it to you, but caps and bold do not make your points any more valid. The only tricks being played here are by you and are incredibly mischievous ones at that. I think a ban from AfDs is in order given your consistently inappropriate actions. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You used selective quotes from that discussion in order to try proving your point. I can also quote those disagreeing with you. The act of over-applying pages may not be considered a clear canvassing attempt, but looking at the unrelated pages you constantly linked the deletion discussion to, one has to wonder about your intentions. Adding Carolmooredc was not a "clumsy mistake" which you all of a sudden claim and want everyone to believe, just like posting an open invitation on the main Jews and Communism article talk page and inviting everyone to join the discussion was not done by a mistake. To make this clear, I wrote on the talk page "Hi, there's an ongoing discussion on the previous controversial deletion proposal of this article, Jews and Communism. Here is a link to it. Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion, or would just to like to voice your opinion on the matter, you're welcome to do so. Thanks" (I know, the grammar there wasn't so great. and needless to say, I wrote this before you decided to make this report). Also, of those 12 users who voted to keep the article, a few had already commented on the deletion review discussion before I even wrote that comment. So were you expecting me to tag them too? Distorting reality will not win this for you, and just to let you know, this will soon be given more attention. Yambaram (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again you are reminded that frivilous accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. Don't make them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How many times is it necessary to warn someone not to post the same personal attack? I'm sure he's perfectly aware he's being insulting and trying to threaten others, that's the whole point.. -- Director (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You see, a few hours have passed 'Director' appears again, which is why, considering other editors' concern and the results of the 'Editor Interaction Analyzer', I brought up this issue. Saying "and just to let you know, this will soon be given more attention" is not an a personal attack but merely informing him of a possible future report in a very legitimate way - and to be honest - it's even a nice thing to let the user know about it other than doing it behind their back. Ask anyone and they'll say these words are not personal attack, 'The Bushranger', don't you see I'm again being targeted for no justified reason here? It's now evident that Producer and Director are attempting to get me and a few other users (Atlantictire (talk · contribs), IZAK (talk · contribs), and The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)) blocked, just below this very thread! Yambaram (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I was reluctant to post this, thinking I should continue ignoring it, but I simply don't see the consistent and increasingly disturbing personal attacks against me stopping anytime soon. Over the past two weeks at an AfD, I was inferred to as being an anti-semite, racist, or conspiracy theorist and today was alleged by IZAK (talk · contribs) to have made "the Jew-hating Jew Watch proud" [123] and bluntly referred to as a "anti-Semitic crank" by Atlantictire (talk · contribs) [124]. I find this all distressing, especially given the fact that I had anti-fascist family members that were killed in WWII fighting our local Nazis, the Ustase. Is there anything that can be done to discourage such personal attacks? Am I allowed to remove such slurs without requesting the user to remove it him/herself? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If WP:ARBPIA is still being enforced these days, I'd say those comments are quite clearly sanctionable. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I gave Atlantictire an "only warning"; I would have removed the entire comment had you and someone else not already commented on it. If you want to redact, or redact partially, go ahead. If another admin finds it instantly blockable, that's fine too. I'll look at the other later. Producer, your family history is not relevant here, and I say this with all due respect, but you don't need to bring them in here to bolster your case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see a personal attack in IZAK's comment: it speaks of a hypothetical reader, not the creator. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire's comment is a bit problematic, though I do not think he directed this at anyone. Regarding IZAK, I agree with Drmies - there's nothing wrong with it. Yambaram (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Who could it possibly be aimed at? When I say an article was "created by some anti-Semitic crank", I don't mean the article's creator is actually an anti-Semitic crank. Why, that would be ridiculous.. (*sarcasm*)

Producer has been subjected to a veritable barrage of semi-concealed "antisemite" insults. For example, in posting a deletion request, User:The Four Deuces refers to the article created by Producer as "attempting to prove" an antisemitic conspiracy theory [125]. So yeah, he didn't actually say Producer is a Nazi, but to all intents and purposes - he did. Same with Drmies. This sort of thing is disgusting and has to stop. -- Director (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No. He did not use the words "attempting to prove" as you quote him as saying. Be cautious when making misleading incitements about other users. 'The Four Deuces' said "While Jewish Bolshevism is about the conspiracy theory that Communism was a Jewish movement for world domination, this article attempts to prove that." - a huge difference. He talked specifically about the article itself, meaning its content, style, tone, etc. There's no mention of the article's creator (PRODUCER) and definitely not any implication that he's a "Nazi". I see your above comment as a personal attack against 'The Four Deuces'. Yambaram (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first point: Sorry about that Drmies. It just really got to me on a personal level.

Regarding your second point: Strictly? No. I believe IZAK (also TFD) is purposely relying on such absurd and unnecessary statements to make inferences that'll bait me and react rather than saying it flat out. I'm not going to respond to them in the manner he hopes, but I certainly will say they aren't helpful in such discussions and serve only to trigger emotions on both sides and quite obviously to inflame the situation. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mack Ruled

Mack Ruled (talk · contribs), who was registered on March 14 and has mostly edited two articles: 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, repeatedly reverts my recent edits in a few articles (unrelated to Ukraine, Crimea or Russia) without any explanation whatsoever.

These articles include Armenian orthography reform [126][127] and Soghomon Tehlirian [128][129].

He's apparently trolling or something. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He also reverted my last two edits in Russophobia, once again, without giving any edit summary. [130][131] --Երևանցի ^talk 22:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not up to digging too much, but his first edit is unusual for a new user, blue-linking his user page. This should raise a red flag to anyone who has more bits than I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod attacking everyone at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans

Per WP:BOOMERANG, I'll take the hit on this and I'm totally cool with that, but an admin needs to jump in at Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans, where Johnbod's been ad hominem attacking any user (a 3O volunteer as well as 2 longterm editors aside from me) who have dared to tried to fix his article. I bit back as hard as I can, myself, but the other editors have been overly patient with these constant snipes. I don't personally mind that Johnbod has now taken to wikistalking my talkpage, kind of a badge of honor for me, but he's gotten so bad another longterm editor now wants his userpage deleted. That's too far, and as I say I am willing to take my own hit just to have an admin look at this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice if an admin could remove the gross personal attacks (with no content relevant to the article) on me by another editor, which Kb has twice reverted the removal of. He is I think no stranger on this page (ANI I mean). He started this off by removing two quoted words, referenced at the end of the sentence, which it became clear he had not noticed, from a DYK then on the main page. When I saw this some 12 hours later, I reverted with an explanatory edit summary. He then added two cite tags (for what was already cited) with an abusive edit summary, and continue to edit war and rant on the talk page despite being told many times on the article's and his talk pages that they were referenced at the end of the sentence, and always had been. User:Andy Dingley then joined in, also repeatedly demanding the refs that were already there, and soon joining the matter to his long-standing crusade against Wikimedia UK with a purely personal attack. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think people bringing up the WMUK stuff helped anything but where did Andy Dingley demand refs? I only see comments that the location of the refs and the wording was confusing. Nil Einne (talk)`

Disruptive editing of the reference desks

The User:Sagittarian Milky Way is a longtime "user" of the reference desks and aware we don't provide legal, or other professional advice. After posting this question about how not to break the law by viewing child pornography on the internet, which I hatted, he has posted the pointy question, "Have any human-like creatures ever commented on the legality of viewing bad things?" which he admits is a request for legal advice, and which I have removed. Please admonish this violation of the ref desk guidelines: "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice". Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The disruption is caused by Medeis's acting as self appointed censor of the Reference Desk. A general discussion of whether something is legal isn't legal advice per se. (I've removed the unsigned hat per WP:SIGNHAT). NE Ent 03:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not ask how to view child pornography on the internet. I more than many childless people sympathise with minor victims. My question was more of how do I make sure I don't actually see illegal things example: child pornography, jihadist websites(?) if I researched those things out of curiosity or some neer-do-well might theoretically pull a nasty joke by making illegal links show up on innocuous search terms. Okay, maybe the pointy human-like creatures post is less humorous than it seemed at the time. I was just making pointy humor, but not just pointy, I wouldn't have disliked an answer. I wouldn't have persisted in further pointiness. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Medeis's inappropriate editing other user's comments has been a long-term problem, including one block for editing others comments after warnings followed by an unblock with the edit comment "Medeis has agreed to cease editing others' talk page messages." Medeis' latest block for disruptive editing at the reference desk was less than a week ago. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis

Examples:

Deleting an answer because Medeis decided that it was unhelpful.[132][133] Actually, it was pretty good advice if the questioner is in the UK, PC World (www.pcworld.co.uk) does a good job at data recovery.

Deleting an editor's comment complaining about the way Medeis edited the editor's previous comment.[134] Moving it to talk would have been a better choice. Also labeled the deletion as a merge,

Deleting a question by a blocked sock and taking out answers from other users with it, two days after the discussion ended.[135]

Deleting a question that isn't medical advice:[136] (and what's up with the deleting and hatting?)

Editing (not just deleting) another user's comment[137]

And, of course there is this deletion, discussed above.[138] even if it deserved to be deleted, the person the comment is criticizing has a conflict of interest and should leave the deleting to someone else.

Also see: User talk:David Levy#User:Medeis and this warning].

I propose a narrowly focused ban prohibiting Medeis from changing, deleting, collapsing, striking, or in an other way editing other people's comments on the reference desk pages. This would solve the long-term problem, allow Medeis to continue participating in the normal way (answering questions), and would have very little downside, given the demonstrable fact that there are quite a few editors who watch for and collapse any inappropriate questions on those pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued harassment of a Wikipedia editor

Will some uninvolved admin please look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Marian_Dawkins and decide on a course of action? The IP in question is a hopper waging a lengthy campaign against DrChrissy. It appears Johnuniq is also part of a gang of racist liars. Ahem. IP 124.168.48.21 has been duly notified. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP's range is quite large, such that a single rangeblock wouldn't be enough. I suggest semiprotection of Marian Dawkins, talk:Marian Dawkins, User:DrChrissy and User talk:DrChrissy. We're not going to semiprotect the DRN; however, frivolous reports can easily be closed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP's latest incarnation is Special:Contributions/124.170.231.48. As unsavory as the prospect of playing Whac-A-Mole by blocking individual IPs is, this plus the page protections outlined above may be the best defense we can muster. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is always the L.A.R.T. method: apply a range block and then notify iiNet Limited that one of their users has caused X number of their IPs to be blocked. Having your ISP cancel your account is an effective Luser's Attitude Readjustment Tool. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the IP before I saw that there was a discussion here and reverted some of their edits. I believe I've blocked a couple of dozen of the IPs individually. I've had some success with carefully targeted rangeblocks in individual /18 ranges for short terms, but am reluctant to block large ranges for long terms - that would best be done, if at all, with CU help. I'll revisit my calculations when I'm more awake. Acroterion (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Formal imposition of a community ban

Be it hereby resolved that the user whose latest IP today is 124.170.231.48 is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. His IPs/accounts may be blocked and reverted immediately, and page protection used when necessary.

• Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  This might be a somewhat unusual request, as there is actually only 1 IP listed on the "dreaded list". Have they ever had a named account, out of curiosity? Doc talk 07:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indefinitely blocked user with some relation to this situation. I have no idea whether the IPs are the same person. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  Has there been a SPI? While a CU will not publicly link a named account to an IP address, there is behavioral evidence to be considered. And that account has edited recently enough to compare with suspected socks. Doc talk 07:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  There is no chance that CYl7EPTEMA777 and the IP are the same person. The former is genuinely unable to communicate in English (they are from ru.wikipedia), and the latter is quite fluent; the connection is simply coincidental in that the IP is attacking a certain editor and noticed that CYl7EPTEMA777 was opposing (not attacking) the same editor in another article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  I concur with Johnuniq. The users are on different continents with widely differing competencies in English, something that's hard to fake. Acroterion (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps a list of suspected IPs then, if no SPI is needed before resorting to a ban? I'm seeing a bunch that are from one particular part of the world (and it isn't Russia). Doc talk 09:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban It is very unusual to ban the person behind an IP under circumstances like this, but I have spent quite a lot of time trying to explain (calmly and politely) that they really have to stop raising issues with headings and edit summaries that attack other editors. I explained that it is fine to raise issues and say some other editor is wrong or whatever, but the attacks have to stop. I just tried finding the ANI report where I provided some diffs but I can't locate it. The current IP has repeated the attacks, for example see this diff of three edits—as far as attacks go, that is pretty minor, but the first link points to more attacks where an editor is repeatedly named in headings with inflammatory and unsubstantiated commentary. If the IP user were banned, removing their rants would be easier. If anyone is interested, the underlying issues relate to the interpretations of animal behavior, and to the treatment of animals—in other words, there is plenty of scope for emotional reactions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment/question - The IP appears to be unable to reliably distinguish between irony and seriousness judging from the repeated references to gangs and sockpuppetry, accusations that are substantiated by [139] and [140] from their perspective. Given that, aren't they likely to just carry on and feel fully justified in doing so ? Has anyone tried to help them understand that their views are based on misinterpretations ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• A ban is kind of pointless when talking about someone unstable, using an IP that rotates frequently and can't be blocked effectively. Range blocks would have too much collateral damage as well. It won't change their behavior nor will the lack of a ban limit admin in how they deal with the culprit. The only solution is aggressive article protection, which will still only provide limited success. For all intents and purposes, the IP is already de facto banned by their actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think that we're dealing with someone who's open to reason: they are on a crusade. Unfortunately, I think the present course, to manage and limit disruption, is the only option. I doubt a formal ban would have an effect on the user, but it might simplify the inevitable reappearances at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)