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

204.17.60.130

This user's edits have all been undone.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

(For reference, the first paragraph below mostly discusses article content as a necessary background to what I see as inappropriate user behaviour. Please do not misunderstand me as asking for content input on the article talk page. Please also do not take me as asking for sanctions against Mmeijieri; the latter user is also being disruptive, but has not made any personal attacks against me or -- it appears -- other users.)

Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) has been completely devoted to this one page for the last month: he doesn't seem to have any solid ideas for improving the page, but has been posting inane arguments that seem to be promoting the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. It's extremely hard to tell. He and Mmeijeri (talk · contribs) in particular seem to be obsessed with arguments like "New Testament scholars are not historians" and "lots of legitimate historians have criticized the attempts of Christian apologists to construct 'historical Jesus' models that are in fact theological in nature". They place an arbitrary distinction between "New Testament scholars" and "historians", where even though a lot of the former are not historians per se they have rejected out-of-hand the claim by a highly-reputable historian that virtually all historians agree with New Testament scholars on this point. Can anyone look at this edit and not think Fearofreprisal is violating WP:POINT? Taking quotations from legitimate historians out of context, in order to imply that they adhere to a fringe theory discussed in the article, is extremely inappropriate, and at least one is on record as being bothered by being misquoted in this way. Once said historian wrote a 300-page book discrediting the fringe theory, and since then most of his quotes have been removed. Quotes about the historical reliability of from other scholars who have not openly complained about being misquoted are still in the article on the subject of whether or not Jesus existed. It's extremely difficult to discuss these points with Fearofreprisal in particular, since he seems to be more interested in getting a rise out of his "opponents" than in building an encyclopedia article.

But then he took it over the top by starting a new thread about me on the article talk page.[2]

I think the majority of users involved in the historicity article (and related discussions) over the last month would agree with me that FoP has been disruptive. I frankly don't care if he is allowed to continue to edit the article in the short term. But I'd like to see some reprisal for deliberately trying to intimidate me by insinuating bad faith on my part for a username change that took place two years ago...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

I agree that FoR is being needlessly combative, but the article does suffer from major POV issues and Hijiri himself has been very unconstructive in resolving them. He has also been overly eager to run off to various noticeboards at the slightest provocation / disagreement. I might add that I'm annoyed that my good-faith attempts to address major and long-standing POV issues that have been pointed out by many, many Wikipedians in the past are now being brought up by Hijiri as worthy of sanctions. I have received several thank-you's for my contributions to the debate and I think those who read my contributions will see that I've always been constructive and willing to to accommodate the concerns of others.

I don't know why he brings up the fact that researchers who criticise the methodological soundness and lack of objectivity of Historical Jesus research do generally agree Jesus exists. That's certainly true, and if that needs to be made even more explicit than it is right now then I'm all for it, but it's not the point of bringing up the criticism. I even explicitly added the statement that historians do not take the competing Christ Myth Theory seriously.

The point of the criticism section is that the opinion of HJ scholars should not be presented in Wikipedia voice and that biblical scholars should not be misrepresented as historians. I don't understand why Hijiri thinks the distinction is artificial. At first sight it seems obvious they are two different though possibly related disciplines. Biblical scholarship as a whole certainly isn't a subdiscipline of history, it has equally strong or stronger links with semitic studies, theology, archaeology and perhaps other fields. But sometimes things that seem obviously true turn out to be subtly false, so it's possible that the more specific subfield of HJ research is seen as a subfield of history too by historians. In that case we'd need a reliable source to tell us that. I have not seen such a source, and in fact we do have many sources (cited in the article) who explicitly deny it, including prominent biblical scholars involved with HJ research and a (modern) historian who has published a biography of Jesus.

I do think the criticism section is needlessly lengthy and duplicative with what is said in the HJ article, and I have said so before on the article Talk page. However, we've already had discussions about whether we need to have a separate Historicity of Jesus page at all, in addition to the HJ and CMT pages. At one point a lot of material was moved to these other two pages. That discussion can continue after or even in parallel with the POV issue, which does seem more pressing.

IMO the solution is what we always do when dealing with POV issues, namely to state the various opinions from a neutral point of view, taking care to give each view its due attention, not more and not less. In the interaction between scholarly proponents of the competing views various accusations have been made back and forth about possible religious or antireligious bias, lack of historical methodological soundness of methods, lack of scholarly credentials in general, lack of knowledge of Aramaic and possibly others. Accordingly, the article tries to mention any relevant background (credentials, religious / antireligious affiliation) whenever a scholar is first named to help the reader identify possible sources of bias / lack of scholarly quality. In addition I think it would be helpful if we added a paragraph that explains the distinction between theology and religious studies, since it appears to be a common source of confusion.

In closing, I urge Hijiri to be more constructive, and if he isn't, I hope his frequent unjustified appeals to various noticeboards will WP:BOOMERANG on him. It would be well-deserved. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion ends here.

I think we should reconsider seeking arbitration mediation, since all these unproductive trips to the administrators noticeboard don't help. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My lack of involvement for a while (aside from spending a few weeks sorting my books) has a great deal to do with FearOfReprisal, who has honestly just worn me down. As I've (more or less) said before:

• Fearofreprisal claimed that sources by Christians and even ex-Christians are inherently incapable of competently handling the historicity of Jesus, under the assumption that they automatically assume Jesus had to exist and cannot think otherwise (nevermind Tom Harpur and Docetism denying a physical Jesus, and C.S. "Mere Goddamn Christianity" Lewis was capable of separating the Jesuses of history and faith). If he had just said "Christians," it would only be potential bigotry on his part. But, he threw in ex-Christians, those who affirm the plausibility of a historical Jesus in particular. He doesn't mind people citing them when they deny the possibility of a historical Jesus (at no point demonstrating any problem with a user who misrepresented sources and cited a dozen irrelevant sources to argue that Jesus couldn't have existed), but he does when ex-Christians go against the Christ myth theory. After a time, he turned to OR arguments against RSs and vague arguments regarding the scope of the article that coincidentally eliminate the sort of material he's targeted before. -- He has a clear agenda for giving at least equal weight.
• He created a thread accusing me of an agenda, on the article talk page instead of my talk page, providing no evidence. He then edit warred to keep the thread on the page. When told that he needed evidence for his accusations, he euphemistically rephrased the accusations. When told that he should have brought any concerns over my interactions with editors up on my talk page instead of the article's talk page, he claimed the out-of-place thread wasn't an accusation of problematic behavior. When context was given for the words he took out of context, he continued to insist that I was operating with an agenda, provided diffs to the words he took out of context (as if I had denied saying those things). At no point did he provide even a reference to a conversation where I fabricated quotes. When I demonstrated how one would present evidence of an agenda (had I not been stuck on my phone in a hotel room, I would've even provided diffs instead of referencing material anyone can still see on the talk page), he continued to say that I had an agenda and showed offense at me supposedly trying to bring his religious beliefs into it (even though I never mentioned his religious beliefs, and even though it was totally fine for him to accuse me of a religious agenda without evidence). The only user to support his complaints at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_33#Ian.thomson was a user who also made similar unevidenced claims, and was blocked for likewise failing to assume good faith and attacking editors.

As I've indicated on the article talk page and in past discussions, I'm for including a variety of sources, even due weight to the Christ Myth Theory. Between that, me pointing out that a recently added source claims that a historical Jesus is ultimately unknowable, and my prior track record, accusing me of an agenda, especially without evidence, is inexcusable.

Since I had moved on to other things, I did not see his misquotations, but it only confirms for me that FearofReprisal should not be editing articles relating to the historicity of Jesus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal has a history of accusing others of bad faith and/or incivility on article talk pages without any shred of evidence. I do not think that's a habit we should tolerate. Huon (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing User:Ian.thomson and User:Huon's comments (though this is a page I informally watch but don't edit). Some remedy/warning stronger than the last visit to ANI is required. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Echoing User:Ian.thomson, User:Huon, and In ictu oculi's comments. For myself, FoR has also implied that I have no business on the article talk page because I had not edited it before. In what way is that comment appropriate? No collaboration, nor interest in resolving issues; much interest in disputation. Talk page disruption even more than article page - it is a drain on the community. I could say more, but am almost entirely away from Internet service for a time and cannot respond fully now. Evensteven (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

• I'm not a big fan of Fear of Reprisal, but I'm hard put to see him as being the instigator of the problems with this article. The discussions are dominated by people that won't concede the obvious point that Christians and Muslims possess an inherent bias towards seeing evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This gets consistently and insistently misrepresented as having said that Christians are completely incapable making judgements. When one side won't concede a point as obviously true as that one and persistently misrepresents the points others are making, problems ensue.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please quit bringing up that strawman argument (that fails to acknowledge the clear examples of Christians separating the historical and religious Jesuses I keep bringing up) in his defense and either discuss his conduct or stay out of this. FearofReprisal has also thrown in ex-Christians who see reason to accept a historical Jesus as plausible as likewise being religiously biased, and has misquoted authors on those grounds. That is not attempting to remove theologically-motivated sources, that is making bigoted assumptions about anyone who holds a position that is common regardless of religion.

His actions were not merely to remove theological resources (which would be fine), he has demonstrably sought to dismiss any source that isn't part of the Christ myth theory as being religiously biased, or twisted it to say the opposite of what it says. He has made bad-faith accusations against any editor who points out his problems.

If a Christian came onto the talk page, argued that atheists (especially former Christians) are biased against any evidence for the existence of Jesus, tried to remove or distort secular reliable sources that didn't present the Sunday school version of Jesus on the grounds that they were biased against Christianity, made bad-faith attacks on editors who tried to stop this, and then tried to justify their actions as merely trying to balance out inherent biases -- If all this happened, you'd support them being topic banned as would I. Now, what's the difference here? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority of people arguing on that page have reacted to any discussion from me, from Hilo48, from Fear of Reprisal, from anyone that argues that Christians and Muslims have to be treated as biased sources about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as if we were bigots. It's not a strawman argument at all, and all your "clear examples of Christians separating the historical and religious Jesuses" does is illustrate the very point I am making: saying that someone is biased is not the same thing as saying that they are completely incapable of rational judgement. It's quite normal to be simultaneously biased and rational. To deny the bias of people that consider someone to be divine is to argue against logic and human nature.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You affirm that people can be both biased and rational, and yet you do not grant that to Christians and Muslims on this issue. And please, point out (on the article's talk page, because this thread is about FearofReprisal's behavior) where the article uses theological sources (which is where the religious bias would indeed come in). You go on about how we need to acknowledge biases in Christians and Muslims, and yet you're helping someone who is misquoting sources and making bad-faith accusations just because it goes along with your POV. This is not a thread about content, it is about FearofReprisal's behavior. If you want to discuss content, go to Talk:Historicity of Jesus. If you want to post here, post about FearofReprisal's behavior.

Back to the behavioral issue at hand, what you are saying regarding Christians and Muslims being biased is not FearofReprisal's argument, which is why I called it a strawman. FearofReprisal's argument extended to the assumption that ex-Christians must also be religiously biased, but he only holds to that when they side with the historical Jesus theory and does a 180 if ex-Christians can be cited (or misquoted, which you have yet to address) to go against the historical Jesus. That is biased editing, and it is nothing but hypocrisy for you to defend it. If you wanted to stay out of this, I wouldn't blame you.

Even if you are absolutely right on content (which this thread is not about), that does not in any way defend FearofReprisal's behavior. This isn't an issue of religion, FearofReprisal has been POV-pushed, and you have defended his incivility because you agree with that POV, and tried to draw attention away from it by making irrelevant blanket statements. I have little reason to assume you're going to understand that, but I would very much like to be proven wrong on that point.

Also, please, point out how the hypothetical I provided of a Christian arguing that atheists are biased is not the mirror image of this situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to point out why your last point is wrong: atheists have no particular bias for or against the existence of anyone, only their divinity. As for the rest, I view FoR's misbehaviour as the flailing of a drowning man. If his opponents would listen to reason (which you have demonstrated that you will not, by persistently accusing me of failing to grant Christians and Muslims the power of reason, when I have only maintained that they are biased), he would likely be more reasonable himself. It's a cesspool of an article and a cesspool of a talkpage. I'd be just as happy to delete and salt the entire area, because I don't believe the participants will yield to rational argument.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have brought up plenty of evidence demonstrate that Christians are likewise capable of separating divinity and physical existence. You keep ignoring that, or else fail to get that that capacity is the same as allowing one's rationality to control one's bias. The situations are no different: an individual whose bias controls their rationality makes blanket claims that the worldview they believe to be their opposite number are incapable of letting their rationality control their bias and only capable of letting their bias control their rationality, before proceeding to disrupt the site by acting on such assumptions. The only difference is that what's happening now is a POV you agree with.

So do you do you approve of FearofReprisal's misquoting sources then? Do you approve of FearofReprisal's lying about what others say if you personally think the opposing side is being irrational? Do you really think that it's FearofReprisal who's being rational here? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your constant misrepresentation of my statements and refusal to accept basic logic means that I have no reason to favour you in a dispute. You misrepresent me, and in the same breath ask me to be upset because someone else is, in your view, misrepresenting someone. That's the problem here: you are implicitly asking people to favour your position and discipline FoR when any review of your position and reasoning shows that the other editors have thrown up a brick wall. When everyone refuses to acknowledge any kind of middle ground, there's no hope.—Kww(talk) 04:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have repeatedly said that the article should give due weight to all views, and even started a subpage just to gather and sort sources (before I gave up dealing with FoR), even going so far as to include polemic sources such as Prometheus books just to make sure that all views are covered. That's middle ground. Most of the other editors have also been trying to discuss how to give due weight to all views, or at least only academia's views, but get sidetracked by dealing with FoR trying to eliminate members of academia that he disagrees with by misusing your argument of supposed religious bias.

Your refusal to acknowledge that consensus is against you, FoR, and Hilo is a problem for the article. But notice that ANI threads aren't being made about you or Hilo, they're regularly being made about FoR's misbehavior. If it was you and Hilo, there could well progress, but with you defending someone who outright lies about sources, how can there be? Once again, do you condone FoR's misquoting? If you have to refuse to answer that because of me, you're acting out of spite instead of logic or even good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I suspect that if you simply edited the article to segregate the views of Christian and Muslim sources, explicitly label them as biased, and then found sources that weren't Christian or Muslim to balance the article, the behavioural problems would disappear. The problems won't go away until that is done: we can slap FoR silly, and someone else will take his place. I note that despite the controversy about the overuse of Christian sources your listing doesn't address the religion of the authors, even going so far as to label works by Craig A. Evans as "clearly academic" without noting the inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained over and over, which you don't seem to be listening too, FoR has pushed for treating ex-Christians if they don't agree with his views. He has indicated that that would not get rid of behavioral problems. Quit ignoring his behavioral problems to support your POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post on Kww's talk page, since his comment merits a response but seems to be mostly about article content, but since Ian.thomson has already replied here I might as well throw in my two cents here. Yes, User:Kww, Christians are biased when it comes to reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Most reputable historians who also happen to be Christians can keep their biases in check, however, when they are engaging in historical research. These factors only apply to historical Jesus research (i.e., who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, whether historians can prove miracles, etc.). When it comes to whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, Christians may also be considered "biased". However, it is worth noting that the vast majority (99.9999%) of trained historians of other theological persuasions (atheist, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoist...) agree with the Christian historians that at the very least the guy did exist. This means that the bias of Christians toward the historicity question (note I'm speaking exclusively about the historicity of Jesus, not of his sayings miracles, skin colour, marital status or sexuality) is essentially negligible, and we shouldn't bring it up in the article per WP:UNDUE. However, it has been noted (in Ehrman 2012's epilogue, for instance) that the mythicist apologists overwhelmingly have their own theological bias against the historicity of Jesus, in that they grew up in Christian environs and have a specific distrust of Christianity, and believe that arguing against the historicity of Jesus will serve to discredit Christianity and solve the evils they feel Christianity has wrought. Ehrman understands and sympathizes with them on most points other than the historicity of Jesus (as do I, I should add). But at the end of the day we have one historical claim (that Jesus existed) that is accepted by virtually every scholar of every theological persuasion, and an opposing historical claim (that Jesus never existed) that is essentially only accepted by a vocal minority of adherents of one theological persuasion (atheism), the majority of whom are also vocal in their specific opposition to 21st century Anglo-American Christianity. Books defending the historicity of Jesus come from Christian publishers, yes, but also from Oxford University Press; books attacking the historicity of Jesus come almost exclusively from American Atheist Press and other publishers with their theological views made clear in the name. I don't think we should use article space to speculate about theological biases on the part of either side, but if we do one we have to do the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "99.999%" figure is interesting. First, it includes Muslims, who revere Jesus of Nazareth to the same extent that Christians do: orthodox Muslim theology is that Jesus was never crucified, but remains physically alive at the side of Allah. Second, I've asked multiple times for someone to provide examples of Buddhist and atheist historians that have stated that evidence supports the historic existence of Jesus, and no one has provided one. If you wish to have any credibility in your argument, Hijiri 88, please provide a short list of atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Shintoist historians that agree that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed. If it's 99.999% of all such historians, it should be trivially easy to provide such a list. Then, we can add the list to the article and all the controversy will go away.—Kww(talk) 05:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman is an atheist historian. He is also a reliable source on the views of the historical community (歴史学界), and he says virtually historians in Asia accept the historicity of Jesus. Christians make up only a tiny minority of the historical community in Asia, and Muslims only a slightly larger minority. Therefore, for virtually all historians in Asia to accept something, more than a few Muslims and Hindus would need to accept it as well. You're demanding that we categorize qualified historians based on their theological persuasion is an insult to said historians' academic integrity, and could easily land in trouble with WP:BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One example from one particular group does not 99.999% of a large group of things make. You've argued with me by making things up, and then asked us to be upset because someone accused you of making things up.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion ends here.

Kww, please discuss article content on the article talk page. You are as usual wrong on the substance, but this is not the place to discuss that. Hijiri 88 (聖 やや) 05:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the above comment was twice removed, without explanation, by User:Kww and User:Reyk. If this thread gets archived with no result as a consequence of Kww's deliberate attempt to hinder outside input with WP:TLDR off-topic rants about article-content, a new thread will be opened in its place. And whether or not Kww's attempt to get this thread archived with no outside input succeeds, both users will be made to answer for repeated unexplained removal of other users' comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your hatting of this section was inappropriate, and your claim that my revert was "unexplained" is false. I stated in the edit summary that you don't get to dictate what can and cannot be discussed on ANI. Hatting a section because an article is being discussed is not a good reason. Of course you are free to restore your comments, without the misbehaviour, and I see that you have. Reyk _YO! 06:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not say your reversion of my hat. I said your removal of my response to Kww was removed without explanation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said- you are free to restore any comments you made, minus the misbehaviour, and I see that you have. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Reyk: Collapsing off-topic asides that belong on the article talk page, in order to make the thread more readable, is not misbehaviour. It is in fact pretty standard procedure. The only thing unique about this is that the off-topic content was not an accidental, good-faith aside (if it was, Kww would have acknowledged his mistake and let it go), but a deliberate attempt to take advantage of WP:TLDR in order to limit outside input. The claim that my hatting off his content discussion with User:Ian.thomson was an attempt on my part to "remove" or "hide" legit user conduct discussion because I'm afraid of a WP:BOOMERANG against myself resulting from such discussion is an almost-laughable cover-story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand

FoR has, as demonstrated above, attacked editors and misquoted sources. He has done this repeatedly. Article content is NOT the issue here, it is tendentious editing, plain and simple. Some editors may support this tendentious editing because it goes with their views, but such actions are in bad-faith and they need to quit defending such actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the problem is with FoR, but rather with the topic itself. Neither side has been without fault. I would suggest mediation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any bad-faith defenses of FoR. I've witnessed a serious WP:KETTLE problem in the discussion above, though.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ret.Prof: Maybe so, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any instance of me doing something that merited a thread on the article talk page about how I have used sockpuppets to get away with making personal attacks against people (I have not) and ultimately changed my username to get away with making personal attacks against people (I have not). Whether FoR is right on the substance (he is not) is frankly irrelevant here, except for the fact that the side of this dispute that is wrong has had to increasingly resort to personal attacks, misquoting of sources, violations of WP:POINT, etc.

@User:Kww: All of the defenses of FoR have hinged on "he is right on the substance" (he is not) or "Hijiri88 is a cry-baby" (I put up with his crap for I think three weeks before posting here).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On the chance that anyone actually cares about building an encyclopedia, I'll point out that, despite contributing lots of POV and OR to the talk page, User:Hijiri88, User:Ian.thomson, and User:Huon have each contributed nothing to the Historicity of Jesus article. Zip.

I was wrong to link Hijiri88's use of sockpuppets and user name change with incivility. They could be totally unrelated things. (It's worth noting that he still seems to be using IP socks, though, again, it wouldn't be fair to impute any motive to it.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm... every time I post logged out from my phone I specify that it's me. And I don't need to WP:EDITWAR. I have presented solid proposals to improve the article (removing out-of-context quotations that imply John P. Meier, a Catholic priest is skeptical about the historical existence of Jesus, and rejects historical Jesus research. What constructive edits have you made to the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I attempted a few times to hat off the TLDR off-topic discussions in the above section, and was repeatedly reverted by Kww and accused by them of "removing" comments. (This while Kww was somewhat hypocritically deleting one of my comments.) This is an obvious attempt on the part of someone who realizes outside input will be invariably against them to prevent outside input by forcing anyone who wants to contribute to wade through thousands of words of off-topic content dispute material. Kww will be made to answer for this repeated disruption once the FoP issue has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Ahem. Do you guys have some kind of Wiki-death wish? Surely you must realize the end result of escalating a dispute at ANI like this. Let's see some evidence of how progress in building the encyclopedia has been impeded in the form of diffs summarized by concise statements. Ignocrates (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: How so? In the past, whenever I have come into conflict with a POV-pusher who was abusing/misquoting sources and aggressively making personal attacks against me and others, I tried initially discussing on the article talk pages and their user talk page, and when that didn't work eventually it came to ANI (or SPI, or some other such venue) and the community dealt with them effectively. Both Ian.thomson and I presented concise statements with diffs as evidence. Kww then came along and posted a string of TLDR comments about article content. Please actually examine who has posted what, and who has tried to do what to resolve the issue, before blanket-smearing all parties in a dispute like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Blanket-smearing"? Please see WP:BLUDGEON. I don't see persuasive evidence of progress being impeded on improving the article. Do yourself a favor and return to constructive editing. ANI isn't the place to dry your tears and give out hugs. Ignocrates (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can the article be written in the same way without reliance on biased sources? Of course, Christians are biased about whether Jesus existed. I think it is equally obvious that Wikipedia doesn't prohibit biased sources--but, the article shouldn't unduly represent their view. Howunusual (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Howunusual: If all sources written by anyone who either is now or was at one time a Christian, then probably no. It's worth noting that virtually everyone who denies historicity is an atheist apologist who comes from a Christian background. In fact, per Ehrman 2012's epilogue this represents an obvious conflict of interest. It seems to me that Fearofreprisal, Kww, and the others are arguing that we should mention these biases for every scholar mentioned in the article. Ian.thomson, myself and the others appear to be arguing against this, and in my case at least it's because most of the so-called mythicists are not reliable sources, and trying to "balance" the article by presenting all the (thousands?) of reliable sources on the other side as "biased" will give readers the wrong impression. It's not Wikipedia's place to be deciding which sources are biased, when reliable sources do not make this claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant sources whose Christianity is part of their professional background. Howunusual (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is wiki madness! Iggy, Ignocrates and I do not agree on much these days but he is absolutely right in the end result of an escalating dispute at ANI like this. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts Ret.Prof, and stop calling me Iggy. It's inappropriate. Btw, since we will be facing off in arbitration in about a week, it would be best if you refrained from commenting on my comments, unless its really pertinent. Ignocrates (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your notice to me HERE is very, very wrong. In future limit such comments to our talk pages! - Ret.Prof (talk)

@Hijiri 88: Sorry about the above disruption. I thought you were being a bit harsh with him.

@User:Ret.Prof: How so? In the past, whenever I have come into conflict with a POV-pusher who was abusing/misquoting sources and aggressively making personal attacks against me and others, I tried initially discussing on the article talk pages and their user talk page, and when that didn't work eventually it came to ANI (or SPI, or some other such venue) and the community dealt with them effectively. Both Ian.thomson and I presented concise statements with diffs as evidence. Kww then came along and posted a string of TLDR comments about article content. Please actually examine who has posted what, and who has tried to do what to resolve the issue, before blanket-smearing all parties in a dispute like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've posted seven short paragraphs in seven distinct replies. I'm going to presume that your post is simply an extension of your strategy of making false statements. On the other hand, if one paragraph falls into your definition of TL;DR it might explain why having a substantive discussion with you has proven to be so difficult.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't delete your distinct replies. I merely pointed out what Ian.thomson did as well, that they belong on the article talk page, and should not be posted here because of TLDR. As I predicted, your overrunning this thread with TLDR content disputes has caused two other user to come along and completely misinterpret the problem. I never should have pinged you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Issue still ongoing

For the record, this issue continues in the absence of any admin action. I recently came to the article, this is what the user under discussion directed at me [3]. 100% personal attack without even the intention to discuss anything related to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true.. I have been watching and mildly contributing for a couple months on this page and its a bit frustrating to have input like this. I don't think this user is some bane of order or a gigantic problem, but a little talking-to wouldn't hurt. Its hard enough to make progress with people being civil, and its probably just a joke on his part, but it slows things down a bit to have to deal with it each time. Granted I don't see any of the main players here as being too innocent! :) Prasangika37 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is whether this article should even exist. I noticed a thread was opened on the talk page to discuss the AfD option. As it stands, Wikipedia has three articles to cover two topics, with this one wedged in the middle position. At one point, I remember this article being a sort of Christian triumphalist alternative to the Christ Myth Theory. It is now more NPOV, but its reason for being is even less clear. Imo, this is one of the biggest reasons for the seemingly eternal squabbles on the article. Fix the underlying problem and all the rest of this noise will go away. Just a thought. Ignocrates (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A Suggestion to Wrap This Up for Now

This is not the first or second time that there has been a thread at this noticeboard about Historicity of Jesus. Nor, unfortunately, does it appear to be the last time. The OP has complained about one particular editor, User:Fearofreprisal, who has been tendentious and difficult, but not the only disruptive editor. However, the OP has no particular proposal for what to do. He or she does not request a block, an indef, a topic-ban, an interaction ban, or a site ban, which are the only administrative actions that I am aware that the community can deal with here. By coming here to complain, without requesting sanctions, the OP is just venting and wasting time, as is the case with too many threads here. It appears to me that this article is one where a combination of content issues (should the article exist? what is its scope?) and conduct issues over a long period rise to the level where arbitration is likely to be necessary. My recommendation is, first, that this thread be closed with a warning to Fearofreprisal and a warning to the OP, and, second, that it be noted that any future disruption should be sent (along with the history of past disruption) to the Arbitration Committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Close this thread with warnings, and note that any future disruption will be sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that arbitration is the better option. This soap-boxing is a complete waste of ANI's time. The content issue needs to be addressed as well. Otherwise, the litany of complaints will just resume with the next group of combatants. Take it to AfD and let the community decide the scope there, or if it should exist at all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wdford was bold and stripped the contentious article down to a short disambiguation article containing links to other articles. Several other editors concur that that is an improvement. User:Fearofreprisal reverted the bold edit. I restored the shortened article. Fearofreprisal hasn't suggested an alternative. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks great. And it makes so much more sense. If this gets reverted again, I would file for arbitration immediately. Thanks for all your hard work coming up with this creative solution and diffusing the dispute in the process. Ignocrates (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have, in fact, responded, providing citations to reliable sources. diff here Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic-Ban of User:Fearofreprisal

I am striking my previous suggestion that this thread be closed with warnings. User:Wdford made a bold edit and shortened the contentious article to a disambiguation article with links to other articles. An RFC is in progress on whether to keep the shortened article or restore the full article. User:Fearofreprisal is the only editor who disagrees with the shortening of the article, and has called the shortened version "blanking" and "vandalism". User:Fearofreprisal has now filed a frivolous request for formal mediation on the issue of whether to revert the "blanking" of the article. Since mediation requires the voluntary participation of all named parties, and some of the parties are known to support the shortened version of the article, the only actual effect of the RFM is to continue to stir up controversy. (The requirement to assume good faith only goes so far and perhaps should be set aside now. Perhaps this editor is trolling.) I request a topic-ban on User:Fearofreprisal from historicity of Jesus and all of the articles referenced in the shortened version of the article in order to prevent this editor from continuing to stir up controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support given the editor's recent history of tendentious and very unproductive commentary on the talk page. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support given recent events, yes, absolutely. I would broaden this T-ban to include articles related to Historicity of Jesus broadly construed. Ignocrates (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest reading Robert McClenon's last sentence carefully. He's suggesting banning me for making controversial statements. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's not right. The suggestion is that some editors thrive on controversy with a resulting very low benefit-to-noise ratio. I haven't looked lately, but when I last checked that appeared to be the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Something is very, very wrong here! In the first place aren't Ignocrates and John Carter here in violation of "their bans". Secondly, it looks a though Fearofreprisal is being set up by a group of user accounts working together diff This needs to be looked into further! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I filed a request for enforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_John_Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, this AE request has been closed as a frivolous filing. Therefore, it should not affect the discussion here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that supports the claim that FoR is being "set up by a group of user accounts working together." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I would recommend arbitration to get to the root of the matter. and possibly a sock puppet investigation. strike due to diff> I am also going to ask some trustworthy admins and crats to to look into this situation! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you suggesting are sockpuppets? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is to be a sockpuppet investigation, it should look at connections with (deleted) and banned (deleted). Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, (deleted) is not a banned user, and he is actively editing. Allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at SPI, not here, and it's tendentious to bring up someone's name as a likely sockpuppet without a shred of evidence. For such spurious claims, blocks are made. Ignocrates (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I've deleted the names in my own post, you may want to do the same thing in yours. A topic ban did appear to be in effect, judging by his talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I have asked an admin to take a look at the unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry as it applies to the editors working on the article, per WP:casting aspersions. Ignocrates (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - About time. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:Don't get me wrong. I am not making any specific allegations. What I am saying is there something is very, very wrong here! It needs to be fully investigated possibly by Arbitration or by other means! If arbitration goes against Fear, I will most certainly accept it. Turning an important article into a little more than stub was most unsettling! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're not making specific allegations, don't make allegations because it comes across as little more than fear-mongering to distract from issues at hand. My past experience with you makes it hard for me to believe you're that kind of user, but looking a bit now I see that you and Ignocrates have some sort of issues that I'm not going to get involved with (I don't care what they are, who started it, whatever), but I would ask that neither of you allow those issues to influence your decisions regarding the continued behavior of FoR; nor allow content issues to distract from the issue of FoR's behavior (as they have abut four times now!). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that change but supported it. No content was removed from Wikipedia, and there was a broad consensus for it.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for articles related to the historical Jesus. Fearofreprisal is here with a strong WP:POV and has showed time and time again that they will insist on the WP:TRUTH even if there is a strong consensus to the contrary. Nothing in the user's behavior or Wikipedia history support they are willing to engage constructively.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion: All I am saying do not think the problem is only with FoR, but rather with the topic itself. Neither side has been without fault. I would suggest mediation as a first step. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You've now made your opposition in four different comments, all of them saying pretty much the same thing, and this far you're the only one making taking that position. You're perfectly entitled to a divergent opinion, but perhaps you could refrain from repeating it over and over again?Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon, It will be easier for FoR if you list the names of the articles that will fall under the topic ban. Christ myth theory will be included? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a list of articles in a topic ban. It's a ban from the topic, not from an article. In this case, where the topic is Jesus's historicity, it would likely mean every article in some way dealing Jesus, as it's possible to discuss Jesus's historicity on any such article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz Thank you for writing. I am in Support of topic ban on Jesus's historicity, FoR has frequently made irrelevant discussions and he has been edit warring too. Now those who are talking about other users here, this topic ban will serve as an example. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Would sooner support a topic-ban for the proposer of this attempt at censorship. Trying to ban someone for proposing dispute resolution is pretty strange. It's also pretty bizarre to argue that seeking dispute resolution is trolling because, well, there is a dispute. Yet that's what is what Robert McClenon does by arguing the "only actual effect of the RFM is to continue to stir up controversy". Howunusual (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the point of the proposer is how it was done; for example, allegations were made of vandalism and blanking an article. A veteran editor knows better; therefore, such claims are disruptive. There was nothing wrong with the proposal of formal mediation except the timing; an RfC is still underway, so that also seemed to be disruptive. A formal mediation is not "frivolous" per se, and may yet happen before this is done. The trolling allegation, I agree, is tough to prove, and not to be made lightly. It implies someone is motivated by malice. Ignocrates (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding the comment by Howunusual. Looking at the edit history of both users, it is clear that Robert McClenon has tried to be constructive while Fearofreprisal has been extremely disruptive. The accusation of "attempt at censorship" seems to be an unfounded personal attack with no substance whatsoever provided. Fearofreprisal is being suggested for a topic ban for their behaviour, evident from their edit history, and not for their opinions. Other users have had similar opinions but nobody have suggested they'd be topic banned as they are serious good faith users. I hope the closing admin find the time to give Howunusual a serious for their unfounded breach of WP:NPA against Robert McClenon.Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit harsh! We are now attacking each other. Not a good sign. We all need to take a deep breath and start assuming good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Howunusual:: earlier in this thread (and in a few archived discussions as well), there's evidence of FoR using the article talk page for unfounded personal attacks against multiple editors, misquoting sources, and generally refusing to seek a middle ground with editors who are interested in collaboration. To call this topic ban a blatant attempt at censorship is either completely ignorant of the situation or in bad-faith against some editor involved here. Notice that Kww and Hilo48 are not mentioned in the topic ban, despite having repeatedly helping him get out of topic bans by turning the issue into a discussion of content and presenting a more moderate face to FoR's arguments. Please learn more about the situation before making asinine accusations about Robert McClenon, who has been dealing with this with way the hell more patience than he should have. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your credibility is momentous. You complain of personal attacks, and call people "asinine." That says it all. Howunusual (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question, at least to me. Looking at What is considered to be a personal attack?, "asinine" wouldn't appear to approach personal attack—until you get to the bottom, where it says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Since "asinine" would certainly be a disparagement if not an insult, it passes that definition. By that definition, an enormous segment of the Wikipedia population is in violation of WP:NPA multiple times a day, making the passage of dubious value. This is not the place for such a discussion, I know, but I'm not feeling inclined to start one in the proper place. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The title and subject of the entire thread is "Personal Attacks." If the policy on personal attacks is of "dubious value" then close the thread. Don't pick and choose. Howunusual (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Howunusual:: I said your accusations were asinine. Where did I comment on you? You, however, made claims that Robert McClenon was proposing the topic-ban as censorship despite clear evidence to the contrary. That, and you twisting my words, utterly fail WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:: Yes, OK. Your opinion is moronic. Please note, I haven't commented on you. Howunusual (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to contribute through taking an honest look at the personal attacks, misquoting, and POV pushing by FoR and commenting on that behavior, or are you here merely to pick fights? Are you going to correct your accusations toward Robert McClenon, or are you here to make attacks to support editors who's POV-pushing you happen to agree with? If it's the former answers, you sure are doing a terrible job of it; if it's the latter, you don't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I have nothing to contribute "through taking an honest look at the personal attacks, misquoting, and POV pushing by FoR ." Rather, I have something to contribute by taking an honest look at such behavior by those complaining about it in others. Howunusual (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that your assessment of the situation ("censorship") completely lacks evidence and is countered by other evidence. That's not useful at all, that's either bad judgement or bad-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A fair distinction, which I missed. That part retracted with apologies. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - it's hard by now to avoid the conclusion that that User:Fearofreprisal does not want any resolution - at least any that has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the consensus. I have no idea whether the plan is to outlast the opposition and to turn the article into whatever Fearofreprisal desires when everybody else has given up in disgust, or whether he merely wants to cause drama for drama's sake, but he's switching between personal attacks (as I pointed out way above, and as since experienced by Jeppiz), wikilawyering (for example the "shortening is an end-run around deletion" line of reasoning), and supposedly good-faith requests for mediation - whatever it takes to prolong the dispute. It's high time to put a stop to this behavior. Huon (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've resisted raising this issue, because I'd hoped that saner minds would prevail: the historicity of jesus is a secular history subject. But because the historicity of jesus article is about Jesus, it attracts the same very experienced editors who contribute to the other Jesus articles. To my understanding, they are almost all very dedicated Christians. But whether they are or are not, they've, collectively tried to inject theology into the article. For years.

I believe so many of them have turned on me because I've continually pushed for the article's scope to reflect its topic, and have pressed the need for verifiability (which is at odds with turning a history article into a Christian article.) Recently, a group of these editors has been trying to kill the article. The evidence is in plain view in the talk page.

It's time to bring this article to arbitration.

P.S. - most of the editors suggesting that I be banned are involved. Even those who are long term WP editors. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed on Christ myth theory for 1 year, I don't think that a lot of discussion that you have made on these talk pages was actually wanted. What about the edit warring? There was a day when you had broken 3RevertRule, but you wouldn't recognize it any longer. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

More unevidenced accusations. Not getting your way? Just say that those who disagree with you must be doing so because they're Christians. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is clear they are trying to kill the article. Why? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of the folks who are supporting the disambiguation version were originally for rewriting the article so that it covered all appropriate views, with the main disagreement being whether to go with a specific focus (and if so, what would be excluded as fringe) or to include a broad variety (even if it meant some polemics were cited and labelled accordingly). Were a few editors who insisted denigrating sources based on what they suspected of the author's religion never involved in the discussion, some other kind of middle ground might have been reached. Even then, the broad variety option would lead to a bunch of material that would need to be carted off into independent articles (which we already have); while the specific focus approach would lend itself to drafting versions on the major views to determine which was least fringe, which would again result in a number of independent articles that we already have.

The disambiguation version allows the article to remain stable while a version is created through collaborative effort (instead of reverting, or adding sources to "balance out" views individual editors have a problem with). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Your explanation was very helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The evidence provided shows a topic ban is needed here. -- Calidum 04:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. GoldenRing (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Following a massive influx of WP:SPAs/WP:SOCKs, several of which has vandalized the article, I've requested semi-protection. Much of this disruption could probably have been avoided if a topic-ban had been put a place shortly after this issue was brought to ANI, more than 10 days ago. I appreciate the need to discuss things, but delays quite often serve to aggravate problems, not solve them.Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we wrap this up

The consensus seems to be fairly strong in favour of a topic ban. I'd also like to point out that a number of WP:SPAs have now appeared to support Fearofreprisal[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [[11]] who had a hard time getting any support before the appearance of the WP:SPAs.Jeppiz (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to check for socks, it's hardly a coincidence that we suddenly see a massive influx of SPAs to boost Fearofreprisal.Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment As a long time mostly lurker on this noticeboard I couldn't help but notice this discussion. Frankly it reads like a Kangaroo Court. Unsurprisingly, it seems headed for the inevitable predetermined conclusion. You should be ashamed of yourselves. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And do you have argument to add to the discussion or are you just making personal attacks to be disruptive and further inflame things? A large number of users have provided diffs for extensive disruptions.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

More SPAs: Special:Contributions/98.167.155.109, Special:Contributions/JChurchtown. Clearly there's at least meatpuppets, apparently canvassing as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This post seems to suggest that there was canvassing on Reddit's r/atheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested page protection at WP:RPP because the SPAs are getting disruptive, though obviously would not mind if an admin seeing this decided to protect the page before someone at RPP does. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Definite off-site canvassing

Thanks to User:Lots42 for pointing this out, but there is canvassing on Reddit by an account created not just 8 hours ago, portraying FoR as a lone hero (ignoring Kww and Hilo48), asking readers to "Please help, by visiting the article "talk page", and voicing your opinion". The talk page needs semi-protection ASAP. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a ban on User:Malusia22

Judging from how much of a nuisance he has been, and a pain for editors to deal with (as he would hide his tracks and thus make his hoaxes look clean in the eyes of administrators and other users), I would like to ask for a consensus on whether Malusia should be banned from editing. I had a bit of a hard time when I came across this lad, and judging from the harassment and gross vandalism directed at myself and User:WayKurat, I'd say the time has come for him to be booted off for good. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of this editor, and you cited no diffs.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Malusia22 (talk · contribs) was indef'd several days ago, and there's plenty of IP weirdness on his user and talk pages. There's also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That, and also the LTA case page for him. Anyway, shall we go on with the consensus? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever not to ban this user considering they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. (WP:NOTHERE) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As what I mentioned above, with the harrassment Way and I got subjected to from him, he definitely has to go for good. Also, will an edit filter to flag or tag any edits similar to the ones Malusia frequently adds or edits be feasible, e.g. a regex for "sindikato"? Blake Gripling (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, showing these edits that are requested to be reviewed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This one, for example is a typical Malusia hallmark, along with the "representative image" of a tiger to which he purports to be a symbol of the so-called "sindikato". Groups such as OXO and gangsters like Asiong Salonga are also frequently mentioned and referred to in his elaborate hoaxes; while there is some historical basis to it, some of my fellow editors and I can attest that his articles, and attitude towards others whom he crosses paths with lends to why he should be booted off for good.

Battleground mentality and disruptive editing by Coat of Many Colours

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

---

• While collecting Camille Pissarro paintings for Hafspajen a couple weeks ago, I discovered the painting September Morn and its poor, poor article. During the course of the Featured Picture candidacy for the image, Coat of Many Colours appears to have taken offence over the subject of the image, a young woman standing nude alongside a lake one early morning, and has cited analysis of the painting stating that it is an indecent image of a minor, something which was a minority opinion during the course of the FPC.

This is, as a matter of course, completely acceptable, and I recognize that we cannot all agree on all things. However, Coat appears to have attempted to derail the FPC with extensive commentary and snide remarks (describing an editor who disagrees with him as "puerile" and "infantile", for instance), causing the length of the nomination to balloon up to over 10,000 words with all the replies. This started with declarations that the painting was gratifying to paedophiles (by an editor claiming to speak for the general public and was followed by admissions that Coat was editing while drunk, to implications that I was ignoring pertinent information in the article expansion (citing... The Museum of Hoaxes, which is clearly not an RS) or applying "editorial discretion" in what information was included, accusing me of OR. When the editor's attempts to force the FPC to close as unsuccessful failed, he migrated to the talk page of the article (which I was in the middle of expanding).

On the talk page, Coat again accused me of censoring certain information (though Coat's term was me being "reluctant" to include the claimant, ignoring the issue of reference quality), and later that asking me to make a "real effort" at research (at a point when the article already had 50 references and had taken up 3 days of Wikipedia editing). Soon an IP appeared who added an extensive snippet of copyrighted material (and later, a whole abstract), then accused me of censorship when I reworked the additions to avoid violating copyright. This IP later stated that he was Coat (and behavioural evidence suggests this is correct). Coat's extensive comments have continued on the talk page (under his own account), and although the rhetoric has calmed down a bit, there are apparently still some problems.

However, the greatest issue that I've had with Coat is his implication (while editing as an IP, before the IP said that he was Coat; a possible violation of WP:SOCK) that I'm a paedophile for showing interest in the painting (how this comment implies paedophilia is explained here. He has been warned about this by Drmies (Coat's reply was "I'm going to throw you over the bridge every time you come back here, whatever your issue, whoever it is you like whose interests you are trying to protect."), and Awien, who agrees that the painting is an indecent depiction of a minor, asked Coat to apologize (Coat... gave this as a reply; note the accusation of canvassing? The post Coat is apparently alluding to was my question whether Drmies thought the IP's comments were an implication of paedophilia/COI or not), I ultimately gave up on responding to Coat's comments, as there was no apology for the grave insult, and it appears I was right to do so: Coat says no apology is needed and continues to insist that he never implied I was a paedophile, despite others' readings of his comment saying otherwise.

This battlefield mentality and inability to listen to others is not new. Hafspajen (mentioned above) temporarily retired because of Coat's behaviour at previous FPCs, and since then has banned the editor from his talk page and requested that Coat not even mention his user name, something Coat didn't do (note that this is 2 days after Hafs explicitly said "stop talking to me and stop mentioning my name"). Coat also maintains a subpage apparently meant to build or archive an attempt to build a case against Stefan2, who has nominated several images Coat uploaded as possibly being copyvios (resembles an attack page to me).

Because of the above behaviour (which has apparently taken up almost all of the user's on-wiki time for the past two weeks), and the editor's unwillingness to respond to others concerns, I think it's best that (at the very least) Coat be I-banned from interacting with me and preferably Hafspajen as well. The editor's disruption and PAs may, however, be enough for a block and/or ban - as decided by the community. I'm for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse the facts and the tenor of this report. I have been on the verge of blocking them more than once; this battleground mentality, the accusations, the snide remarks, the misrepresentations make for an impossible work atmosphere. I urge the community to take action or, at the very least, for an uninvolved admin to look into this situation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The accusation of pedophila [12] is targeted at the painter Chabas, and since he's both notable and long dead (1937) that's not a violation of policy. From my take, this kerfuffle is the OP Crisco adding drama to victory -- and the time of COMC's commment, the voting was tending heavily towards accept, and it was as much Crisco, et. al. choosing not to let COMC have the last word as it was COMC's continued rebuttals that churned the page.. The edit warring over two sentence quotes as "copyright violation" is lame, also. Clearly, copy pasting entire paragraphs is a violation and brief phrases are not and there is gray in between, but certainly not worth fighting over, by COMC (just externally link to the quote) or Crisco 1492 (don't fuss about it if it's borderline). I heartily endorse Crisco adopting a User:NE_Ent/Unilateral_interaction_ban vis-a-vis COMC.

Additionally, since the pic easily passed feature picture, COMC comments weren't that disruptive. Since this all happened days ago -- pic was promoted 26 Sep -- it's also not an "incident" requiring urgent admin attention. NE Ent 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, Ent, but you're reading this diff incorrectly. It's not Chabas who is accused of pedophilia--nor is the accusation made that Crisco is a pedophile. Let's read this carefully: "the article" is blamed for a "deeply deeply suspect" effort to make Chabas acceptable again, and it's that part I took issue with, since it's blaming Crisco, through the article, for repairing a pedophile's reputation, and for having a "deeply deeply suspect" motivation--rather than Crisco's usual MO, which is article improvement. So this was indeed a serious personal attack, and that is what made me warn Coat. Now, that's sort of water under the bridge, but then came this edit, indicating that they obviously weren't going to leave Crisco (and his nominations) alone. This latter edit is ostensibly an oppose on a different FP nomination, but was really nothing more than an opportunity to stoke that fire again, days after I had hoped that they were going to drop the matter. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ent, if it was just the copyvios (which the editor stopped, eventually), it would have been water under the bridge. It's not though. It is an ongoing, two-week long crusade against the image, the article, and those involved in the expansion of the article, in which the user has been told to "tone down (his) wild hyperbole" (diff from today) and similar... yet it has yet to happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As for "accusation of pedophilia being against Chabas"... I didn't say he "accused" me of it. I said he implied it. How? By collocating the "deeply, deeply suspect" comment with statements of Chabas' paedophilia. What other reason would one have for (consciously) doing so? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block per WP:POINT, and WP:DISRUPTIVE per the evidence provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse block This is a morality crusade and tossing around accusations against the painter in this manner taints the museum as well. They've held this work since 1957 and there were controversies since it was painted as their have been about many excellent and well known pieces of art. Uhm...that is part of what art is sometimes, n 1912 and still today. However a number of things being said are questionable and Drmies isn't stretching this, but I go a tad further in that this also seems to be attacking the gallery/museum for displaying it or even owning it. I am also rather disturbed by the criticism of just trying to bring a painting out of a perceived obscurity as if that was some fault here...ITS WHAT WE DO! We bring attention to notable works. We are an encyclopedia, not a political or moral message board. The talk page has been abused for a moral crusade and I think it has crossed from a debate (which doesn't really belong there) to trying to assign a sickness to anyone that admires this painting or tries to defend against some of the more obscure and even extreme criticism of some critics. How much room we give for such is one thing...but this has become something else that is just wrong on many levels.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Just marking as a comment as I probably count as involved having supported the FP nomination but I endorse everything stated by Crisco and Drmies; COMC's standard behaviour is disruptive with a constant battleground attitude. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: My response was this on my Talk page i.e. to say I defend Crisco's right to raise his concerns but I don't want to get involved. But do I need to make some response to defend my reputation. When I saw this Featured Picture nomination, which occurred early the same day September 16 my return from a month's leave abroad, a date I had placed on my Talk page, I knew at once it was quite wrong. I had edited at Cicada 3301, an article start of mine, and then turned to my Watchlist and was absolutely gobsmacked to see the September Morn nomination. It's creator Paul Chabas made his living from painting pictures of naked pubescent and pre-pubescent girls (never boys one can remark). September Morn is his self-acknowledged masterpiece. These paintings have been withdrawn from display in European museums, as has September Morn in the US. He is routinely cited in the literature as a paedophile in the tradition of Ruskin and Carroll. Of coursed I opposed the nomination, but equally I didn't want to get involved in a discussion about paedophilia. This was my oppose

Oppose, the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards. Some common-sense discretion surely advisable here. Are we also to feature the more provocative of Balthus' paintings for example? In making this oppose I exercise my right to make an oppose clearly stating a reason. I'm not prepared to debate it.

But I wasn't left alone. For the rest of it I can comment that everything of note in recent years regarding this painting appearing in the article, citing the work of Brauer, Kincaid, Dijkstra and Witchard, all comes from me. As to the accusation of impugning Crisco of being a paedophile, I dealt with that on the Talk page replying to the administrator supporting Crisco here. I referred to the article as suspect, not its editors, and indeed it was suspect because we learn from the DYK nomination (now withdrawn, and also first discovered by me and brought to the attention of the Talk page) that the intention was all along "Let's bring this painting out of the darkness that it's in!" I say let's not.

I repeat, as I have had to many times, I do not seek to censor this article nor remove the image from Wikipedia (though I don't think the one selected by Crisco is a good one). All I sought was that Wikipedia does not valorize this painting by slapping a gold star on it and Featuring it and does not publish it on its front page.

I told the administrator supporting Crisco a long time ago that I was planning to cease editing at Wikipedia. I suggest it's not too too difficult to surmise from my editing history exactly why I started this account and why I'm now happy to close it (I'm aware that the editor the administrator supporting Crisco likes has gone right through my edit history from start to finish seeking clues). You will appreciate therefore that I don't urgently feel the need to defend this ANI. I should quite like to complete a planned article start I am preparing in my sandbox for P v S and Cornwall County Council, but there are others just as capable of doing that.

Since I'm about defending my reputation here, let me clarify (once again in response to personal attack from Crisco and the editor the administrator supporting him likes that I can't be bothered to locate) that I am not an academic and I never, asserted any expertise in art history. I'm a collector and it's just a hobby. I know very well now not to indulge it in Wikipedia. I understand that is also the experience of very many new editors at Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a crusade and in the wrong place. You say Wikipedia should "not valorize this painting by slapping a gold star on it"? Why not? It won a gold medal of honor when it was shown in Paris. It isn't your reputation that is in question, it is your accusation of the reputation of others that disagree with critics and even yourself for the disapproval. Such opinion is fine...but that's where it ends. You cannot use the Wikipedia talk page to continue to war over what you just don't like.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was you under an IP edit while away or another IP editor who attempted to "paint" the amount of time it supposedly took to paint the work as some odd reasoning that it was suspect. That was just ridiculous so sure, if that wasn't you..then you are not alone but...some of the comments were in no way trying to improve the article but simply make the artist out as some sick child molester. The artist painted females...women and girls. This is truly more than you just not approving of the feature status. You say: "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" How do we know this? What age is the girl and what standard are you using? Maxfield Parrish painted young girls and young boys (and the models were actually himself by the way with both genders in many cases). As a comparison lets look at Parrish's "Dinky Bird". An image of a boy of comparable age: File:Dinky Bird by Maxfield Parrish, 1904.jpg. Is he a Pedephile? Is anyone who has a copy a Pedephile? If we found a copy worth promoting to Feature status and I supported it would you accuse me of something? --Mark Miller (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Balthus' paintings probably won't be going to FA since the file is horrible...but it doesn't stop us from displaying the image in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to respond to individual comments here, but just this once. For goodness sake Mark, do try and concentrate. I'm not trying to censor Wikipedia but I am asking for a degree of common-sense and discretion when it comes to valorizing images, "Featuring" them and placing them on the front page. No-one in their right minds would suggest making Balthus' The Guitar Lesson a featured Picture Of The Day. You could be pretty damn sure I think that Wikipedia could kiss its ass goodbye to its donations for a year or more, certainly from the institutions I represent. The same thought really should have flickered through the minds of the crew trying to valorize September Morn here. I'm not sure how the American public will respond to seeing that on their tablets on their morning commute in to work. My guess is not a whole lot favourably. People who get it, booty I mean, and pretty well everyone in America do get pretty well much of that as they want these days, do know chicken when they see it. My guess is that they won't be well pleased, moms especially. Now I really have no more to say here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why I feel a block is appropriate here. I never said you were trying to "censor" Wikipedia. I said you were on a "crusade". The proof of that is your continued battleground mentality after the image was given Feature status to label Wikipedia, its editors and the artist himself. Concentrate? Coat...don't patronize me. This painting is 102 years old and comparable to the image I mentioned of a young naked adolescent boy on a swing set inspired by "Poems of Childhood" by Eugene Field. Are you going to do the same with Parrish images if given feature status? I believe so. You used the wording "that Wikipedia could kiss its ass goodbye" if images such as Balthus' The Guitar Lesson made feature status. The American public is not the entire readership here. And your perception of their limitations is insulting America and me as an artist. Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Art is subjective and some things that are shocking make you think, make you look and make you try to parse the meanings. Your morality is not the morality of the entire world or America, and certainly not Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment COMC does not seem to understand that WP does not work by the moralities of American donors or public. The user tried to give his opinion in a matter, the consensus was against him. Respect the consensus, even if you don't agree. Wikipedia needs knowledgeable editors, even with strong points of view, but they can't be disruptive. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Kingsindian - it is not his opinion is the matter - it is HOW it is pursued. Calling people purerile, infantile, refusing to get the point, continuing long after everybody asked him several times to stop - that is his standard behaviour and it is disruptive with a constant battleground attitude. Hafspajen (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear above: Endorse block (was eaten up by somebody's edit conflict). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I invite COMC to name the institutions that COMC represents, who it appears, are funding Wikipedia. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also not hard to surmise from my edit history and yes we are substantial donors and yes we do have significant eyes in the project. I've said before that I've absolutely scrupulous in not seeking support for my position. The only (lukewarm) support I got was from Arwein, a chat-mate of Crisco's. But I have been discussing it off-wiki and I can tell you that absolutely 100% of the world and their children out there don't want to see images like this on Wikipedia. I do frankly find it hard to understand the point of Featuring works of art , but as Arwein says there's a gazillion and one splendid artworks out there to Feature. How sad you choose September Morn. Last here. Point away, I shan't respond. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've been doing my best to ignore you, but "absolutely 100% of the world" is just way too much hyperbole. Did you not notice how you were in a minority at the FPC nomination? So what, those who don't agree with you are not "of this world"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comming up with OTHER POINTS: I have a lot to add to the above. I will give you diffs on how he called me an infernal editor, how he refused to stop editing my FP nominations, how he is hinting things everywhere about me after asked him to stop, all personal attacs directed towards me, also on the same project. I was about to leave Wikipedia forever because of this editor this year in August. Will take some time because this came a little bit like a surprize, so I didn't put antyhing together - yet. Hafspajen (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To start with - Coat of Many Colors - Coat's first edit is from 14 November 2013. He might have had other accounts before. He is not a newbeginner - even if his account is just little less then a year old, he edited since 2013-11-14. But he knows a lot about Wikipedia. Does a new begginer usually go strait to Jimbo Wales talk page, [13], [14] start voting for administrators [15], [16] and edit Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: [17], [18] ? Other editors still ask after two years for advice ... and they have no idea about this kind of things.

Second, and very important - he is highly disruptive. He is engaging in behavior that is unacceptable for Wikipedia and he causes loads of disruption. Before Crisco it was me who was the target. He behaved quite unacceptable towards me, he was clearly harrasing me. See this thread, User talk:Drmies/Archive 71 #...---...---... and also User talk:Drmies/Archive 71 #Concerning an editor you mentor. Here - where Demiurge1000 tried to point out something- but water of the ducks back. Hafspajen (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lately - Lately I really asked to be left alone. Don't mention me. Admins did it too. And now he did it again - more snide remarks, he is making fun of my edits. =is "expoloitative" (that's not exactly how I would put it, but let it stand). Yes, I made that spelling mistake - it was an edit conflict an I was in a hurry - 21 September 2014 (UTC) and never corrected it. Like he would never do any spellig misstakes, I think I have noticed at least ten of them. Do I go making fun of HIS edits? NO. Well, I expect to be left alone then myself but it never happens: - and obviously will never happen until something more "drastic action" is needed to halt this. Why is it allowed to go and harras and pick on people, calling me infernal editor? Calling Crisco puerile and infantile ? He makes a scandal out of nothing and than he expects that people should not watch the talk page? Hafspajen (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block per WP:POINT, and WP:DISRUPTIVE - per above. Hafspajen (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven’t read the above, this is my summary of what I saw.

There are antecedents to this incident that are probably germane, a dispute over the nomination of Manet’s Olympia of which I know only that it left bad blood.

It’s hard to defend Coat of Many Colours given their intemperate outbursts, but there was serious provocation. They were faced with behind-the-scenes collusion among the proponents of September Morn via talk pages that amounts to bullying. In the discussion itself, Coat of Many Colours’ points were effectively shouted down rather than listened to and answered.

As a perceived ally of Coat of Many Colours, I was also subjected to provocation and personal attacks that I chose to ignore.

The discussion at the Featured Picture nomination has been altered after the fact, in the instance I noticed to make Hafspajen look better.

In my opinion it would be unjust to block Coat of Many Colours alone, given the behaviour of Crisco and his supporters.

Awien (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you supply diffs to support those, please, Awien? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• What serious provocation (?) - Awien? Show me just one. Nobody ever provoked C.O.M.C. On the contrary - everybody showed so much AGf, that it was almost painful - considering how rude he was. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, no "diffs", just a simple statement. Awien (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Without evidence it is very hard to take your accusations seriously. If this were actually happening you would be able to demonstrate it with diffs. Chillum 15:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have neither the time nor the tech savvy to go chasing through sometimes deleted histories. In my view, there is blame on both sides, that's it. Awien (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my view an accusation of "behind-the-scenes collusion" without evidence is something to be ignored as lacking basis. It is more than a little rude to drop such an accusation and refuse to provide evidence. Chillum 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block: Nothing else will give the Featured Picture project and editors there and elsewhere any peace. I too had a quite upsetting experience with Coat of Many Colours in another nomination in July:(→‎Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel) I was personally attacked, belittled to other editors commenting in the nomination, and snarked at mercilessly by him. I was demanded over and over to strike my negative vote. Although I asked for an apology, I never received one: [19]. He also snarked and was vastly impolite to others in that nomination, including Hafspajen..We begged for administrator intervention at that time, but none came to help. I am relieved to see this behaviour coming to light. Because of my treatment by Coat of Many Colours, even though I still contribute to the FPC, I will never again cast an opposing vote and have stated it was because of the intolerable atmosphere in this discusssion:[20]. Although out of politeness to that discussion I did not name Coat of Many Colours as the editor, I hereby attest that this is the editor I am referring to in this diff. Fylbecatulous talk 13:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment User:Awien, your assertions about behind-the-scenes collusion, and provocation and personal attacks need some evidence, not just a simple statement. COMC asserts that "we are substantial donors and yes we do have significant eyes in the project". Do other editors have any views on this? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand the sentence you quote at all. "we" can't refer to me, if that's what you mean. I'm just a gnome who encountered both the art project and Coat of Many Colours by chance. I happened not to have taken Crisco's userpage off my watchlist from some completely collegial interaction we had some time ago. Awien (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• So there's no evidence for your assertions then. I understand the sentence to refer to some kind of institution COMC thinks is watching us. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block Everyone is welcome to their opinion but this editor has been going on for weeks now about this painting. In the FPC he made repeated implication that the painting is there for the benefit of pedophiles. When this argument fell on deaf ears he started trying to find any other reason to refuse the image instead referring to technical faults that were dubious. He switched to an IP at one point to continue arguing.

  The comment "it's not too too difficult to surmise from my editing history exactly why I started this account and why I'm now happy to close it... You will appreciate therefore that I don't urgently feel the need to defend this ANI." seems to indicate evasion of scrutiny. Considering the shit disturbing being done I would say this is an inappropriate evasion of scrutiny and thus sock puppetry. This goes along with his IP editing.

  He says "...absolutely 100% of the world and their children out there don't want to see images like this on Wikipedia." yet nobody has agreed with his point of view at all. There is a serious case of "I didn't hear that" going on here. Chillum 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is the latest news, I suppose. "the administrator dramatising his infernal mentee here", that's me and Hafspajen, I suppose (Haf is hardly my mentee). And about that mentee, "I see a history of disruptive canvassing, a previous four year absence and a new identity". Yep, Hafspajen (formerly Warrington) was absent for a long time, and much lamented by some of us who enjoy Wikipedia, and now they're back, with a new name--so what? Perhaps Hafspajen is overly sensitive to being mentioned on Coat's talk page time and time again (mentioned not by name, obviously), but Coat could have just stopped: they know fully well that they're getting under Haf's skin. Whether that behavior is blockable by itself, I don't know (I doubt it), but it certainly adds to the suspicion of a battleground mentality. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've been mulling over what to say here. Coat's cut a swathe at Featured Picture, hurting quite a few productive and collegial editors. I first became aware of her ("gentlelady") at this nomination, which they refer to in the diff Drmies provides just above. The invective on display there is bad. She also uploaded a competing version of the same picture, wrote a whole essay in the image description (I eventually used her research, plus my own and Hafspajen's, and wrote an article on the painting here; she refers in Drmies' diff to her continuing the battle on the talk page there; I left her preferred version of the picture in the article because honestly, I don't have the eyesight to be sure of my convictions that the other looks better), and edit warred regarding the nomination text and the placement of other images in the discussion. It should also be noted that in that discussion she assumes a stance of authority - yet in the September Morn nomination, either under the IP (which was underhanded; she did not admit for several days that it was her) or under her named account, she disclaims expertise. There is ample evidence of a battleground mentality - for example she characterizes people as a "crew" above, and in Drmies' diff she suggests Crisco 1492 deliberately nominated September Morn on the day she had announced she would return from a trip. However, there's nothing wrong with someone participating at RfA, and I suppose we should also allow people to post at Jimbo's talk page if that's their idea of fun '-) And last year she was writing and improving several articles on paintings and artists. So I tried to get her to stop making the derogatory comments about Hafspajen and pinging him, as she had said she would. I had less success than Drmies. I was mulling an RfC/U, since we have a pattern here that's in my estimation harming the encyclopedia by discouraging others' participation (and flat out hurting people) - but I didn't want to lose the editor. I'm also reluctant to suggest a ban from FP, since she's also made her own nominations and the more the merrier. That does leave blocking, unless someone else can reach her and get her to cool it with the battlegrounding and righting great wrongs. She's made comments about leaving before, but note the edit summary on what is currently her latest edit. The issue may be moot - on the other hand if she means to return, I hope she doesn't do the battlegrounding and righting great wrongs again. If it seems she has, I suggest we should act swiftly; in my opinion we bent over backwards in this case, partly because she did present as an expert, and she's done damage to the community. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to contradict you, Yngvadottir but the image used chosen by Coat in the article is wrong, most of the reasoning around the picture is wrong. The discussion on the talk page shows a bit of this this conflict around this image. I just let all this go to avoid more scandals. As for his contributions, the bad is outnumbering the good. And it is not only about me, it is about Crisco, about all the things above and - protecting the community. His - it's a he - not a her (solid Turner man ) - his nominations were not featured, and I can't understand in what way you think he did any good with all this behaviour to the project. I firmly stand with what I said before: this editor doesn't have the training and ability to judge art or pictures. He doesn't understand art, art history, have no deep understanding of most things that Featured Picture project is about. I swear on the Bible if necessary that he doesn't. I also was improving several articles on paintings and artists, without the circus he caused, quietly and diligently. Maybe you like loosing me instead. Hafspajen (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hardly :-( As I say, she/he did damage. I'm referring to their contributions in, oh, October, November last year on Impressionist and Expressionist works and artists. When considering what outcome I would say I wanted at a possible RfC/U, I considered getting them to disengage from FP. But at this point I'm going to emphasise the end of my post above; if they return in another guise and resume using battleground tactics with personal attacks, we should act faster than we did. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if you saw Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. The edits he - he said he was a he - opposed are fully in the policies boundaries (Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive). And I have heard I will leave this project and never come back - at least five times by now - and he never did - and still got on the September morn, the same way like the above. And I am deeply sorry but I wan't here to be cynical enough to say - the comment A final edit from me on this account might mean A final edit from me on 'this' account. Hafspajen (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have to echo Haffy's concerns over that edit summary... the grammatically unnecessary "from this account" strongly implies an intent to return under another guise, which (if Coat is blocked) would be a violation of our socking policies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah...that does seem to strain AGF.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly what I meant by "if she means to return"; I took that as the most likely meaning too, although he/she has returned under an IP without a declaration, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the discussion above has fizzled, but a consensus seems clear, could an uninvolved admin follow through on this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake - sorry. The comment of Hafspajen's I thought had been removed from the Featured Picture discussion is still there. Awien (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• [21] 103.27.231.224 (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The above link posted by an IP with the edit summary "The real reason" with no further explanation doesn't make any sense to me, so can someone explain, please? Is this the same IP address admitted to be used by COMC? Incidentally, while the article was included on the DYK section it received over 11,500 hits with no apparent comments let alone complaints. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I find it odd that yet another IP comes up, out of nowhere, from Indonesia, and posts on a COMC topic, apparently dragging Hafs back into this again. Are there any uninvolved admins out there? The disruption has gone on long enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what it is, but I can tell you what it isn't: not patience, kindness and love. Love is patient, love is kind. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes always preserves. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Love never fails (try a copivio on that one)... and yes I am tired about is, any closing admin?Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

* [22], [23], Username or IP removed. 103.27.231.220 (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block For trolling, upsetting other editors and making really tacky comments about his/her personal life. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Note Despite this user saying they were going to stop editing with this account they are still making disruptive edits such as this gem[24]. Chillum 18:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The hell? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse block: I only "commented" previously as I was sort of involved in the OP; on going through the link posted by the IP and looking at the comment linked by Chillum immediately above, the behaviour is habitual and unlikely to change. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Corona del Mar High School

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

---

72.194.125.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been censoring sourced information in the Corona del Mar High School article. He's also been edit warring today.

I came in after seeing a request for help at Editor Assistance/Requests, with no prior involvement. I have explained WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and WP:RS to the IP over and over.

His response, every time, is that I'm mistaken, that NPOV somehow means we should not include reliably sourced information regarding controversies, and that I'm somehow not addressing the "merits" of this argument.

Given that that's all of his activity, and the sheer blindness with which he's arguing, the IP has to be acting with a WP:COI here. Regardless, he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

Could someone please "arbitrate" here? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, they're claiming that undoing their censorship is "censorship" in turn. There's no way one can assume both good faith and competence from that. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This article already has an extensive "Controversies" section based entirely on such isolated events. Must they, and slurs related to them, be in the introductory paragraph of this article. Does Wikipedia approve articles about other academic institutions with isolated controversial matters so prominently and redundantly displayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've protected Corona del Mar High School for 3 days. I'll leave the rest to anyone who thinks it needs more action. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you should take further action! You should ensure the article is impartial and that reported events are weighted appropriately. Clearly the article in its present state gives undue weight to isolated events, criticisms, and news reports that are vastly disproportionate to the overall outstanding reputation and history of this academic institution. By way of comparison, is the famous Naval Academy cheating scandal ( http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N24/cheating.24w.html ) prominently featured in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that illustrious institution? Absolutely not, nor should it be. Isolated events will occasionally occur but they are not the defining feature of an academic institution. It is worth mentioning that DaltonHird, the Wikipedia editor whose edit war resulted in your protecting this page (and whose edits remain in the protected version)admittedly has a feminist POV, thus claims the school has "serious social problems resulting in several high-profile instances of sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence". These slurs do not belong in the article, especially where there already is a Controversies section repeating them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's being discussed on the talk page. I've made a suggestion to shorten the lede a bit which seems the biggest concern (the entire section hasn't been blanked, just the lede) so that's at least a middle ground all things considered. It doesn't seem like there's a desire to completely remove the controversies section. If the editor does not wish to compromise on that, then it can be escalated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of Processes and Editors by DocumentError

I am not an expert on complaining - hopefully I have the right board. My experience at Wikipedia and the usefulness of various articles is being harmed by the actions of User:DocumentError In my opinion he continues to use Admin actions processes, personal attacks, false promises, and forum shopping to force his point of view about Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria and ISIL on various pages. Can something be done to stop this behavior? Links to some of his activity:

Simultaneous use of Admin forums and other tools to push an agenda

• Getting the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins for a week [25] for, he tells everyone later, other than the stated reason in the lock request. [[26]]. In other words the lock was initiated to further an editing agenda.
• Merger proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Proposed_Merger
• AfD on American-led intervention in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq
• [[WP:ANI#Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]] on the same article, at the same time against User:Acetotyce Archived without action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive856#Semi-Protection_Evasion_.5BActive_Community_Sanctions_measures_-_Syrian_Civil_War.5D
• Attempt to get a merge of the same article plus his new Iranian-led intervention in Iraq at Military History while also trying to delete the American-led article and get sanctions for the creator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Merge_Iraq_Theater_articles
• Starting an article about Iran and suggesting starting another article about Syria to (it seems) prove the point he is trying to make with the other efforts as suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627755731
• Tagging the same American-led intervention in Iraq article for Systemic Bias before hypocritically starting Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
• Move protection request - after reverting a single move - to stop anyone else from changing his page (OWN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29
• Creating an inappropriate disambiguation page to further is goals https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Intervention_in_Iraq&action=history

Attacking other editors

• Subtily attacking my username (many times) as pointed out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627756566
• False accusations against a range of editors of "Canvassing editors, coordinating AfD votes via IRC, etc" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627756145
• calling all the editors who disagree with him "a rapid influx of a tightly coordinated group of editors" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627731152
• Hounding editors, including opinionating on stuff seemingly just because I comment on it - one example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=628005684&oldid=628005076
• Commenting on editor's "colorful block histories" and scouring their pages for any dirt he can dig up. Many examples - see various links to the actions started.
• Starting a sockpuppet investigation after various accusatory comments when a glance at the user's page shows extensive conversations between two users-unlikely someone would talk to their sock puppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acetotyce
• Edit Warring report against User:Kudzu1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kudzu1_reported_by_User:DocumentError_.28Result:_No_action.29
• Edit Warring report against User:Legacypac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Legacypac_reported_by_User:DocumentError_.28Result:_No_action.29
• Direct Request to which the Admin User:EdJohnston had some instructive comments and DocumentError continued to make attacks on other editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Systemic_Bias_Tag

Anyway, I've learned that Wiki tools can be abused and that there sure are a lot of them. This took a bit of effort to assemble. I missed some other stuff that is disturbing. Watching this activity go on is too frustrating so going to let people with more power than little me deal with the situation. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just one comment: Legacypac accuses DocumentError of abusing "admin actions". For the record, DocumentError is not an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• to clarify - I mean overusing/initiating too many Admin processes. I modified the word at the top to prevent confusion Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, that is correct. To the absolute best of my knowledge I am not an admin. If I have recently been made an admin, bureaucrat, steward, or been elected to the board of directors, and failed to notice that, I apologize. DocumentError (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, this is really too long for me to address point-by-point. LegacyPAC has spent a lot of energy on this, it appears, and I appreciate his effort; my lack of a point-by-point response is not intended as a slight to the work he's invested here. I'll just tag three items, as that's about the time I have to invest in this right now:

-The first complaint of his is that I got "the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins." I have no power to lock pages from editing, Kudpung initiated the lock after reviewing the merits of my request. If the assertion is that Kudpung is my sockpuppet or meatpuppet, I suggest that be addressed in SPI and Kudpung be notified of the accusation.

-I am not user:Willy on Wheels, and I believe it's customary to offer diffs of "edits to another wiki where he admitted it" [sic] instead of just shotgunning these accusations out. Here is the editor interaction report of "Willy on Wheels" and myself: [27]. Also, I am more than happy to submit to a checkuser. (Edit - it appears this accusation has now been deleted since I posted this: [28]. Sorry for confusion.)

-The two 1RR edit warring reports that resulted in "no action" - cited as evidence of my ill behavior - both resulted in "no action" by EdJohnston after I had withdrawn the reports with the intent of de-escalating the situation, which I explained in each instance and as the links LegacyPAC has provided indicate. If the complaint is that I should see all 1RR reports through to the absolute bitter end, I'll take that under advisement, though I don't believe that's a very community-building way approach to WP.

If there is something else that someone feels is particularly noteworthy, please let me know and I'll be happy to address it. Ultimately I have a feeling this has something to do with a request for article move protection I recently made, here: [29]. Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The IRR withdrawals were reinstated, and the withdrawal only occurred after evidence was posted that DocumentError was beyond the 1RR himself, so essentially a skin saving move to "deescalate". In the post above he again misuses my username (which I noted in the first post as inappropriate) implying association with an American organization started long after I started using my username. This is further evidence of misconduct. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To your first point, no, I don't believe that's quite correct. To your second point, I sincerely apologize I misspelled your username and I ask the community to go lightly on my grammar "misconduct." (?) As you know, a lot of editors have misspelled your username, Beeblebrox has even commented to you on the likelihood of this occurring during your WP career. DocumentError (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely they commented on my user page, which is where you got the idea to intentionally and consistently mistype my name as a form of harassment. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, got it! DocumentError (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError has been persistent in this behaviour and it must be addressed. He reported multiple editors to the 3RR noticeboard in defence of his position over an article he too Edit Warred on 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq, brought me to ANi earlier for the same dispute, most diffs to support my claims are linked there. Clearly making jokes on my username diff and starting an SPi on me and another new editor. I have stated above, I have had enough with it and I feel like I am not welcome here at all with the way I'm being pulled around here, I create an article, it gets CSD'ed, merge tagged, AF'd and then ANi and an SPi. I came here to work on articles and help wiki expand but it appears that's not the case anymore. On secondhand brining claims of editors block logs and rubbing it in their faces may be viewed as personal attacks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If by "multiple" you mean "2" - then I am guilty as charged, as per my conversation with LP, above. Also, I think Acetotyce forgot to link to the diffs on the SPI I initiated regarding him and "another new editor" (the "another new editor" is using an alt account formerly registered to Acetotyce). I'm certain this was an inadvertent oversight by Acetotyce; the diff is here: [30]. DocumentError (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an oversight attempt, the template is on my talk page, and your template accusing me of Canvassing when I was notifying involved editors in the ANI request you started earlier. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And the SPi is linked in the opening list already. I read somewhere editors are not supposed to dig up old blocks and sanctions on other editors, not sure what that is called, but that is another big behavior problem here. User:RGloucester also suggested sanctions in one of the forums, maybe they will comment here. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless something has changed, it's called "an editor's block log is public information." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If I should not have mentioned the block histories of you, or Acetotyce, or whomever it was I erred by mentioning (sorry, I'm kind-of losing track here), then I, of course, apologize. DocumentError (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this other than that I hope DocumentError's behavior changes. I'm glad the dispute has died down now, but it was deeply unpleasant for a couple of days earlier this week. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It was, indeed, for all parties. As per my note above to Acetotyce, I apologize if I inadvertently mentioned your block history in public. I'm glad we're able to focus on content creation again. Thanks, Kudzu1! 03:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "inadvertent" at all. I find it difficult to accept your apology when you decline to accept responsibility. You made a number of personal attacks on me, including but not limited to suggesting that I have some sort of a checkered past on Wikipedia by bringing up a block that was in effect for less than one hour more than three years ago multiple times. I think you're smart enough not to repeatedly insult and defame fellow editors "inadvertently". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't feel you can accept my apology. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you didn't make an acceptable apology. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, got it! DocumentError (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Continued W:GAMING including these actions "'Walking back' a personal attack to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing." and "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." and "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." This is evident in the multiple processes started to push until he gets his way by trying getting an article locked from editing or moving while trying to both delete and merge and sanction editors over the same article) Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that's a lot! Would you mind adding this to your main list above? I think it would be easier to keep track of all these if they were in one place. Thanks so much, Legacypac (feel free to delete this comment after you've moved it) - DocumentError (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the "unlikely someone would talk to their sock puppet" commentary by Legacypac above, I point out that it is not unlikely. It has been done often enough that a person talks to their WP:Sockpuppet to avoid or decrease suspicion that they are a WP:Sockpuppet. And speaking of WP:Sockpuppets, after DocumentError commented in this WP:ANI thread about me listing highly disruptive WP:Sockpuppets on my user page, I looked into his edit history and found it very likely that he has edited Wikipedia before editing as DocumentError; this is the first edit he made to Wikipedia as DocumentError, and the vast majority of truly new Wikipedia editors do not make an edit like that (I mean, correct citation formatting in addition to using a WP:Reliable source), unless that editor is a well-instructed WP:Student editor. His other early edits show the same type of inside knowledge of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. So take from that what you will. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments about my correct use of proper citation, Flyer22. I have taken special effort to correctly format my references. While it's a little extra work, I think it's worthwhile, especially to help recover references that expire from link rot. And I'd already forgot about that thread regarding the list you were keeping on your userpage; while I'm sorry you didn't agree with my opinion regarding it, it was definitely an invigorating discussion we had with Elaqueate, Caden, Davey2010, Rutebega, John, Carrite. et. al.! How have you been doing? DocumentError (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Given how this has gone, can I respectfully request that DocumentError be sanctioned with a 1 year topic ban under the Syrian Civil War Active Community Sanctions. (I think this covers the conflict in Syria and Iraq, including ISIL.) Much of his behavior is essentially edit warring using processes instead of just reverts. If this is not the place to request that, please advise where that is. Thank-you for your kind attention to the matter. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you got it - this is one of two correct places to request other editors be banned / blocked. (You can also make such a request to ArbCom, IIRC. Details for contacting them are available at WP:ARB.) DocumentError (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per my statements above, that includes hounding me and doing every little attempt to remove the article I started. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your word choice in the first iteration of your comment better reflected the crux of the situation - [31] :) DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Due to persistent use of processes to try and stop other editors who disagree with them from constructively editing along with portraying the others who disagree with them as members of a conspiracy. SantiLak (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I don't believe "using processes" is sanctionable, and I'm not sure use of 4 "processes" in the last 6 months meets the general definition of "persistent," (particularly considering that StanTheMan87 was unable to recently find relief at ANI after 14 "processes" were used against him in 30 days), who can argue with 3 "Support" votes hitting this discussion in less than 20 minutes? Did someone flash the bat signal, or what? (joking reference to off-wiki comms that was the topic of one of the "processes" - [32]) Nonetheless, I'm going with Oppose for now.DocumentError (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically one does not get to !vote on their own topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, It would have been really interesting if he had said support here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I did originally !vote "Abstain" out of a preponderance of caution ([33]), but then changed it to "Oppose" after reading Gaijin42's !vote. :) DocumentError (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - my first time at this dance! Corrected. DocumentError (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

One most certainly MAY !vote in their topic ban. Heck, we've had editors !vote "Support" in their own the panda ₯’ 10:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'm un-striking my strikethrough! :) Either way, if anyone feels it would help de-escalate the situation or assuage LP if I didn't !vote, LMK and I'll be happy to re-strike my strikethrough. DocumentError (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – DocumentError has done nothing in this dispute but edit both disruptively and tendentiously. He has shown an inability to work together with editors in a controversial topic area. Given this inability, I believe there is nothing that can be done but topic ban him from that subject area until how he learns to edit cooperatively in other areas. The evidence has been provided, both in this AN/I and in the previous one. His behaviour has not alleviated in the time that's passed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Looks like I may be joining you in topic ban land! [34] Save me a spot by the window! :) DocumentError (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never been "topic banned" from anything. I was blocked once for 24 hours in my nearly three years of being here (and if one looks into it, it was actually a very silly incident. I'm a silly person, though). That's a fairly decent record. Regardless, I don't think you're in a position to be evaluating the merits of other editors. Instead of that, why don't you respond to the concerns other editors have about your actions? RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, you were blocked by Callanecc in June, not topic banned. Sorry for the error - it was just a little levity, not an accusation! DocumentError (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While there may be some behavior that could use some correction, I do not see any activity in these proposals that cannot be handled by normal process. I see no problem in many of those diffs, in particular the "attacks" are not. to the point where I would almost consider WP:BOOMERANG especially since the post is characterized as an admin WP:INVOLVED issue which is completely not true. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: While I support the idea of some disciplinary action against DocumentError, I'm not sure a topic ban is the best way to address the issue. I agree he has edited tendentiously, but I've dealt with much worse in that area. The main issue I have had with him is his inability to play nice with other editors (the faux-cheerful, passive-aggressive tack he's been taking lately notwithstanding), up to the point of making false suggestions of sockpuppetry (I'm not referring to the spurious SPI, but rather these outbursts) and conspiracies against him (I refer to this particular unpleasantness, among other wild accusations of being attacked by a "tightly coordinated group of editors" and similar claims). I think this behavior is not really topic-specific; his battling has seemed less ideologically driven than motivated by anger over not getting his way. And instead of reacting by trying to work toward consensus, despite multiple good-faith entreaties, his reaction was to act like all of the editors who disagreed with him were conspiring against him. That battleground attitude led to what I would regard as the abuse of a number of administrative processes, a great number of personal attacks that mostly stemmed from a failure to assume good faith, and a lot of wasted time and heartburn on everyone's part. It could be the best way to resolve this is simply to let sleeping dogs lie, but I don't feel like DocumentError's battleground attitude has subsided -- hence the cloying, obsequious tone he has adopted here and elsewhere, while still taking potshots like falsely suggesting RGloucester above was topic-banned. I don't really have a recommendation other than that this antagonistic behavior should not simply be ignored. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudzu1. For the record, I have the same "faux-cheerful, cloying, obsequious" tone in all ANI threads in which I participate (this is the first in which I've been a party, but I frequent those of others), as I find a cheerful tact is best to de-escalate often heated engagements: see here, here, here, and basically everywhere else. I can try to be more of an ogre in the future. RAWR! :) DocumentError (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The behavior in question looks like it can be handled via a dispute resolution. This should be a wake up call though to change how you interact with other editors or you might end up here again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. The fundamental problem is DocumentError's battleground behaviour and tendentious editing. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What would a topic ban be useful for then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, I only responded to the first 3 of LP's 19 complaints, so I can't address all of them, but his first complaint was that I nominated a page for protection against IP editors and an admin subsequently protected that page. While I understand your side in the Iraq War content dispute did not want the page protected, I have to, again, strenuously object to the the idea that an admin protecting a page constitutes "tendentious editing" by me, unless the contention is that I secretly control the admins here. DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the particular issue there was that you misrepresented the reason you stated for requesting that protection to advance an argument in the AfD on 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. An honest mistake, I assume? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that was it - I guess? The protection was applied by an admin two days before the unrelated AfD was started. Out of a preponderance of caution, I have pinged Kudpung (locking admin) no less than 4 times to let him know of Legacypac's concerns (each time he raises them, in fact); I suspect if he felt I had bamboozled him he might have chimed in at some point to the various denouncements LP has made against me across the Wikisphere in ref to the page protection. But, so far the only editors expressing issue are the "side" opposite "my side" (hate those terms but a horse is a horse) in this content dispute. I certainly invite others to contact Kudpung, however. He's surely the only one who can let us know if I manipulated him to put page protection on. What are your thoughts, Kudzu? DocumentError (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what I said. You asked for page protection for one reason, and said on the AfD you requested it for another reason. I have no way of knowing your intentions when you originally asked for protection and am not inclined to accuse you of manipulating Kudpung, but you did note that you were the one who requested and obtained protection on the AfD and state that it was because of pro-U.S. POV-pushing, rather than the reason you stated, because of disruptive IP editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It was because of disruptive IP editors. The nature of the disruption was pro-U.S. POV-pushing. I'm not trying to be combative but saying I was being tendentious and need a 1-year ban for requesting page protection, when an admin decided that said protection was actually warranted and applied it, seems a tad spurious. You guys have made 17 (at my last count) separate complaints about my application for page protection on the article over the last 3 days, and yet 0 applications at RUP to have the protection removed. With all due respect, I think that kind-of speaks for itself ... DocumentError (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how unregistered editors repeatedly trying to add the United Kingdom to the article is "pro-U.S. POV-pushing". It seems like a stretch to me. I'm not saying you were wrong to RPP, but your stated reason to request doesn't square with your later characterization. That's all I'm saying. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The UK and USA are part of the historic bloc, so that's perfectly consistent. But now this is kind-of getting a tad bit silly; the request for protection was ruled as having merit by an uninvolved admin, and that should really be the end of the discussion. If you feel the admin ruled unfairly, the least disruptive thing to do is to file a RUP. The most disruptive thing you can possibly do is complain 17 times across 4 different Talk pages, nominate the editor for a 1-year ban, but never file any RUP. We're going to leave it there, Kudzu. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we? No, we're not -- because I haven't brought it up 17 times anywhere. You misrepresented your reason for requesting RPP on the AfD. It's crystal clear that you did. Whether that merits any sort of sanctions or not is irrelevant -- it's one of a number of improper things you have said and done in the course of this dispute. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are. You are more than welcome to individually continue with your accusations of some sinister code in my comments. But this is a quest you will have to continue on your own; we are done. DocumentError (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Use second opinions, RFCs and all other tools for WP:DR. We all find editors that are difficult to deal with (and I may be difficult to others as well), but that does not mean that we need to ban people because they don't get along. Grow up, make your skins thicker, and remember that Wikipedia does not need you. Stop editing for a week and come back refreshed and you'll be surprised when you get back on how well Wikipedia improved without your unique skills and contributions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing actionable or deserving of a topic ban. If anyone wants to point me to the most "damning diff", I'll consider changing my mind. But from what I've seen so far, I can't agree to a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose DE definitely needs to take a deep breath and maybe deserves a slap on the wrist. That said, I 1-year TB is excessive. Juno (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG observed by Gaijin42 above, I would like to make a counter-proposal to the topic ban. My counter-proposal is that Legacypac be given a 1-year topic ban from Syria-related articles under Active Community Sanctions for disruptive editing. To make this concise, I will just cite 4 examples, but can provide additional ones, on request:

- On 4OCT2014 he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [35]

- On 2OCT2014 he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [36]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[37]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action (which was promptly undone). DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

- Legacypac is already has previously been under a 1-year WP:BLPBAN by Salvio "for repeatedly violating WP:BLP despite being warned" (imposed just last week). [38] and his edit pattern has not improved.

- He has engaged in a pattern of extremely combative interaction with other editors, typically peppering his comments with things like "Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted" [39] or frequently lobbying other editors in content disputes with him be banned/blocked (his nom of me is just the latest), for which he's previously been advised, without effect, by Dennis Brown not to get his "panties in a bunch." [40]

All the best - DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

All false statements - please see full response a litte lower. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe that the first two actions are disputable and raise a concern but the latter is just throwing more oxygen to the fire from past lessons. We can get along better and I believe WP:DR is the place to go for this issue rather than Ani. There are currently WP:1RR sanctions placed on Syrian Civil War articles which you have violated as well. I also raise that your behavior on Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq and 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is unacceptable. Then again we don't have to take it as far as a topic ban. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As a very general rule, one provides diffs when throwing around those kind-of accusations, Acetotyce. Also, you've already registered your opinion about me in the above titled "Topic Ban." Can I ask you to please keep comments about me there for efficient accounting? Feel free to go ahead and delete this comment once you've moved it. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have struck down my comments regarding you. Apologies for that. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support I think this a good counter-proposal to a topic ban for either user. SantiLak (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that DocumentError reverted my response to his false accusations against me. Unbelievable. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. You edited my comments to break them and insert your own commentary above my sig. Please see WP:TPNO if you need information as to why we don't generally do that. DocumentError (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to the false accusations against me made above:

• 1. the page blanking was to deal with a duplicate page. the editor who reverted was not aware of the problem and is now working cooperatively with me to fix the problem. Nothing :to complain about.
  
• . Moving the page to a better title is not actionable. DocumentError reversed my move and immediately sought move protection to preserve his preferred title. Point againt :DocumentError's own behavior.
  
• . Pure false statement (since amended after I objected) about me being topic banned. I am not under any topic ban.
  
• . How many hours of searching through diffs did it take him to dig up a completely unrelated statement from 18 months ago? Careful what broad assertions you make about other :people without evidence. This kind of Unbelievable behavior and false accusations against anyone that does not like his behavior demands action.
  Legacypac :(talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not that many hours, this is kinda your M.O. for how you treat other editors when it comes to this topic. Here are more recent examples, since you asked: accusing other editors of "bias toward Syria and Hezbollah" [[41]], saying "someone might sue you" [42], saying "What a pain in my ass. Gotta love Wikipedia. aybe I should just quit and leave the nastiness to others." [43], saying "I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS" [44], etc. Here's another example of your unilateral actions against consensus, apparently to shut-down discussion on topics you find objectionable: improper WP:SNOW close that had to be reverted - [[45]] You also have a tendency to phrase things in terms of "winners and losers." Most recently, among a host of examples, above you exclaim "Point Against DocumentError" and declaring "this demands action!" (an unusual phrase you've used 7 different times against different editors, when you've found yourself in content disputes). Ultimately, this comes down to the fact you've been a bit like a Whirling Dervish. I don't think this is a sanction as much as a short break to allow you an opportunity to just deflate a bit; you can pursue other subject interests in the interim. DocumentError (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting more than a little tiresome. The above is more examples of off topic, old (year+), and mischaracterized statements. Bringing up a failed SPI against me? The original Whirling Dervish comment had nothing to do with me, but was made about DocumentError by an Admin concerning some of his actions that resulted in this ANi. I'd appreciate being able to get back to editing Wikipedia and not have to deal with this BATTLEGROUND activity. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure 3 days ago is "old," [[46]] but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a counter-counter-proposal: knock off the WP:BATTLE activity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Close: We can close this now because according to this DocumentError this ANi "was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive" diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=628389773 Clearly darn near anything goes on Wikipedia, sorry I brought this behavior up. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, you really like WP:POINTy wordplay don't you? DocumentError (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What do I do with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIL#well_this_ain.27t_gonna_work Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Or this new ANi action? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.22WP:BULLDOZERING.22_of_article_.2F_Possible_Editor_Stability_Issue Does "Possible Editor Stability Issue" have a specific meaning or it is just a big insult? Legacypac (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

suspected banned user edits

The user User:Klaus_Barner was banned about a year ago for disruptive editing. This edit (from before the user was banned) shows the IP with prefix 84.157 making edits in close proximity to an earlier and a later edit by User:Klaus_Barner, indicating that the IP starting with 84.157 is in fact User:Klaus_Barner himself. In the past few days there have been several attempts by IP's starting with 84.157 to delete sourced material. This material is very similar to the material that User:Klaus_Barner tried to delete himself in this edit, before being banned. What would be the appropriate course of action to deal with the edit-warring by the IP? Tkuvho (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on your description, the user deleting sourced material cannot be positively identified by a IP, but only the IP prefix. So, the 3RR noticeboard is out. Your best bet is to file a SPI inquiry here, listing all the IP addresses making suspect edits, and User:Klaus_Barner as the sock-master. In this SPI you should ask a range block be applied. If you need help doing this, or want me to do it for you, ping me with the article in question, Tkuvho. DocumentError (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tkuvho, there's not much point in doing an SPI for such dynamic IPs, since the banned user isn't using each one more than once or at most twice. It looks obvious that it's him using these IPs, and jumping to new ones all the time. I've blocked the 84.157.64.0/18 range for a week. I'm having trouble checking out possible collateral damage (tool not working right now), so you're welcome to contact me if you have further trouble. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, the collateral on this anon-only block is minimal. There shouldn't be an issue with extending the block if the disruption starts back up after the block expires.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Article is semi-protected, but that alone doesn't guarantee article improvement. The experts need to decide (and make clear on the talk page for future reference) whether the edit itself (which I just reverted, for formality's sake) has any merit. If it's a good edit, it needs to be reinstated, on its own merit despite its origin--it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everybody. I will follow User:Drmies's suggestion and start a discussion thread on this material. Tkuvho (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at WT:BP

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

---

There is a discussion, Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to "When blocking may not be used", at WT:BP for Wikipedians interested in the WP blocking policy. 18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• For those who like participating in this kind of thing, the thread exists, but note that I've removed the RFC tag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Removal of RfC tag from RfC

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

---

I created a serious RfC [47] and the tag was quickly and unilaterally removed.[48] I would like it restored, as well as the notices that I posted to publicize it. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• According to Floquenbeam, "I don't care if this thread is left here to fester or not, but I've removed this from the list of RFC's. You are not going to hassle people who sign up for the WP:FRS with a pointy bad-faith RFC. Volunteers who are actually willing to help solve actual disagreements deserve better". Seems fair to me. Sorry Lightbreather. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a dead serious RfC, and there is no rule that says one must respond to every RfC they are notified about, is there? I used the rfc|policy tag - not rfc|bio or rfc|reli or some other, inappropriate rfc tag - for people who are interested in commenting on policy-related requests. I am asking a second time for the tag to be restored, so that we may discuss this policy on the policy talk page... Or would others prefer that it get discussed here at ANI again for the umpteenth time. It is a policy that comes up regularly, and it needs to be discussed. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this issue constantly swept under the rug? So much drama could be avoided if we simply made a decision on this issue and stuck to it. Chillum 20:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the result is what we have no. We evaluate it on a case by case basis. We do not need hard and fast generalized and sweeping rules that lock us into uninformed, unintelligent, and irrational decision making.--v/r - TP 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the proposal? What is generalized about it? (If the RfC isn't restored there soon, I will copy the proposal here - since it looks like it's going to get discussed here again.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposal isn't generalized. The rule that you are trying to get written in stone is.--v/r - TP 20:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but maybe this is a case where the admins are using undue influence to effect a policy that they like to interpret a certain way. (For whatever reason, which I'd rather not have the discussion devolve into.) The fact remains, the community at large should vote on this. If the community says, "Yes, high-content creators should be blocked by different standards," then put it in writing and quit letting the admins decide (via some unwritten rule) that's the standard for this "special" population of editors. Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty big change. Besides, it's going to amount to some serious opposition, given that there are dozens of high-content contributors who are liable to get blocked a lot. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I surely think discussing it on that page makes more sense. For instance, what do you mean by "That's a pretty big change"? If it's already an unwritten rule, it's no change at all. We only need to put down in writing what is currently unwritten. There are a lot of smart people on Wikipedia, who have handled all kinds of real-life workplace policies. THIS CAN BE DONE. Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the RfC might have been viable with the question: "Should the extent of a user's contributions be a factor in decisions regarding possible blocks of that user?", or something to that effect. Your wording was pointy because it didn't stand a snowball's chance of passing and you knew that. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring the RfC so that the discussion may continue there, instead of clogging up ANI. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus in this thread (which I was not notified of, by the way) for reverting the RFC closure; indeed, while it's probably too early to call it, I'd say the "preliminary" consensus is pretty clearly to leave it as a normal thread, not an RFC. It is unethical to come to ANI to request something, and then when people disagree, you do it yourself anyway. "Clogging up ANI" doesn't matter; nothing productive happens here anyway. But treating WP:FRS volunteers like pawns in your civility war game does matter, and makes your claim to care about how we treat other editors ring pretty hollow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Right. And Lightbreather, first of all this is not good tactics, and second, you keep saying "discussion", and for a discussion you don't need an RfC tag. Why ANI? Why not the Village Pump or something like that? Copying the proposal here would be seriously disruptive: this board is already dysfuntional enough. And nothing is being swept under the rug here: it's pretty clear that the very terms used in the RfC are arbitrary and undefinable, and it will close as...let me check the winds...there are winds...leaves are rustling...water still flows downward...yes, no consensus it is, at best.

  Besides, I'm about to offer my own RfC: that admins with low content contributions need to hand in their bit. Discuss. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Adminz 4 life! ‑Scottywong| chat _ 22:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Rfc-in-question, should be allowed to run its course. Assuming there'll be no consensus for what the Rfc is proposing, what harm could it do? GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It ran for about 3 hours, and got 7 opposes and one support (and the one support was by the same user that started the proposal). Anyone who has been here for a significant period of time can easily predict the result of such a discussion. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

YAPECCT

Yet another pointless Eric Corbett Civility Thread

This is convenient. When I saw the pointy Rfc thread -- and the link to the totally improper close of the recent ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_Eric_Corbett, I was tempted comment somewhere, but didn't want to start a thread here, and the blocking policy talk isn't as widely watched as other places, and Eric's been Jimbo banned (last I knew) from the Founder's talk page, so it would be rude to post there.

Eric and I have been onwiki about the same amount of time. We disagree over what proper conduct is. From my perspective, we get along fine -- I mostly ignore him and he mostly ignores me. If Eric were violating the Wikipedia civility policy, I'd be more than willing to rat him out. Unfortunately, we don't have a policy, we have pillar-meme which some of us use to guide our own behavior, many of use to address the obvious trolls and vandals. But a policy? No. A policy is something we mostly agree on and act accordingly. As Arbcom 2012 stated:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Subsequent to that Beeblebrox attempted the Sisyphian task of actually having a policy Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement, but it ground to a halt... (See also my three year old essay User:NE Ent/Notes on civility).

Anyway, people (e.g. Black Kite in the prior close) keep bringing up arbcom. Arbcom's (at least past editions, not sure about Arbcom 2014, but I suspect they'll have the same opinion) have made it clear they are unlikely to take a case unless dispute resolution procedures have been followed. Specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eric Corbett remains a redlink. So if you think corrective action is required "screw your courage to the sticking point" and write the RFCU (warning: be prepared for a whole slew of Ad hominem attack, best ignored per Other duck). But please do not file ANIs, RFCs, ACs, LMNOPs .... NE Ent 22:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with Black Kite's closing of that thread, and I appreciate him mentioning me as one of the editors in his closing of that thread. I provided the links that I provided to give context to the matter. By that, I mean that I often don't like it when we are speaking of something and yet don't name what we are speaking of, but I also don't think that Lightbreather was focusing on one editor. She has been on a mission to make Wikipedia more civil for some time now, as currently shown at the WP:No personal attacks talk page, where I have consistently disagreed with her on her proposals. Like I've told her, I'm used to incivility on Wikipedia and have developed a thick skin regarding it, though I can fall for the WP:Bait at times. Sometimes, I am less than civil on Wikipedia, but I will be trying harder to make sure that doesn't happen. Though I often disagree with Lightbreather, I admire her attempts to make Wikipedia more friendly. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I probably wasn't clear -- closing the ANI thread was good, suggesting arbcom as a next step was not. NE Ent 23:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're perfectly OK with invoking ArbCom when it suits your purposes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If not hostile means friendly, then I guess you could say I'm trying to make it friendly. Thanks, Flyer22, for recognizing that it's not about specific people... It's about this project insisting that an aggressive boys-club culture is the norm here, and if you want to stay you'd better grow thick skin and not start "drama." It may have worked in the first few years, but it does not any more. Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, this isn't about Eric Corbett, who is only the poster boy for the larger problem: incivility on Wikipedia and this absurd notion that as much as can be done about it has been done; that if we can't come up with an all-encompassing set of rules all at once that everyone can agree upon then we shouldn't even try a few that are very easy to agree upon. For instance:

Any editor who makes comments like these about another contributor or contributors is blockable. Examples:

1. You, [username], are a cocksucker.
2. You, [username1], [username2], and [username3] are cunts.

This isn't rocket science, people. Workplaces do it all the time. And this (above) ought to be an easy-enough-to-agree-upon first step. Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I consider calling anyone names rude, whether the name be "cocksucker" or "poster boy." I have never said any of 1. I consider Eric's behavior is acceptable, 2. nothing can be done about incivility, or 3. Wikipedia doesn't have a civility issue. (What I've actually said is User:NE Ent/Notes on civility), and what I'm saying now is ANI and pointy RFCs about "high content contributor's not being blockable" is not a path to solving anything. Any editor wishing to help form consensus should focus on restarting the technically open but moribund Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Any editor /admin concerned about Eric's behavior should be starting the RFCU, not opening ANI threads or attempting drive by blocks, or considering / blaming arbcom. NE Ent 03:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If if this isn't about me, how do you explain the fact that my name appears nine times in this subsection alone Lightbreather? Eric Corbett 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, if you think rudeness and incivility run off women editors, you must be very young and you probably haven't spent much time in the real world of real employment. In my decades of employment, while men can be rude at times, when it comes to flat-out incivility, my "fellow" women are the ones who can stab you in the back while smiling. I've faced true discrimination and systemic bias in my real world work, some from male bosses, but many of the worst perpetrators were women bosses who resented another queen bee in their hive. So if you think running off older, curmudgeonly people like Corbett will create a more civil environment here, you are sadly mistaken. The most uncivil editor I am dealing with right now has never uttered a "bad word" in gigabytes of bandwidth, but has run off quite a few other editors due to his actions. This is the wrong stick, and I'd advise dripping it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, I was alive when JFK was assassinated. I don't believe incivility runs off only women, nor do I believe that only men can be uncivil. I don't want to run off anybody, and I don't like "stick" accusations. Please come to my talk page if you want to talk. :-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Assistance requested

I made an error and referred to Gandydancer's comment on the Talk page of SW3 5DL as an "email" . I made that error further down on the same Talk page, in this dif

It was a pretty obvious mistake in context, but SW3 5DL actually quoted in further on in the conversation, in this dif stating that Gandy had made the remark in an email.

After Gandy called my attention to my error and SW3's use of it, I went and edited my comment, noting the change with strike outs and underlines, and commenting that I had changed it and why, per WP:TPG.

SW3 reverted my edit with edit note: "You can add a comment but do not change your comment after someone has responded to it."

I added a quote from the TPG to his Talk page explaining that it is OK, the way I did it, in this dif and then restored the edits to my comment in this dif.

SLW removed my explanation in this dif with edit note "rmv disruptive comment; Jytdog, don't post here again, thanks; I'm sure you don't mean to be, but you are being disruptive" and then reverted again in this dif.

Since I would like to honor his request to not come to his Talk page, yet per the TPG, the change I want to make is important since SLW is using my mistake in an argument with Gandy, I would like to be able to edit it and I think (?) I should be allowed to. But I am not sure what rules apply since of course SLW can do as he likes on his Talk page. And I don't want to edit war.

Please advise. thx Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm both uninvolved, and unlikely to ever become involved, in these topics, so I don't mind attempting to mediate this if no one else wants to do that, but will hold-off in case there is a finer point of Wikilaw that requires an admin's involvement. DocumentError (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, SL3 5DL can do what he likes on his talk page, and the fact that he removed your comment means that he read it already. Don't mistake emails and talk pages again. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye to that. And it's not like I had a choice here. He's been to my bloody talk page 20 times altogether. That's it, done and done. Thanks for the comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

of course you had a choice! you always have a choice. i made a mistake. i apologize for it, of course. please allow me to correct it. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No user owns "their" talk page. All pages are to build the encyclopedia. If an error occurred and someone tries to cross out that error and correct it this should be allowed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this from a distance. What SWS reverted was not Jytdog changing a comment he had made after she had responded to it, but rather Jytdog adding a correction to a mistake in a comment he had made. His addition of the correction seems to me to have satisfied Gandydancer's legitimate request that he make the correction. SWS subsequently reverting Jytdog was not particularly helpful, but does not change the fact that Jytdog acted in good faith to fix his mistake. Gandydancer asked for a correction, Jytdog made the correction, and whatever happened after is no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as this incident has been brought up here, I'd like to mention that SW3 5DL has accused me of, to quote, "Personal attacks, disparaging an editors contributions, calling an editor a 'mother fucker', encouraging other editors to engage in battle, especially via off-Wiki channels, edit wars, and refusal to engage on the talk page with only a few editors". None of this is true and I most certainly did not call him a "mother fucker" and I had no intention of calling him a "mother fucker". I was using a play on words, but it had nothing to do with English words, as I thought would be obvious since the words that I used were French and not English. I do not mean to defend my inappropriate behavior - I was wrong to discuss SW3 5DL on Jytdog's talk page - but now I am left with a statement that I used foul language and am unable to deny it since he has asked me to stay off his talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of the F-word

Bender235 appears to be on a mission: since it can be verified precisely what Jameis Winston yelled from on top of a table in the student union, those words must be included in his Wikipedia article. Oh! censorship! The phrase "yelled an obscenity" is apparently an ambiguous statement, according to Bender: we are"specific and neutral", which means, then, that we are not supposed to have editorial discretion and we print everything exactly as we find it. By the way, "obscene remark" etc. is all over the interwebs--it is just as verified and unambiguous as Bender's F-word.

A discussion at WP:BLPN did not deliver a solution, and it is my contention that we should, in the absence of a clear agreement, not print the actual obscenity and err on the side of caution. Also, really, those arguments about "ambiguity" and "value-free" are just a bunch of bullshit. For the life of me, I'll never understand why we need to print everything we can possibly verify. I'm no prude, but holy fucking moly, this is asinine. Also involved in this: in my corner Collect (now blocked for an unrelated matter), possibly Tryptofish, and Otterathome. In the other corner, next to Bender, Nomoskedasticity. Possibly in no corner at all, Calidum, who showed some judgment in this edit. So we have Bender and Nomoskedasticity edit-warring against four other editors, with nonsense arguments. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, are you sure you can't censor the words, like "f*** her right in the p****"? Non-ambiguous to those who are old enough to swear, and yet kids won't be exposed to words that pertain to sex and sexual organs. Good outcome for everyone. Maybe you should suggest that. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I doubt they'd let that stand (bleeping is a lot closer to censoring than paraphrasing, in my opinion), and I don't much care for the signage, though I appreciate the suggestion, Epicgenius. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say there is a different problem with the quote. Namely, that it can't be verified that he actually said those exact words. Some students tweeted that is what he said, but second hand quotes being attributed as a direct quote is a BLP no-no. I would also argue that the exact words are not needed has have Collect and Drmies. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian gives those exact words. Your argument applies equally well to saying that he "yelled an obscenity" - this is also secondhand, unless any of the reporters were there when he said it. --NE2 08:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fart her right in the pants? Remember that Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world with various levels of English comprehension. There's no excuse for being deliberately unclear. --NE2 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, if that's their interpretation, though I doubt that there's a single adult that won't click on the reflink if they wanted to see the uncensored text. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are BLP concerns, as the quote is reported in reliable sources, and the "scrubbed" version is even in the NYTimes. But it is well within editorial discretion to summarize things without the direct quote. I suggest an RFC as there does not appear to be an ANI issue that needs immediate attention. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Winston got suspended for a game because of it, it would seem appropriate to quote him precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially since stating that he was suspended because he simply "yelled an obscenity" makes the school look petty. It's important to give the exact obscenities in the context of the rape allegations. --NE2 08:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the wrong board for this discussion. It strikes me as a straightforward content dispute. Even if there's a policy basis for including the actual words said, or otherwise precisely matching a particular source, there's nothing about it requiring administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not an isolated case, however, and there appear to be several editors who will insert "fuck" in every article, even though the major news agencies do not use the phrase. [49] "shouting an obscene comment" (New York Times), [50] "yelling sexually explicit language demeaning to women." (Deseret News), [51] (SI), including AP, etc. he "fuck" is found on such great sites as BuzzFeed, and "The Frisky." Where the weight for major sources does not use the explicit obscenity, Wikipedia should not be used to amplify the obscenity. Using the tabloid sites is against common sense here, and, as I noted, this has been a repeated issue on BLPs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I get the sense, @Drmies:, that you're the one on a mission. To how many noticeboards and talk pages will you carry this incident? I can only repeat what I already stated numerous times (yet you seem to have not understood): "obscene" is a value-laden label. Different things are obscene to different people. Lawrence Summers' hypothesis, that there may be differences between men and women in the distribution of intelligence, may be a "sexist" statement to some, but not to others. We don't write "Summers was critized for a sexist statement". We write the statement, and let the reader decided. --bender235 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You got me, Bender. It's just that "obscene" can be reliably sourced to, in five seconds? half a dozen sources, so your calling it value-laden or ambiguous is thus silly: if reliable sources use it, it can be used. "Obscene" is value-laden, sure, but quoting ESPN or whatever in saying "he yelled an obscene statement" is simply quoting a reliable source--and that part you don't seem to have understood yet. If reliable sources claim that someone's statement was sexist (or obscene, or antisemitic, or whatever), we can reproduce that. In fact, that is what we are supposed to do (writing an encyclopedia, secondary sources, etc), and I came here because I sought a larger forum, hoping to run into more common sense. I think you have restored the phrase six times by now; surely that's edit warring, and the claims of "censorship" are simply misguided, not to mention unfair, and that's behavioral. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am neutral in this, I only removed it because it was sourced to an unreliable site. User:Bender235 should be strongly warned for inserting negative content sourced to unreliable wiki type sites[52], and so should User:Nomoskedasticity for restoring those edits. A obvious violation of WP:BLP. I have no comment on whether the quote should be included, as I have not looked at the full picture of the incident.--Otterathome (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

JFYI: Know Your Meme was my source for that phrase being a meme. When you know a better source for things like that, give me a notice. Also, the phrase itself was mentioned by myriads of people on Twitter, and echoed in WP:RS like The Guardian. Case closed. --bender235 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone who asserts that I have been edit-warring should be required to provide diffs. Since this won't be possible -- or rather, since any diffs provided will show that I have not been edit-warring on this issue -- the editors who are asserting this should retract or be sanctioned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Who is asserting this? Drmies (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • What? Why are you being obtuse and wasting people's time? "So we have Bender and Nomoskedasticity edit-warring…" in your very first post opening this section…. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm here because Drmies pinged me. I agree with editors above who say that this isn't a conduct issue, but rather a content one where a content RfC would be a good idea. As for the edit-warring, if one looks at the page edit history between Sept. 21 and Oct. 3, there has been a slow edit war over removing and adding back the quote, but I do not think anyone is in violation of 3RR, nor do I really see a need for full protection. As I said at the article talk, I do find the vehemence of the editors who want the verbatim quote rather puzzling. As far as I can tell, there is reliable sourcing that the person said it, and that being the case, I don't think it violates BLP to report it. As a purely content issue, count me as preferring leaving the quote out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump - threatening behaviour, ongoing refusal to assume good faith.

User:AndyTheGrump removed a number of adequately sourced entires in List of deprogrammers‎ [53] under the guise of violations of WP:BLP. I had previously re-enstated the names, however I had then gone ahead and added references as requested by other editors in order to comply with BLP.

User:AndyTheGrump removed these new additions (which had taken me a few hours to research, btw) - and couldn't adequately explain why, despite repeated requests. He has threatened me with banning[54] and has made several personal attacks against me, calling me a liar, and qualifying my mistaken addition of a duplicate source as intentional trickery. [55]

After calling for a RFC on the article in question[56] Andy decided to add a non-neutral comment within the filing, effectively poisoning the well against me in the eyes of any eventual neutral third party.

This user is disruptive, uncooperative, and refuses to see things objectively. Zambelo; talk 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You changed the sub-title from notable deprogrammers to known deprogrammers, and unlike the initial list, none of your additions have articles. So Grumpy might well be concerned that you're creating a list that does not pass muster, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the title change, actually - I was focusing on trying to integrate and format the new references... Zambelo; talk 05:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to first create articles for the individuals you're trying to add, and prove their notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has already created several articles on this topic concerning individuals of questionable notability (judging by the currently-running AfD's) - I don't think that more of the same would be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I'm just saying he's doing things backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I've created one or two and contributed to others. The issue I've had is that the article stubs have been nominated for deletion just weeks after creation. And as I've mentioned, there has been a concerted effort to delete anti-cult movement-related articles by certain editors. Some of these individuals may not be notable enough to merit an article (and some are, but let's not get into that), but are certainly notable enough to be included in a specific list on the topic, as they are referenced in secondary sources as deprogrammers/exit-counselors. Zambelo; talk 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of nefarious motives is not the way to win support. If you create an article on any subject, it is subject to the "notability" question. Being "known" and being "notable" are not necessarily the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of filing a report here [...]

(as I had informed Zambelo after a recent post at WP:BLPN) - my report follows:

As a previously-uninvolved person, I recently came across two related threads at WP:BLPN [57][58], concerning the actions of User:Zambelo, who has been adding, against a clear consensus, names of (presumably) living persons to a List of deprogrammers and Template:Opposition to NRMs. Given that the source being cited for incusion [59] merely names these individuals as being included in "Rolodex files" of the Cult Awareness Network. it seems self-evident that reliability is open to question, never mind establishing the level of notability required to merit inclusion in templates ands lists. Despite the issues with this source being made entirely clear at WP:BLPN, Zambelo chose yet again to add the names to the list [60] - citing the same questionable source twice under slightly different names where previously it had been given once. Since this was not only clearly a WP:BLP violation, but grossly misleading, I reverted it, and warned Zambelo that were the names added again without consensus, I would raise the matter here. Though Zambelo has not as yet done so, s/he has repeated the same stonewalling behaviour and refusal to address the legitimate concerns over sourcing that were raised at WP:BLPN, and has deleted my response to a RfC that s/he started at Talk:List_of_deprogrammers [61]. I note that this is not the first time Zambelo's behaviour over this issue has been raised here [62], and I further note that User talk:Zambelo contains much evidence of previous questions relating to edits concerning cults, new religious movements and the like. Frankly, it seems evident to me that Zambelo has far too much emotional involvement regarding this issue (why, I don't know - though it doesn't really matter under the circumstances), and given the sensitive nature of such topics, combined with a clear inability to listen to the advice of experienced contributors, I have to once again, propose, as was done in the previous ANI thread that Zambelo be topic-banned. I realise that there was little traction for this proposal in the previous thread, but it seems to me that his/her behaviour since suggests not only an unwillingness to learn, and to listen to advice, but also something which was not previously apparent - a willingness to engage in fundamentally dishonest behaviour, as evinced by the duplicate citation of a single source under slightly differing names. Given that we frequently place our trust in contributors when it comes to accurate reporting of sources (e.g. when material isn't verifiable online), such dishonesty must be considered significant in such circumstances, and that this, combined with a general battleground attitude, provides sufficient grounds to exclude this contributor from topics that need careful and circumspect editing, and adherence to the highest standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: As I mentioned, I had added new references, a fact that Andy has completely disregarded. The discussion on the BLP noticeboard was in relation to the template, and I have adequately explained myself there as well as on the talk page for the Opposition to NRMs template talkpage.

As much as andy would like to obfuscate the issue, combining the discussion regarding the template with the discussion of the list, they are two separate issues, with separate ongoing discussions surrounding them. What we are discussing here is the reversal of the referenced content on List of Deprogrammers, and the then ongoing refusal to listen to reason. In contrast, I have always been part of the conversation regarding these issues: in fact it was to comply with the BLP questions[63] that I researched and then added new references supporting the inclusion of the names, a well-intentioned edit that Andy instantly reverted citing BLP violations [64] - and has refused to answer why.

The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors - and this was never discussed on the article pages in question, and there was no attempt at getting outside look through a RFC: it went straight to the BLP noticeboard. The source you cite here is a secondary source mentioning the rolodex, not the rolodex itself, btw.

Instead of removing entries that he had an issue with, Andy decided to revert the entire edit, which I had spent hours looking up. When asked why, he refused to answer, saying only that there was a "duplicate" source, without going into any more detail.

If there was an issue with a source, why not remove one of the duplicates, and remove the entry if it was in violation of BLP?

My "behaviour" has never been an issue. It is easy to verify that I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles relating to New Religious Movements, while there has been a sustained attempt to destroy them over the past week by several editors. The only emotional attachment I have with the articles is in relation the the amount of time I have spent on them, only to have them torn down by a small concerted group of editors over the past week or so.

I propose that Andy be topic banned, and banned from contacting me in future.

I'm happy to answer any questions in relation to specific edits. Zambelo; talk 05:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors" - that just about sums the issue up here. Zambelo has decided that a mere mention on a Rolodex file is enough evidence of notability to merit inclusion in a controversial list, and anyone arguing the contrary is doing so because of 'POV'. And I should be topic banned for this 'POV', should I? For arguing that the source shouldn't be used, after coming across the issue at WP:BLPN? And expressing an opinion concerning a topic I can't even recollect contributing to before? My comments regarding this issue have been confined solely to WP:BLP issues regarding notability, and to the suitability of sources - I've not expressed an opinion one way or the other concerning the topic, and quite possibly don't know enough about it to do so. Evidently though, the mere fact that my opinion (as a long-term contributor familiar with policy) differs from Zambelo's when it comes to the inclusion of these particular names based on questionable sources is grounds for a topic ban? Nope - and I have to suggest that this ridiculous proposal to ban me from a topic I have shown little evidence of being interested in will be seen for exactly what it is - further evidence of the battleground mentality of a contributor clearly incapable of neutral editing - a contributor with an axe to grind, and with little inclination to do anything but engage in the very POV-pushing that s/he accuses others of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Your proposal to topic ban Andy will not fly. And I see nothing in this thread that warrants that Andy be topic-banned. And on a side note: When Andy states something about a WP:BLP issue, he is often, if not usually, correct. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I rescind my proposal for a ban - I'm sure Andy thought he was doing the right thing based on the limited information he could see on the BLP noticeboard. In this case however, he is wrong. Zambelo; talk 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute in general, and specifically a violation of the way lists are supposed to be created, especially lists of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see that Andy has acted improperly here and there are certainly no grounds for a topic ban. I suggest that this discussion returns to the talk page of the article(s) in question where it belongs.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made a report asking for Zambelo to be topic banned. Should we not at least discuss the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. (And I'm not even going to comment on the silly tit-for-tat proposal concerning Andy). In the past few weeks, several AfDs have been running in which Zambelo diplays a basic misunderstanding of what reliable sources are, what constitutes in-depth coverage and time and again fails to comply with AGF. As Andy says, their apparent emotional involvement with the topic is simply too much. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Note that Randykitty isn't neutral in this, and has a COI in this matter, having, over the period of the past week or so proposed multiple articles for deletion that I had been working on. I would invite any editors here to look at his editing history over the past week.

As I've already mentioned, I have no emotional involvement in the content, but I dislike people wasting my time. Proposing multiple articles for deletion, and ganging up as a group of three to ensure they are deleted is both unethical and bypasses due process. Zambelo; talk 11:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh YES! Please follow Zambelo's advice and compare my edit history with theirs (last week, last year, any period you like). Meanwhile, Zambelo could read up on the difference between COI and involved. And as far as I am concerned, I only got involved (in the WP sense, as simply !voting in an AfD normally does not make one involved.) because of Zambelo's tendency to accuse everybody who disagrees with them of having a POV. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note this attempt to circumvent an ongoing AfD heading for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't circumventing, that was me agreeing with Drmies proposition to merge the article, since the article was clearly going to be deleted, despite new references being added. "Circumventing", that's a bit rich coming from an editor who has been consistently bypassing deletion procedures. I've made a statement here sharing my concerns, along with those of other editos regarding COI and editors involved in Landmark editing, which lists the articles targeted relating to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a documentary critical of Landmark. I think it's rather plain what is going on here. Zambelo; talk 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, Zambelo, I've had it, this is one personal attack too many. Your "evidence" at the ArbCom request is that I !voted deleted where you thought that was wrong. You have been warned more times than I care to count to assume good faith. Please either provide evidence of me having a COI and circumventing deletion procedures or apologize. Barring that, I will call for you to be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, it's a remark on your editing history. I apologize if you feel it's a personal attack. My comment about you circumventing deletion procedures was a remark on your disinterest in discussing references, while actively seeking to delete multiple articles simultaneously, without giving me a chance to properly discuss the issue, the references, or the deletion proposal. I've brought this up numerous times in the AFDs[65]. Zambelo; talk 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Block requested. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could have a look at the above paragraph, just compounding the personal attack on me. I note that this is not the first time and that Zambelo has been warned to assume good faith multiple times. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest Block - support TBAN as absolute minimum. *Support topic ban for Zambelo. User violates BLP, repeatedly pushes the same poor sources, reacts antagonistically to any disagreement, and seems entirely too emotionally involved in the small area they have chosen to edit to contribute neutrally there. If some of "their" articles have been deleted, well, that speaks more to the nature of the POV "walled garden" they were tending than any "gang of three" they imagine exists. User seems only capable of viewing disagreement as signifying membership of an opposing cabal - they should consider that the reality is that this is not the case, and that other editors are merely trying to maintain a neutral, BLP compliant encyclopedia. Begoon ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which sources are poor? How was this determined? There was never a discussion regarding the sources, the articles were simply listed for deletion, leaving me scrambling to try and save them, because there are in fact notable in the scope of New Religious Movements - which you would know if you looked at the sources I was providing. I have been a constructive editor to many New Religious Movement articles, not because of some supposed emotional attachment, but because I find the topic interesting. Maintaining a BLP compliant wikipedia is fine - and I have complied barring a few reversions in two articles, (which btw, I hold were adequately sourced, but which Randykitty et al. refused to discuss) - and even then after eventual discussion (which they chose to hold directly on the BLP noticeboard instead of the talk page) I accepted the consensus and went looking for more sources to comply with BLP issues raised - the references I found were from noted academics - religious scholars specialising in New Religious movements - so your assertion that I "push the same poor sourcesW is unfounded. All of what I say here is easily verifiable - I don't know what motives, if any, the three editors had to delete the articles without first attempting to discuss the issues or even look for sources, but I do know that out of 13 articles connected to the original Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous only 3 now remain after two weeks of deletions, by the same people who were pushing to delete the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article in the first place. Zambelo; talk 13:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing issues are well described by Andy above. There are many additional examples in the linked discussions and articles of inappropriate sourcing, often due to (AGF here) a misunderstanding of when primary sourcing is appropriate - clue: very limited circumstances. You start from the wrong place, Zambelo - you have something you wish to include, then try to work out how you can shoehorn it in, and fight like hell with anyone who disagrees. Then they are enemies. Is it a gang of 4 yet? Or 5? Don't forget Andy. That's not what we do here - we see what reliable sources have deemed worthy of mention, and include it, if and only if it is due, relevant, BLP compliant, and improves and serves a neutral article. You have the cart before the horse. I fixed your comment formats/indents again - please try to use proper indents etc. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "gang" was in reference to the editors pushing for deletion, and bypassing due process. The articles were being deleted because of notability concerns, and so I attempted to demonstrate notability by integrating new references into the article - because this is how you show notability - through secondary sources. Don't be snide, please. Zambelo; talk 14:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Don't be snide please"? I've fixed up your comments here 5 times now - don't be lazy and inconsiderate please. You've made a personal attack on Randykitty. Don't attack folks please. You asked for a topic ban on Andy. Don't come here with ridiculous trumped up demands to try and head off a legitimate complaint please. Is that enough pleases yet? I could find more. Begoon ^talk 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• And please stop talking about deletions bypassing due process. Each and every deletion has been after a regular AfD that was open for at least 7 days. Nothing improper here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to religion. cults and psychological counseling, very broadly construed. First of all, the editor is way to emotionally invested ever to be able to edit in this topic area with sufficient detachment and objectiveness. Second, the editor has demonstrated a high level of battleground behavior and even sneaky trickery on several AfD's, and seems incapable of working cooperatively and civilly with editors with who he disagrees, of which there are several other seasoned editors besides Andy. His "gang" comments in this thread are particularly disturbing. Third, there is a major lack of competence as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned, especially WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and no apparently willingness to address that deficiency. Fourth, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply. And last of all, the editor has made quite a mess that needs to be cleaned up by multiple AfD's. Sorry, but I would also support an indefinite site ban. I've seen this type of editor before and the experience was harrowing. Let's nip this in the bud. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban of Zambelo on all articles related to religion, per Dominus Vobisdu. This sort of behaviour and this sort of editor is nothing new and I (clearly not alone) am tired of it. Encyclopedia, not soapbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Strong arguments have been made for a topic ban which I support, though I do not think Zambelo is the only one guilty of violations. We might need to put in places stronger policies for sensitive topics. Articles related to religion are always sensitive and people have a tendency to want to block those who do not share their own POV. Dominus Vobisdu suggest an indefinite topic ban based on violating several policies. I'd be inclined to think the same should apply to the user, who is happy to ignore ongoing discussions to push their own WP:POV, more interested in reverting than discussing, and with a blatant disregard for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just like they accuse Zambelo of nothing being here for the right reasons, Dominus Vobisdu is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to religion in an WP:NPOV way. We'd need more users who are willing to discuss and find consensuses, less users who revert at sight without providing any topic-related arguments just because it suits their WP:POV. Policies that would limit blanket reverting without discussing, or discussing without providing factual arguments, may be helpful on many sensitive area.Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So did you have a comment on this discussion about Zambelo, or a recommendation as to how to proceed? I'm not clear from what you say. Begoon ^talk 15:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I mistakenly deleted the first part of my comment before posting. I said that I fully support a topic ban for Zambelo based on the evidence provided here, but that I think the blame is not only on them. That was not the exact sentence, but the essence of what was deleted. I then proceeded to say how articles related to religion are always sensitive and that some who accuse Zambelo, particularly Dominus Vobisdu, appear to behave no different themselves.Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, don't be sorry. My fault entirely. I didn't see the part where you fully supported the topic ban, which I appreciate, and I erroneously focused on the part where you discussed the other !voter instead. Peace. Begoon ^talk 15:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I now re-edited my comment to make my position clearer.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much clearer now you added the first bit. I'm sorry for my confusion. If you have concerns about another editor, I'd generally recommend a separate process because there are, believe it or not, a few other folks as slow on the uptake as me, when rushed, who could get similarly confused. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. This user has a very poor understanding of our sourcing requirements and is extremely belligerent. Zambelo has disrupted multiple AfDs with underhanded tactics to try to avoid an inevitable delete consensus on articles Zambelo thinks they WP:OWN. Any disagreement is met with ultra-defensive ranting and accusations of bad faith. This user is clearly not a net positive. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The entire article has now been blanked. Might as well finish it off and delete it. Looks like Andy got his way. What a shame, again. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot more than this one article out there. Zambelo has made quite a large mess, with a bunch of articles winding their way through AfD at the moment and more on the way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you ever justify a topic ban here? The editors voting for my ban have a COI in this matter, and have previously been edit warring over several articles, attempting to push their POV. This is all verifiable. I have been a productive editor to the topic, in fact, if you consider the spate of recent article deletions, I am the only editor currently actively productively contributing to articles on the topic. I invite editors to look at the entire story, stemming from the edits to Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous, which I attempted to save (unsuccessfully) from deletion which then caused a flurry of deletions on articles relating specifically to that article, and anti-cult articles in general. Editors responsible for the deletion of the Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article have been working in tandem to ensure the deletion of these articles, by flooding the voting system, thereby bypassing correct AFD procedure. There was never any discussion on the article pages on how they could be improved' nor did any of these editors make any attempt at searching for new material or references. My attempts at trying to save these articles on notable individuals from deletion by 1) Finding new references to support notability 2)Voting to keep them from being deleted may have come across as belligerent, but this is because I was actively attempting to save these articles from being improperly deleted without discussion. The only form of "discussion" came when I was reported (by one of editors making the deletions) to the BLP noticeboard - and unfairly portrayed as a disruptive editor, when all I had done was revert two articles a few times, because these editors disagreed with my inclusion of adequately sourced content. I leave it up to my peers, really. It's easy to join a witch-hunt, but I invite you to have a look at the entire story before banning me on the accusations of a few biased and annoyed editors. Either way, this will be my last post on Wikipedia for a good while, I expect the deletions to continue unabated and unchecked. Peace. Zambelo; talk 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your break. I'm rather hoping one of the first things you'll do on your return will be to apologise to "The editors voting for [your] ban" for your accusations of "COI", "edit-warring", "attempting to push their POV", collusion, bias and vote-stacking. I know, as one of them, I, at least would appreciate that, since the accusations are utterly baseless and I find them rather offensive. That's what we mean by personal attacks, by the way. Begoon ^talk 04:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've previously filed for a TBAN on this editor for the exact same reason. This will be the fourth time he's been shown to violate WP:BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be fundamental WP:BLP issues in our coverage of 'deprogramming'

Having looked into the underlying topic here - that of so-called 'deprogramming', I have to suggest that there are fundamental WP:BLP concerns raised. Specifically, the 'deprogramming' article states in the lede that "Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved, and deprogramming has been shown to result in PTSD". On this basis, the inclusion of any person in a 'list of deprogrammers' amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - clearly a breach of WP:BLP policy unless the individual has been convicted of such activities. Were it not for my prior involvement in this discussion, I'd be tempted to blank the 'list' immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And looking at the 'list of deprogrammers' article again, I note that the present version (with the questionably-sourced individuals discussed removed) provides only one citation for a criminal conviction - where it states that Galen Kelly was "Convicted of kidnapping Debra Dobkowski in May 1992". Our article on Kelly however states that the kidnapping conviction was overturned. Given that Zambelo had edited the Kelly article five times, I think we can safely assume that s/he had read it - and accordingly I think we need an explanation from Zambelo as to why the 'list' describes Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, given that s/he must have been aware that this statement was false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The charges were for kidnapping, not deprogramming. Furthermore, deprogramming wasn't (and still isn't - illegal), the methodology has changed however. Kelley was convicted of kidnapping. The fact that his conviction was later overturned after he served time is irrelevant - he was still convicted of kidnapping. You are not following the references here, and are entering the realm of Original research. There is no connection between being a deprogrammer and being a convict. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly qualify as an "Oops!" In general, would you say that unless someone is convicted of something, they don't belong on the list? What if they claim to be deprogrammers, and neutral sources back up that claim, but they don't happen to have committed any crime? But what I'm really curious about is the editor's motivation or interest in creating and/or expanding the list. Is he in favor of deprogramming and is trying to promote deprogrammers? Or is he opposed to deprogramming and is trying to expose them? Either way, it seems shaky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither - I'm interested in establishing a neutral article about deprogrammers, which were an integral part of the anti-cult movement and relate to my larger interests on New religious movements. The facts are that deprogrammers did exist, and during the time they were active (and to this day) are notable as either "cult experts", "counsellors", "deprogrammers" or all of the above. Deprogramming was a profession back in the day, not a conviction title. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that having been asked why the list stated that Kelly had been convicted of kidnapping, but failed to note that the conviction had been overturned, Zambelo is claiming that s/he "knew nothing of the kind - the references said he was convicted". [66] This is despite having edited the Kelly article six times - an article that starts the penultimate paragraph with the prominent statement "Kelly's conviction was overturned in 1994 by the appeals court because of prosecutorial misconduct". I invite all those reading this thread to look at the Galen Kelly article, and ask themselves whether it appears remotely plausible that anyone reading the article could possibly miss this statement. I for one find it impossible to believe - and if it were to be true, I would have to suggest that it would demonstrate a lack of competence to be editing such sensitive material anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at Deprogramming. God, that's a mess. A statement in the lead "This was started in 19xx by name" with no citation. It just lurches on from one POV statement to the next, all the way through the article. The whole article screams POV piece. I considered making some edits, but WP:TNT keeps springing to mind. You kicked over an anthill, Andy. One that needed kicking over, I think. Begoon ^talk 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has now clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that s/he is completely and utterly incapable of understanding elementary WP:BLP policy.

On being asked once more why the 'list' described Galen Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, when the Kelly article (which Zambelo had repeatedly edited, and must have read) made it entirely clear that Kelly's conviction for kidnapping had been overturned, Zambelo posted the following:

"Gallen Kelley was convicted, you understand. His conviction was overturned after he served time, but he was convicted of kidnapping." [67]

Given this unequivocal demonstration of either gross incompetence or a complete refusal to even make a pretence at complying with elementary WP:BLP policy, I have to suggest that the proposed topic ban discussed is insufficient, and that we should be instead discussing an indefinite block for Zambelo, on the grounds that he cannot under any circumstances be trusted to comply with Wikipedia policy. That anyone should think that it is remotely acceptable to assert in an article that Kelly (a living person) was convicted of a serious crime without also stating that the conviction was overturned is beyond belief - yet Zambelo is arguing exactly that. S/he is a menace to Wikipedia, and needs to be immediately and unceremoniously thrown off the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already altered my vote above to support a block, before you posted this. That's just incredible, though - we can't tolerate a cavalier and biased approach like that towards the lives of real people. I fear we may have some substantial work ahead cleaning up the damage in this "walled garden" they have created, but it certainly can't continue. Begoon ^talk 15:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The circumstances of Galen Kelly's conviction and that conviction's subsequent overturning and the other events in that saga are much more complex than Zambelo's comment makes it seem. I can't tell if Zambelo is incompetent or if he's pushing an agenda, or both - but no matter what, he's got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the rest of the articles and contributions, Bugs. I promise you all will become clear. Begoon ^talk 16:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

Checking Zambelo's edit history, I note that beyond cult/'deprogramming' related issues, s/he has edited few other topics. Two that stand out are Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician). Interestingly, User:Sfacets, a former contributor blocked back in 2008 having 'exhausted community patience' and a confirmed sockpuppeteer, [68][69] likewise took an interest in the cult/deprogramming issue - for example adding a huge slew of articles to Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals in November 2007 - and likewise significantly edited the Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician) articles [70]. Furthermore, a confirmed Sfacets sock, User:Couchbeing, had taken an interest in the 'deprogramming' article - and had edited the Galen Kelly one. While it is entirely possible for multiple people to take an interest in the cult/deprogramming topic (and be promoting a similar POV), and simultaneously to be interested in Sahaja Yoga (itself a cult-related topic, according to some opinions) just how likely would it be that both Zambelo and Sfacets would also be making significant edits an article on a Pakistani American rapper if they were unconnected? I have to suggest that sockpuppetry seems a much more plausible explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, as per WP:DUCK.Jeppiz (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem an unlikely series of coincidences. Zambelo has put a "vacation" template on his/her user page. I'm sure they'll address this, too, when they return. On the other hand, and at the risk of assuming bad faith, I guess we should also consider, given this, that Zambelo may not necessarily return as Zambelo. Begoon ^talk 11:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some cleanup help please

Some help cleaning this up please. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, an admin should delete Template:Db-notability-notice, Template talk:Db-notability-notice, Book:kk, and Book talk:kk under CSD G6 so that Template:kk and Template talk:kk can be moved over to Template:Db-notability-notice and Template talk:Db-notability-notice without leaving a redirect. zzuuzz, as you are an admin, could you do that? – Epicgenius (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's easier to just revert the page move without leaving a redirect and delete the target page in the process—admins can do it all from the page move interface. So that's what I did. Everything should be back to normal now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks. I did not know that. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. I was about to head out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I move protected that template. I'm not sure if this is a WP:BEANS situation but many templates are dependent on it and that's minimal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose that this website and user should be looked into under disruptive editing, self promotion and unverifiable websites sources

It is located here Tahoe Park, Sacramento

This user Sirrebral. They are not only being self promotional but are not including verifiable citations that can be viewed they are dead links which pop up a pay for site to view where their citations came from.. There is no way to know if these sources are verifiable. They have removed actual verifiable websites and citations of other users repeatedly as they said it do not fit in their subheadings..which it did.. but they removed it anyway.

I removed Sirrebral citations and writing due to it being self promotional and lack of viewable website citations for most of what was written. In order to see the citation would require a reader to pay an outside website to see if their reference applied to anything about what they wrote. They changed it back to the self promotional paragraph again under 1990's -Present which they are being very insistent upon keeping even though their website citations are not viewable. The reader has no way of know anything they are saying is true or is referring to the citation. Espada12 (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Espada12

Please see the Talk:Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California page for background concerning this matter. Also, please consider that Espada12 was previously User:TahoePark preservation before an admin blocked the latter account and notified them that "promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose". I think that the edit history of these two user accounts speaks volumes about the intent of the user to continue making contributions that are promotional in nature. I would hope that this person would concentrate on utilizing their website until such a time as they can provide corroborated evidence that their newly formed organization has produced real solutions to the problems that they seek to address. Thank you. -- Sirrebral (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again this user is insinuating I am one in the same person they are wrong and I do not represent the organization. This is just their way to get back at me for making necessary corrections recently. They did this to other users too. I can't believe they followed my account to a new page I just created to launch a new attack and get the page deleted. However I did wish to post regarding a neighborhood association on their website. And they have attacked me. They do not want to have anything edited anything about TPNA which is the neighborhood association which is in the same neighborhood I believe they represent. They clearly do live in Sacramento. They cannot provide ANY valid citation proofs in the TPNA paragraph as they pop up weblinks that makes the reader have go to a pay website to prove what they are saying is true and not made up.

This is just a tactic of retaliation to not only remove a new article I recently posted about an association they don't like art but to not allow others to post anything or remove TPNA writings on the Tahoe Park website which are in violation and which again since I believe they represent TPNA is self promotion. I am requesting this user be banned for blatant attacks of retaliation, Disruptive editing and refusal to adhere to citation policies for valid links Thank you (UTC)Espada12 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Espada12

@Sirrebral: have you got anything in the way of evidence to support your claim that these are one and the same editor. Even if they are this isnt nessecarily an issue as they were advised in thier block notice they might want to start over. @Espada12: The edits do appear to be promotional (intentionally or otherwise) it might be worth discussing potential edits on the talk page to build consenus from other editors before inclusion as a voluntary measure. Reading not advertising might be beneficial to make sure youra ware what can/should over what can't/shouldn't be included. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Amortias I believe the suspicion is based on the block date and first edit dates of the two editors and a bit more. User:TahoePark preservation was blocked by Alexf on October 3. User:Espada12 then made their first edit on Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California on October 3rd and their second edit was to Alexf's talk page almost immediately. [71]. I think this may not warrant an SPI or a user check. Because the block was over the user name not the content this seems innocent, obvious...but no real issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

repeated talk moving

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

---

the editor Jmh649 has repeatedly moved/deleted my talk page discusions on ebola west Africa, I have asked him to stop and I am notifying you to please help. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all NO COMMENTS were deleted. You can see the dif here [72]. The issue we are facing is new users rather than joining the previous discussion on the topic feel they should simply start new sections about it over and over again. Would recommend per talk page etiquette that you join the already ongoing discussions rather than start new ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

you are correct some new editors do and I agree with this practice ( I though have been here for some time as per my user page indicates), the "80 contacts" are new in reference to the new situation in Dallas.In any event, I will drop it, in the best interest of the article.As I respect other editors so should be the same for all.thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor adding refspam

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

---

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

This editor is adding references to a blog despite warnings to stop. [73] Judging from this link added here the blog posts are copy-pastes from other sources including Wikipedia articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is my first time using Wikipedia and was trying to find missing citations for a computer lesson. Sorry my teacher has told me wrong instructions how to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemekahn (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting set of articles you or your teacher has chosen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any attempts to engage User:Graemekahn on his talk page, just a set of templated warnings followed by a report to ANI. Is that really the best you can offer by way of helping a new user who is making mistakes and doesn't know his way around? (That question is directed at User:NeilN, who raised this report, and at those who templated Graemekahn's talk page). Neatsfoot (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  No, strike that, with my apologies - after an (edit conflict), I see that this guy has been adding links to sex-related sites, so the school teacher thing doesn't wash. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I also replied to his edit requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User Dragonrap2

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I'll start here and if necessary I hope someone will send me to the right place. Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly over a period of months converted almost every list he can find into a table. This includes lists with one or two items, See Also sections, References sections, and External Links sections. I have given him several requests and warnings to stop (both in edit summaries and on his talk page) with a request to read MOS:TABLES, as have many other editors. After one of my warnings, he sent me a barnstar telling me to stop editing. He stops for a day or two after several warnings, then resumes converting every list to a table. Here is one the latest examples of this behavior. He also has been warned several times to stop adding unsourced content. I have spent hours fixing the messes he created. I hope someone can convince him to stop. Thanks. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Dragonrap2 indeed seems to be adding tables everywhere. This editor also vandalized the Barack Obama article here by adding Hillary Clinton as his successor. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Next time, WP:AIV is where you report vandals. But yeah, this user can definitely be blocked for unconstructively editing. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamil topics and a family in Jaffna

Dear Administrator - there is a user obi2canibe who keep adding tags that i must have inline resources to the article Tissanayagam Family I frankly don't understand why as i have quoted as much material as could be possibly expected He also keeps removing any content on any articles that deal with Jaffna and Sri Lankan Tamil's Please do check - i don't know if i am in violation of any Wikipedia rule - if i am please let me know - But this guy seems to have a problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehanbastians (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tissanayagam family seems to be the family article in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is another article that is the victim of Tamilization. Many of these sources have no page numbers and instead of tag bombing every single sentence it is just better to add a refimprove tag on the header. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

91.152.119...

It might be good to apply a temporary range block, to Finnish off the recent IP-hopping vandalisms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've put down some /24 range blocks, and will continue to do so. It's probably related to 88.113.159.0/24 and co from the other day. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained alteration of referenced data, and arbitrary inflation of figures

Agustin.leon21 (talk · contribs)

User has been:

• Inflating inventory numbers on Argentine Air Force with unreferenced figures: [74]

• Inflating already referenced figures, with no explanation: [75]

• Replacing correct data with erroneous one, again without explanation: [76]

I undid his changes and posted multilevel warnings in his user page, 5 times, but he simply reverts giving no explanation anywhere.

Windroff (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I regularly revert these changes under 'factual errors', which qualifies under WP:SNEAKY vandalism. You are exempt from 3RR under the fact that they are unexplained and unreferenced changes. But the moment he tries to justify it you're out of luck. WP:AIV is where to report excessive vandalism, which I think this would qualifies as it's passed the final warning. Tutelary (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I know the 3RR is not applicable to me in this case, but the examples given in the page for what qualifies as outright vandalism seemed not to quite fit. Windroff (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Windroff: @Tutelary: I think a lot of Admins would say reverts of those edits aren't exempted from 3RR. Windross is right, 'sneaky vandalism' isn't an exception. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, 'sneaky vandalism' is covered under WP:VAND under specifically sneaky vandalism. When the official policy page cites minor or plausible changes as an example, I will take it as exempt from 3RR, per WP:3RRNO's exception for vandalism. Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes) This obviously meets the criteria. It's regularly done because people don't 'trust' Wikipedia will change the date back, or will delete the factual error and therefore Wikipedia is unreliable (which it is, we don't claim to be). Tutelary (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but this is the confusion, I think: the distinction is intent. Above you said 'factual errors'. A factual error isn't vandalism in itself - it could be a mistake. A deliberate factual error can be vandalism. You need to be sure of intent. It's not always easy to be sure of that, and you need to err on the side of AGF, always. That's all. Begoon ^talk 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be a mistake anymore after the user has been explicitly warned 5 times that his made up numbers were altering referenced ones, was repeatedly asked to give a rationale for his changes (to which he refused), was informed that he had been reported to an administrator board, yet he kept on reverting other editors and ignoring their request to stop. Whatever the actual intent, good faith is not applicable as he has repeatedly shown total disregard for WP policies, including 3RR. Windroff (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, there's no reason to be changing dates or the amount of people in a data set as that tends to stay the same unless new sources are represented. In this instance, even though he'd been given the final warning, there was no explanation even though one was requested a ton of times. We can't be cleaning up after an editor who refuses to explain him or herself, especially if they're being disruptive. They are being disruptive. And I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm assuming that they want to test Wikipedia for accuracy; and I revert them for it. The fact that they continue without explanation is what I qualify as sneaky vandalism. Now, like I said, if they try to explain their edits or use a source, even a bad one, my excuse of 'factual errors' is no longer accurate. I am no longer exempt from 3RR if they try to explain their edits. But if they don't, or don't present any new sources, I'm not going to continue trying to contact them when they've already had a bunch of chances to explain themselves. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was speaking generally, and agreeing with you. I'm sure you're correct in this case. I certainly didn't accuse you of assuming bad faith. You could perhaps be a little less touchy. Begoon ^talk 04:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry in WP:AIV has been deleted without comment, or any notification. Meanwhile the user reverted @Tutelary:, again and without explanation (in total he has reverted others 7 times in succession in that article alone). He has also inflated figures here. Windroff (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple AFDs, minutes apart, obviously pointy...

MayVenn today started a string of AFDs, all listed on today's log. I think there are 11 in total, with some nominations starting (literally) a minute after the lodgement of a previous AFD for a different subject. WP:BEFORE has been completely discarded and the deletion "rationales" are as weak as you would expect including claims that articles should be deleted because they have no English sources (see WP:NOENG). This nomination reveals what is actually going on - the editor has taken issue with the nomination ("censorship") of another article and so has decided to retaliate with these. This is plainly just an attempt at disruption. Could an admin please close the nominations in question and block MayVenn. Thanks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, (in addition to the info presented above) the nominations for the Japanese bios in particular seem at least a tad uncivil (they may also be bordering on NPA, but I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with that policy to feel comfortable using it except in the most obvious of circumstances). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I can agree with the above perception of NPA but according to WP:NOTPOINTy:" commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"". Someone might want to check all of the nominations but even one of the editors involved believes the nominator is likely right with Aimi Tomori. This is certainly not a blockable offense.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence why I said "may" and then added that I'm not really familiar/comfortable with using it except when it's obvious. (Unless that's the perception you disagree with. :P) I just felt it worth mentioning, because most of the Japanese bios had within the reasoning "their otaku probably made it because they're kawaii desu" which, if not uncivil, is a bad faith assumption. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's been pointed out that these have all been nominated because they are articles created by Innotata who started this nomination with which MayVenn strongly disagreed. They are entitled to their opinion there (as was I, for the record) but they doesn't entitle them to trawl another editor's creations and nominate them en masse to make a point. That there are one or two in the group (now 15 or so) that the author concedes might not meet our inclusion criteria doesn't make the harassment right. MayVenn is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute productively. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• IMHO blockable. Interesting how he continued his mass nomination even after being reported here. The point is not that a couple of his nominations could be incidentally right, the point is that MayVenn started a dozen of AfDs just as a retaliation against another editor, with some ridicolous rationales such as "some random composer" or "some random model". Cavarrone 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed one AfD with poor reasoning and then I see this. If an editor with an account less than 24 hours old with only 34 edits creates 11 AfDs all for articles created by another single editor, then one need not be Hercule Poirot to conclude that something fishy (AKA retaliatory) is going on. Broken clocks are right twice a day, so maybe some of these articles should be deleted, but every one deserves serious scrutiny. But I need sleep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's been pointed out" "that these have all been nominated because they are articles created by Innotata who started this nomination with which MayVenn strongly disagreed." I don't see MayVenn's name there at all. That AfD was closed on September 24. All of MayVenn's edits have been within the past 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, the retaliation is crystal clear if you read the rationale in this AfD ... Cavarrone 08:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not crystal clear at all, unless one is saying that MayVenn is a sock of someone involved in the Danièle Watts article or AfD debate, in which case someone should file a SPI. Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppertry is possible, retaliation against User:Innotata is obvious ("It was super hypocritical to say a Black actress with multiple famous rules (ie Watts) was not notable and try to censor her article while making an article on a Japanese actress with ONE role.") Not to mention his point that Pile has just one role is false. Cavarrone 09:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken; MayVenn could very well be Danièle Watts herself. In any case, note to DGG and other admins: In addition to filing 12 AfDs within hours of registering their account, MayVenn is edit-warring and section-blanking on Racism in the United States. The user clearly needs at least a time out (block) to re-group, as well as a ban on AfDs, in my opinion. Thus far all they've done is be extremely disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• One has to ask why a brand new user immediately starts with nominating articles for deletion, creates 12 AfDs within hours of registering, and does not notify the articles' creator(s) about the AfDs. I think this is indeed blockable behavior, clearly disruptive, pointy, and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I went through the nominations, examining each one individually on its merits. I closed some as snow, one as a keep because of expressed bad faith in the nomination itself without a bar to immediate renomination, one I'm not sure enough about I just !voted keep; one I simply cant tell; one seems headed for delete. The nom. seems to have caught at least one questionable article in the net, but this is not the way to do things. . I'd support a topic ban on deletion nominations for a week or so, to prevent further disruption. I think it would be premature to go further than that at this time. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this is actual disruption but I could see a temp topic ban if you felt inclined and the community agrees. I can support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I think, the editor absolutely deserve a very close look, as do the nominations. however, the nominations themselves cannot be seen entirely as just retaliatory just for the nominations themselves. Check for all the usual signs, and if there is reason take action, but I do not support a block for this. Give me a break. We need to educate not destroy new editors. We need to assume good faith here. This isn't as obvious as some would have us believe even if the reasons for some of the noms may seem pointy or even based off a bad reaction. If they are a sock...then there is a direct action to be taken. If they are edit warring then there is a direct action to be taken, but all parties need to be looked at in these types of situations. We don't just get to take out our opponents because they are new, less experienced and we just don't like what they are doing. Engage the editor and then see how they react.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way User:Stalwart111...any chance you might actually notify the user of this ANI complaint? It is kind of a requirement. Appears to have been done.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Mark, I added it as an addendum to my previous thread on his talk page rather than starting a new one. I get where you're coming from but to me it was pretty clear cut and then after two warnings (from me and another editor) he continued to nominate articles on the same basis, with the same sort of rationales. Clear cut because the rationales themselves weren't policy based - just whatever he could think of as a thinly-veiled excuse for nominating a particular person's contributions for deletion because they disagreed with that person's AFD of a different article. By the way, I disagreed with it too and said so in the original discussion - but not once did I think that nominating the nominator's work for deletion was the appropriate response. I've seen editors blocked/reprimanded for nominating one or two articles in retaliation. But 10+? St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding due to the ninja edit conflict bug that afflicts ANI. See my comment inside this hatted section. In summary, if your, or another editor's, post is mysteriously deleted and doesn't show up in the history, it is good practice to assume that it is due to this mysterious bug. Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Restoring my earlier comments that was deleted by Mark Miller: Final unambiguous warning issued. If they create one more I will block without further ado. If I'm not around, perhaps another admin can make the required preventative block to quickly put an end to this spree. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about Kudpung? I deleted nothing. I see no reason to take unilateral action.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Please point out the deletion you are speaking of [77] I see no deletion in the history. Please retract your statement.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Miller: FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Again...I did not delete your post.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC) That sometimes happens by accident, when it should throw an edit conflict but for some reason it doesn't and just loses someone's edit - there's a software bug in there somewhere, for sure. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Absolutely. It's a perennial "issue". Has happened to me at least 3 times, and I've seen it happen to others - you don't always get the edit conflict window. I'll add a diff to one time it was discussed in a minute. Begoon talk 11:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Here, towards the end of this thread it is discussed, with links to when it happened. I've seen it on numerous other occasions, too: link. Begoon talk 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC) There was no edit conflict. My post was removed by Mark Miller when making his post. I've made the same error myself, but I always press my Preview button before saving, and then I always take an extra look at what I have posted before finally leaving the page. The problem with ANI is that it gets everyone jumpy, but if they are here simply to criticise admins, rather than do some investigation, then maybe they might not be inviting the most friendly, if nevertheless courteous, reactions. It's a weird issue that seems to only really hit ANI because of the high traffic and numbers of posts that happen on any given day. It's hit me a couple of times to my memory, once when I was posting something and I ended up getting ninja-ec'd by a close which I didn't notice and another time when I tried to reply to a heavily posted thread that ended up changing what I wanted to do into something that I didn't want to do ( the details escape me). It's generally good advice to assume that if there is a weird deletion of your post or your deletion of someone else's post that it's due to the ANI ninja edit conflict bug. Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic: Anyone properly investigating this issue will note that MayVenn is almost certainly not a new user. The question y'all should be asking is: who is he really? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no way of substantiating that accusation, as you were not watching the editor when he made that edit and you have absolutely no way of knowing exactly what happened. But I can tell you something that most definitely does happen occasionally - previewing looks fine, and then you save, and someone else's edit gets lost with *no indication whatsoever* that anything has gone amiss. The only way you can tell something has gone wrong is if you then recheck your edit after you have made it - preview *does not* show the fault. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Preview wouldn't help in those circumstances, honestly. It's a bug, and it's known. The only way to avoid it (well, actually, be aware of it, and able to fix it), is to religiously check your diffs after editing. It's fairly rare, but it does happen. Especially when the page is large, it seems.

Anyway, as you say, we should stay on topic. Begoon ^talk 11:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me with Jimbo Wales once. A one second difference and my post even showed up on my side after I hit save and then it was gone. Made me think I had done something wrong but he assured me, as others did, that it was just a simple glitch in the system that occurs sometimes. I did not remove anything, I have no reason to. Anyway, staying on topic, I have suggested to the editor that they refrain from making any further nominations for one to two weeks as a voluntary topic ban and requested that they make a small statement to that effect here.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at MayVenn's edit history, I agree with Kudpung that this user is very likely a sock. Never seen new editors registering their account and, in a few minutes, starting a dozen AfDs without making any error in the procedure. The editor is clearly an experienced one. And as pointed above the only other significant edit by this user was an attempt to remove a large chunk of sourced text in Racism in the United States, replacing it with the sentence "None of this has actually changed the fact that white supremacy is everywhere in America.": [78]. IMHO warnings will not have any effect, as the editor is very likely already back to his/her official account and we'll never see MayVenn editing again. A SPI would be enlighting, however I don't see any reason for not blocking this account per WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 12:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  For what it's worth CheckUser doesn't suggest any other accounts, but in this case it wouldn't have been too hard to use a different IP range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  The Daniele Watts AfD I started sure got a lot of people riled up, and strayed into accusations of bad faith, likely BLP violations that still are visible, and off-topic discussions of the police and racism, despite my efforts to keep it on topic. I wouldn't be too surprised if people caught onto it off-wiki. I see that just before MayVenn registered their account, an unregistered editor posted this. Maybe they're an old unregistered editor, also considering that they caught on to the similar account Bristolbottom? Only the Aimi Tomori AfD (which I personally think is the only one they got right) has had editors actually calling for deletion, so can all the other outstanding AfDs be closed without prejudice to relisting? —innotata 17:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This complaint, if it's still to be called that, has been light on evidence of violations of policy or guidelines since the second comment. If editors believe that there has been a violation of policies or guidelines then that needs to be presented either here or at WP:AE with evidence in the form of diffs and explanation of onwiki actions. If editors continue to cast aspersions of each other in violation of WP:NPA and discretionary sanctions procedures they will be sanctioned. I would suggest that if editors believe someone has violated policies or guidelines they report them at WP:AE (if related to BLP discretionary sanctions) as it is specially designed or this type of thing or here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

After being topic banned and later unbanned and warned, it seems User:Titanium Dragon can't avoid making unsourced accusations of wrongdoing. Two days ago, it was a relatively minor rephrasing to state that an employee was "questioned" rather than the more neutral (and sourced) "spoken to", and also substituting a vague "found no evidence of wrongdoing" for the more definitive "allegations were shown to be false". (I had asked Titanium Dragon about it on the Talk page but got no reply.) Today we have another unsourced allegation that Zoe Quinn is still a target because she is attacking others and engaging in censorship. I have redacted his allegations and I'll obviously leave any rev-del (if necessary) up to admins. Can something please be done? Woodroar (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn issued a DMCA notice on Mundane Matt's video well over a month ago; it has been attested by multiple sources and Mundane Matt has uploaded copies of the request, and the subsequent restoration (obviously with Zoe Quinn's personal information blacked out because otherwise it would be doxxing). This has been noted by numerous sources. These sources have frequently been noted in the discussion of the article.

Likewise, Zoe Quinn's part in the dispute against The Fine Young Capitalists has been noted both by the folks themselves as well as by a number of sources. This is all pretty well established at this point.

This kind of harassment is unacceptable, @Woodroar:. It is an attempt to use the rules to remove a user who is an effective advocate for the article being made more neutral. I have noted the DRN the nature of the sources and noted that they do not match up with the claims of you and yours that the majority of reliable sources claim that it is all about misogyny and harassment; indeed, the majority of sources make mention of the fact that there is more than one side to this, and many of them note the issue of corruption in the games industry, culture war issues, and similar things.

When you don't apply this sort of thing evenly, your goal is very clear. I don't see you complaining about Tarc calling people misogynists, Ryulong calling new users "/v/irgins", or complain when people claim that the sources say "harassment harassment harassment misogyny misogyny misogyny" without specifically citing them. I'm really tired of your behavior. I have been called a misogynist, been doxxed, been banned and then had my ban revoked, and otherwise had to deal with this nonsense.

This ends now. This sort of behavior is a clear attempt to remove me from the article. I'm tired of dealing with it. I understand that this is just a part of a much more broad, widespread form of harassment and censorship which has been directed at people who have reported on the manner in a way that you and yours have considered unacceptable, and I'm glad that I, unlike some folk, have not gotten a syringe in the mail, or been the subject of a DDOS, or similar nonsense, but having harassment like this spill over onto Wikipedia is unacceptable.

I'm not "pro-gamergate". I'm pro reality. I don't care about stupid conspiracy theories or anything else. But I do care about documenting the harassment levelled against them, the campaign of censorship, and other things. I do care about changes in ethics policies of websites and ad money getting withdrawn. I also care about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian getting death threats that prompted them to leave their homes, and Phil Fish getting hacked and doxxed. That's relevant. That's material.

It is very hard to assume good faith from others when they never assume good faith in you. And it is especially difficult when you are aware of other people being harassed or threatened just because they're talking about something. John Bain became a target of attack because he spoke out against the DMCA notice on YouTube, and got called a misogynist for it, despite speaking out against harassment. When I get called a misogynist for trying to add the same information to Wikipedia, when I see the same language which gets directed at others directed at me, well, what am I supposed to think? Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Filing a good-faith DMCA request can hardly be considered "harassment" even if it was Quinn that did it, nor can it be neutrally described as "attacking others" or "censorship." (We might publish a notable opinion that someone thinks it's censorship, but that's substantially different than stating it in Wikipedia's voice.) Nor have neutral, reliable sources described Quinn as being involved in "harassment" of TFYC. There is an obvious dispute between the two, and Quinn has been critical of TFYC, but there is a qualitative difference between being critical and harassing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You clearly did not read the diffs. I did not say that she harassed The Fine Young Capitalists. Quit lying about what I said. I said "her involvement with The Fine Young Capitalists". Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so what you're saying is that the harassment of Quinn was justified because she had a dispute with TFYC? That she was "asking for it" and deserved it? Or what? What's the point here? You seem to be finding lots and lots of ways to try and explain away the harassment campaign. GamerGate would be a shit-ton better off if they'd stop making the issue about a female indie developer and start making the issue about IGN getting paid to promote Halo. Why are you and so many others so fixated on Zoe Quinn and not on the billion-dollar AAA developers? Is it perhaps because GamerGate isn't actually motivated by "journalism ethics," perhaps?

I'm serious here — you are loudly claiming THE MOVEMENT ISN'T ABOUT MISOGYNY while continuing to endlessly harp on discredited allegations about a minor indie developer's sex life. It's literally transparent to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid — and of course, according to you, if they haven't drunk the Kool-Aid they are somehow automatically biased. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) what you're saying is that the harassment of Quinn was justified because she had a dispute with TFYC? That she was "asking for it" and deserved it? Did TD say that, or are you making it up to make hir look bad? You can't call aspersions like that on another editor with impunity, NBSB. Diego (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the plan is to ban people for victim blaming on wikipedia, there's a long backlog to sift through before TD is reached.Bosstopher (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For fucks sake, Titanium Dragon, I have been telling you multiple times on multiple pages over the past day that "/v/irgin" is a term used on 4chan as a self-appelation for users of one of the particular boards and it is not a fucking insult. I am tired of you bringing this shit up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You were using it in a deprecating manner on people who were new to Wikipedia and who, in all probability, were not, in fact, familiar with 4Chan terminology, seeing as 4Chan has banned discussion of the matter. I have some awareness of it - I know, for instance, that they frequently refer to each other as "fag", like "newfag", and I've seen /b/tard from people - but I don't know all the boards specific appellations, or which ones were self-applied. And I probably know more about 4Chan than most random people on the internet, who vaguely are aware of them as people who occasionally hack some stuff and wear Guy Falwkes masks. Moreover, the reality is that in the greater context of the internet, a lot of people were, at the time, stereotyping gamers as basement dwelling virgins, which was part of why people were so angry in the first place. I'm sorry, but you did not make the best first impression on me, and even if you meant it in that context, it was still inappropriate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Then stop fucking bringing it up, and don't you start with the #notyourshield shit here either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Fuck fuck fucking shit"? Insipid. I expect everyone at Wikipedia to be intelligent enough not to use such language here. You realize this ANI discussion gives the impression that Titanium Dragon is giving thoughtful replies and you come off as hot-headed? --Pudeo' 12:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes should simply not be dealt with at ANI. I'd say the best course of action should be from now on to WP:BOOMERANG anyone who drags here another editor involved in the Gamergate controversy article, to ensure that these utterly-WP:UNCIVIL threads that destroy the already battered collaboration climate are kept from recurring. Diego (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:BOOMERANG worthy thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A report that a previously BLP-topic-banned editor may be writing further BLP-violating material is not a content dispute and quite properly belongs here. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, this is a thread that shouldn't exist to begin with. That's why I'm suggesting something that prevents having these frivolous complaints created in the first place. Diego (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, TD was not topic banned. Had Gamaliel followed proper procedure and warned TD propelry, TD could have stopped the problematic behavior and not needed the improperly placed ban. Diego (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Being let off on a technicality doesn't mean shit, TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, we take technicalities deeply serious here, in special around blocking policy. That's why this thread doesn't make any sense, it doesn't in any way follows how behavior incidents should be dealt with, which is with abundant direct links to edits that break policy. Diego (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind half so much if these folks were so diligent about other people who actually commit BLP violations in the article, like, for instance, adding a section from Cracked to the article despite the fact that they've been warned that it is inappropriate, or citing sources which have conflict of interest issues as noted on the talk page. People are yelling at me for talking about stuff on an ANI page and on the talk page. If that's bad news, then surely people who have been doing stuff in the article must be report worthy? I don't report everyone constantly because it is stupid and disruptive, and one of the rules is that we're not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article on Gamergate controversy from Cracked, unless you are referring to the article Zoe Quinn which may or may not (I have not checked) contain quotations from the article she wrote for Cracked. And you keep bringing up these alleged conflicts of interest. All citations in the article come from reliable sources. But this is the pro-Gamergate narrative that keeps coming from your fingertips, that because you or someone you know has found that someone donated $1 to a patreon or indiegogo by one of the harassed parties that suddenly means that everything is biased and unusable. No one is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They are bringing this up here because you have been a net drain on the project when it comes to writing on this topic. You have shown that you cannot be neutral. You have made multiple statements on the talk pages of these articles that have had to be deleted from the history because of what you will not stop talking about. We are all tired of the same arguments, the same claims, and the same allegations coming from you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote about? If you did, then you're lying about it. If you didn't, then why are you making such outrageous claims?

The reason why the Time article is not useful as a source is because the controversy centered originally - and continues to swirl around to some extent - Kotaku. Leigh Alexander, the writer of the article in Time, is also a writer for Kotaku. When you write about a controversy about your own employer and coworkers, that is a conflict of interest. We could cite it for her OPINION on it, but when controversy strikes, we don't cite the person who is at the center of the allegations, nor their employees, on the facts of the case - we use third party, neutral sources for that, because of conflict of interest issues. Indeed, that's general RS policy, not to mention BLP policy - we don't cite people saying nice things about themselves or defending themselves as facts.

The reason why The New Yorker piece is not usable is because it contains at least two factual errors. One of them could arguably be dismissed as wishful thinking, that Zoe Quinn's claims that it was all secretly a plot by 4chan would make it all go away. But the other one was egregious. They claimed that it was clear that GamerGate was just an excuse to attack women because no one else's integrity had been attacked. But the reality was that Grayson's integrity had been attacked, and indeed, the attacks were so severe that Kotaku noted that the allegations were extremely serious and investigated them. They said that they found no evidence that their relationship had started before the article had been written. They also dismissed the crazy rumor that someone started (or more likely, which was the result of the internet playing Telephone (game)), that Grayson had written a review of Depression Quest, which he hadn't (which is fact at this point, as no one has been able to produce it; he did mention the game positively once previously on RPS, but it was like, one sentence). Thing is, when The New Yorker makes a claim that it is clearly all about attacks on women on the basis of an incorrect fact, a fact which is specifically cited by them as being the crux of their argument, that indicates that the source did not do proper fact checking. There were many, many sources which noted that Grayson had had his professional ethics questioned, and a cursory search would have found that.

Saying that this is about crazy conspiracy theories about Patreon - making up arguments which have absolutely nothing to do with what I said - makes it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those are errors of fact — they are merely places where you interpret things differently than the writer.

The New Yorker' piece is, indeed, correctly noting that Grayson was not bombarded with death and rape threats and was not the recipient of a vicious, prolonged campaign of harassment as Quinn was. The campaign primarily targeted Quinn for abuse and the author is correctly observing the qualitative difference between what the two people went through. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what the New Yorker piece said. The New Yorker piece said - and I quote:

• "In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible. (The debate dissipated after Quinn posted the chat logs of some 4chan users, revealing that the #gamergate hashtag had been coördinated with malicious intent.)"

The paragraph is about ethics, not about death threats and abuse. Seriously, why are you making me repeat myself? It is over there. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the source, bring it up over there, this is ANI, not DRN. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As for me claiming everything is biased and unusable - the only source which I've mentioned in the categorization of sources as being a questionable source because of bias referred to people as "the gamer Taliban" throughout the article. I'm sorry, but I have very real reservations about using a source which uses language like that, and I think most folks here would agree with that. If a source referred to the Democratic or Republican party in such terms, and we were trying to cite it about Barack Obama or John McCain or whatever, do you really think people would be like "Yeah, that's an okay source to use to cite factual information"? If some source referred to Leigh Alexander as the hag-queen of Mordor throughout its length, I wouldn't be using that either. We aren't using Breitbart as a source because they are biased and there are concerns about distortion and misrepresentation, and even they aren't going that far. Many of the sources are biased, and thus we must take care when using them, but that one in particular I felt was egregious. It also didn't really say anything all that useful that couldn't be sourced elsewhere, and frankly, any article where you're referring to a group as "the gamer Taliban" is probably an opinion column, whether or not it is actually labelled "opinion", especially when they're using it because they're trying to cast aspersions on people. Just because a source is biased doesn't mean we can't use it, but generally speaking, if we have the choice, we tend towards using unbiased sources whenever possible. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: the fact that unreliable and SPS sources like Tumblr "have frequently been noted in the discussion of the article" is the problem. We simply can't use sources like this to make allegations about a living person, and repeating them in Wikipedia's voice or even in your own on Talk pages is unacceptable. I'm sorry that you've been called a misogynist and been doxxed—and I'm thankful you haven't been sent a syringe or DDOSed—but none of this excuses the fact that you have repeatedly violated our policies. You are correct that this ANI is an attempt to remove you from the article, because I feel you are damaging the project, in ways that other editors—including many SPAs—are not. And I'm sorry that you see this as a means to push an anti-Gamergate POV, but my goal is to uphold policy, and I will work to remove infringing material whether it's about someone I love or loathe or even one of my favorite bands. Woodroar (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources on the DMCA notice, and the Tumblr thing is a primary source - it is a copy of the notice posted by MundaneMatt himself. Forbes makes note of the DMCA as well, if you're terribly bothered about it. :P

Why do you feel that my documentation of the flaws in The New Yorker is damaging the project? Why do you feel that my noting which sources say what about the GamerGate controversy is damaging? This is useful stuff! Knowing what the reliable sources says allows us to confirm or rebutt claims about what they say in general.

Nothing is more damaging to the project than attempting to abuse the rules. That's why we have rules against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make here is. You don't want the sources to be tabulated and their reliability assessed? I was specifically responding to another user who claimed that other people (Grayson, specifically) hadn't had their credibility attacked. I noted that others had, and the reasons why I felt that Zoe Quinn continued to be the target of attacks. Grayson hasn't been the continuing target of attacks on his integrity because the only thing he was implicated in was that, though his ability as a reporter has been questioned by a few people, including John Bain. Quinn was involved in a lot of other stuff, and thusly ended up sticking around. Frankly, I'm not sure how much abuse is even still being leveled at her at this point; a quick look at #GamerGate on Twitter gave me zero hits for "Zoe Quinn", "Quinn", and "Zoe". Most of what gets discussed by these folks right now is about abuse of gamers by journalists, censorship, and other stuff. By the time of #GamerGate, it wasn't really about Quinn; it was about the games journalism industry. Quinn just was one of the first and most prominent targets, along with Grayson, but because other things came out about her it lingered on her for longer.

How is your complaining about this improving the project? Why didn't you just go and redact it and leave me a message on my talk page about your concerns? Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I did ask you about the first edit 2 days ago, and also offered to help with BLP compliance 4 days ago, but you didn't reply to either message. Woodroar (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Ah, I see. Well, to wit: One of those was about WP:BLP's introduction being in contradiction with the body of the policy, along with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Basically, the introduction implies that NPOV and NOR and SYNTH apply to talk pages, while the respective articles note the exact opposite - which is to say, that they do not (they're article space policy). What BLP actually says is that anything we say about people should be something which can be reliably sourced, regardless of where it is on Wikipedia (unless it is specifically about ourselves, on our own user page, though we're not allowed to claim false credentials to improve our perceived authority). I got multiple conflicting opinions on it (various folks, including admins, noted that they felt that BLP applied to what it said it applied to, and that the rules for them applied to the spaces that those policies otherwise applied to unless otherwise noted by the article (which RS does note otherwise on). The fact that people seem to disagree on this somewhat is a bit problematic, though I think that's the only logical way to do things, as talk space tends not to be very neutral and often has to involve SYNTH and OR because we are trying to look stuff up and are debating whether or not content is, in fact, supported by the sources; if people kept removing it because of BLP violations, it would be impossible to discuss this stuff in the talk space at all (and could also easily lead to disruptive editors removing stuff which isn't a violation but claiming that it was, and then claiming that you can't even discuss it because it is a BLP violation - something which some folks already do).

The other one, I'm sorry I didn't respond to; I must have overlooked it. Sorry about that. "Questioned" probably should have been "spoke to" per WP:SAID, you're right on that count. The reason I removed "for her game" was that it was inaccurate; she had been accused of trying to get positive press, which was specifically noted by Kotaku separately from the stuff about the nonexistent game review. InternetAristocrat's Five Guys video (noted by a lot of sources early on, and Forbes mentioned it as being a major thing which served to popularize GamerGate) went after Grayson's GAME_JAM article, which is probably why Kotaku noted it as a separate allegation against Grayson. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you go a month without mentioning Zoe Quinn, Titanium Dragon? If GamerGate really isn't about misogyny and if journalism ethics really isn't merely a facade to justify harassment of Zoe Quinn and other females in gaming, then surely you can find any number of well-sourced things to write about the movement that don't have anything to do with Zoe Quinn. And yet virtually every time you post it somehow ends up having something to do with Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You should add Leigh Alexander to that list of restrictions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's just a result of your selective memory. I've discussed various issues with censorship and all sorts of other things.

Look at your post above where you claimed that I said that Zoe Quinn's harassment was justified. I never said that. You do this sort of thing all the time. This is characteristic of the sort of behavior that TechCrunch spoke about. When you make stuff up about other people because that is how it must be - that because they disagree with you, they must be evil and for kicking puppies - that is a sure sign that you are not thinking rationally. Just because I understand why she is being harassed doesn't mean that I approve of it. The ability to understand other people is called empathy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So the answer is no, you won't go a month without mentioning Zoe Quinn, because reasons.

By the way, I went back to the diffs when you talked about "censorship" and "media blackout" — the issue that you alleged was being "censored" and "blacked out" was... wait for it... the allegations about Zoe Quinn. So no, you weren't writing about a topic other than Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. A lot of the censorship has been about Zoe Quinn, and the original burst of censorship was the worst, and it was centered around Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson (and a few others, but it mostly succeeded in avoiding them getting mentioned - only TalkingShip discussed some of the other issues involved, especially the social justice angle which has frequently been neglected). However, discussion of GamerGate at all has been banned from a number of places, and GamerGate, as I noted, isn't really about Zoe Quinn. As I noted, going to #GamerGate on Twitter, there weren't any mentions of Zoe Quinn at all on the front two pages of results. A lot of the discussion is about games journalists, censorship, media blackouts, attacks on people, harassment of GamerGate supporters, ect. Also about Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra because of Leigh Alexander's article there. If it is really all about Zoe Quinn, why aren't they mentioning her name?

The reality is that the censorship on the issue made a lot of people who were upset about the gaming media in general band together against them, because, you see, if you're censoring something, there must be something to it, right? Why would you bother to censor nonsense? It was the Streisand Effect at its finest. And the truth is that once the gaming media showed its weakness and started attacking people, it meant that they had failed at the cardinal rule. As Eisenhower once said, when you appeal to force, there is one thing you must never do - lose. Alexander said that game developers shouldn't design for gamers. Gamers told advertisers what they thought about that. Advertisters pulled ads because they didn't want to be associated with the article. That has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn at all.

Zoe Quinn was a spark for a great deal of rage. I've explained all of this to you before. Zoe Quinn's own actions lead to a lot of unhappiness with her personally, but the whole Gamergate thing was really something which has been brewing for years, probably ever since Doritogate. I've heard people say very nasty things about the gaming media for years now; a lot of folks have been deeply upset by them, and like to tell others every chance they get while people kind of sigh at their rage. Now, they have their chance, and a lot of people are listening because the gaming media validated them by going after them en masse, signalling weakness on their part.

Slate wrote an article about this, speculating that the real reason for the attacks on gamers was because "traditional" gaming journalism itself was dying - they were being outcompeted by people like John Bain on Youtube, people on Youtube starting to do what games journalists did before, and that's scary and confusing and also means that they have real, actual competition - and from what I can tell, the YouTubers seem to be winning, if shares of their videos are any indication. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)? Please see the closure request by a discussion participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS) (permanent link).

I am posting this closure request here since this noticeboard is more highly trafficked than WP:ANRFC and because the discussion has important BLP implications. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems more than ready for a formal admin closing.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I assume an appeal will be filed at AN shortly... Number 57 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IAC again - sock of blocked user, mass content deletion, possible NLT

• Claus at Name Defend DE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be an explicit sock of blocked user Name Defend IPA, who claimed to be Claus Bruentrup of "Name Defend" as ably documented by Voceditenore in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Review of admin actions (India Against Corruption). Claus at Name Defend DE has repeatedly[79][80][81] removed sourced material from India Against Corruption (and also a vast amount from Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics[82]). His statement[83] "To the Network Administrator. Take notice that I am acting for the affected person/s. This content must be disabled immediately." with the edit comment "Notice of action to be taken" appears to breach WP:NLT. NebY (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NebY, see section below. Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, rather good to see a simultaneous (and more legible) report with so much overlap! Good to see the block and follow-up too. NebY (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption again- possible legal threat by editor who states policies don't apply to him

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

---

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - is this a legal threat by User:Claus at Name Defend DE? His userpage states

• This is user page of Claus @ Name Defend.
• I am a declared paid editor to inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF "Terms of Use" etc. which have legal consequences, and which breaches and consequences the average editor may be unaware of.
• I do not consider myself bound by self written community policies. I am editing under WMF "Terms of Use" and "privacy policy"

He is editwarring at India Against Corruption (just gave him a 3RR warning) and on his talk page explains his edit by saying "However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority." Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, see the section immediately above this. Note that Name Defend IPA was blocked indefinitely by Salvio giuliano as a checkuser block [84]. This is clearly the same person, and in fact, the socks are probably all the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". If yet more proof is needed that this is the same sock as all the rest, note that the copyvio tag on Anil Trivedi was actually placed by the blocked sockpuppet Duffycharles with a very inappropriate edit summary [85]. Within minutes of Duffycharles being blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats, User:Claus at Name Defend DE registered an account [86]. Today he addded to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The section above was added while I was editing this one, so I missed it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article should be subject to full protection as the socks/meats seem to regularly make the requisite edits to get around semi. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That is tempting, given the collateral damage they're prepared to inflict to get around semi-protection. (It is striking that someone claiming to oppose corruption would expunge an account of human rights campaigning.[87]) It doesn't seem that India Against Corruption is active any longer, assaults on Wikipedia by people claiming to act in its name aside, so while there might be details to fill in about its history, there may be no notable developments to add. NebY (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but it will only partially help. If this faction (who claim to represent the Hindustan Republican Association) cannot get at that article, they will continue disrupting multiple related articles, including biographies of those they perceive as their enemies. They will also keep pursuing time-wasting quasi-legal issues in retaliation. They have now made 2 unsuccessful attempts to have India Against Corruption removed from Google's search results on spurious claims of copyright violation when their spurious claims here didn't work out for them. They also claim to have filed a sexual harassment case with the WMF on behalf of one of their sockpuppets, etc. etc. Interestingly, the latest copyright infringement they reported (at Anil Trivedi) actually was an infringement, although not of their material, despite the bogus claims made at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 that they were "acting for the affected person/s". This is long-term abuse dating back to 2008. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This "faction" does not represent the Hindustan Republican Association.

Do you have any reliable source for your outrageously false claim on Anil Trivedi that he was in any way associated with India Against Corruption as continues to be stated in that article ?? This is exactly the kind of IMPERSONATION of the IAC organisation which the "outed" ADMIN "Sitush" was paid to promote on Wikipedia. (PS: Read the news report in the Times of India - Lucknow edition about paid senior editors of Wikipedia) which pisses the IAC off.

BTW: Claus has emailed Admin:Euryalus, our identities are disclosed and verifiable. NAME DEFEND is going to expose how corrupted paid Wikipedia Admins have systematically fabricated "checkuser" results to show that 27 NAME DEFEND editors systematically operating from many countries on very widely located ISPs and using different computers and networks are showing as a single editor (@IAC sock-farm), whereas the 983+ still active Wikipedia accounts being used since 2005 with over 4,00,000+ edits (incl. 38,000+ on 2014) are not being detected by Checkuser. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your above statement can you provide reliable sources to prove that Sitush was paid to edit Wikipedia. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the babblings above can't even get elementary facts right - Sitush isn't an admin - I can see no reason why we should be remotely interested in anything the latest sockpuppet could say. They have been plastering this noticeboard with pseudo-legal threats and similar bollocks for years, while presenting precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Why should they do anything differently this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the above, might it be reasonable to consider a blanket siteban on Name Defend, by whatever name? That statement comes off as an organizational mission statement to continually violate WP:NLT and pretty much blatantly states that the whole group is not here to write an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well i think we can definelty lose this one, it seems uncommon for a new user to be able or willing to lodge an ANI and edit a request for arbitration [88] so soon form the start up. They appear to be tagging any page that can find that might be beneficial even if theyre not doing it correctly.Pretty much sums up not here.Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note appears theyve been reported to WP:AIV and blocked fromt here prehaps a good sign to close this off as it doesnt seem to serve any purpose now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

• Considering the personal attacks and allegation being made on their talk page, shouldn't talk page and email access be removed? Neatsfoot (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • DMCA India Against Corruption logo is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a DMCA takedown notice is valid if it's filed under a pseudonym or if there's some requirement that the filer provides some proof of identity? NebY (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Irrespective of whether the DMCA takedown notice was valid, the image was appropriately removed from Commons as it was clearly a previously published non-free logo. It appeared in March 2011 on indiaagainstcorruption.org, the official website of the India Against Corruption organization (the one the WP article is about—not the one "Name Defend" claims to be "defending"). See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism to Kevin Westgarth page

Since October 2, 2014, Qwerty1233221 has been persistently messing up the Kevin Westgarth page by changing his statistics to incorrect ones and otherwise messing it up. Today there were further edits of this nature from IP Template:108.53.111.85. Examples are here, here, here, here, here, and here. Can you please do something about this? Given the frequency and number of these edits, it's not a 'good faith' situation. GLG GLG (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. In future, it's best to revert, warn, and report to WP:AIV if the vandalism continues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. sorry i didn't know the other page existed. GLG GLG (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

71.171.126.164

A user at this IP address seems to be changing NFL-related pages to change scores, winners of games, and other statistics.

For example, his edits to the "2014 Seattle Seahawks season" page [89] changed the Seahawks from a 2-1 record (W 36-16, L 21-30, W 26-20 OT) to a 0-3 record (L 21-31, L 0-49, L 14-49). All the above games have "NFL.com recap" links which have the correct score, and they all showed the correct scores and winners before this user's edits.

Other team pages and NFL record pages have similar edits. I do not see how this could be accidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added a vandalism warning to the user's (IP address) talk page. This IP address continues to make destructive changes in the face of efforts to revert them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

72.194.125.162 appears to be making legal threats

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

---

72.194.125.162 appears to be making legal threats.[90]-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

False. Please specify the "threat" to which you refer.72.194.125.162 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's right there at the end of their post, just before their signature. You bring up "the law of defamation" as if it's relevant, try to connect what we're doing to it, and attempt to use "liability for damages" as a chilling effect. That is the sort of dishonest bullying that WP:NOLEGALTHREATS is intended to curb. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the IP:

• is here to right great wrongs (every contribution has had the goal of removing well-sourced criticism of the school),
• demand to be shown where something is a policy whenever an experienced editor explains something ([91]),
• refuses to acknowledge when others point out policies that conflict with their understanding of things (such as WP:NOTCENSORED),
• ignores whenever their arguments are countered,
• reacts in a personal manner to those who disagree with them (assuming that a previously uninvolved editor who came in to help is the one with a conflict of interest, which is coal calling ivory black),
• edit warred to remove the Whois template from their talk page, threatening to report the editors who restored it as if it was vandalism,

...I'm thinking a block is in order even if the IP retracts the threat. They're not here to cooperatively build an encyclopedia, they have an axe to grind. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly, I stopped editing upon request before you blocked the article. The article does not comply with the Wikipedia policy for high schools or living persons. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you failed to actually discuss any point, this time using a red herring. You have been making edits to talk pages since, all of which have been part of your agenda to censor the article, which have shown a lack of interest in cooperation outside of that agenda. If I was wrong about this, you could easily cite previous edits you made where you ventured out into some sort of middle ground, had a sincere and previous interest in any other topic, or listened to more experienced editors without it taking four or five of them repeating something for you to get it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He half-heartedly stated that he won't take legal action, but he does not know "what the affected students or their lawyers may do," trying to keep the chilling effect of a legal threat. WP:Gaming the system, plain and simple. It's not really any different than walking into a store and saying "Nice store you've got, it'd be a shame if something happened to it." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And you're saying I have to guarantee this article doesn't gore someone's ox? No, I can't do that. All I can do is tell you I am not personally involved and don't know the players, but I can read the papers and know they don't like people accusing them of wrongdoing. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that 72.194.125.162 made a legal threat.

Regarding his/her claim that he/she "stopped editing upon request before you blocked the article", the article history showed that he/she did three reverts over an 18 minute period and then stopped - this suggests a knowledge of the three-revert rule.

Anyone considering blocking 72.194.125.162, should be aware that he/she also used 70.197.70.151 on 3 October.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how hard these editors are fighting to silence me rather than respond to my points. Toddy never seemed to understand that saying a school has "serious social problems" is an attack on the school. One editor who is not participating in this witch hunt agreed with me "[T]his kind of weight in the lead is disproportionate." 21:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)72.194.125.162 (talk)

It's not interesting, you only pay attention to what pleases you and see anyone who disagrees as an opponent to beat rather than someone to find a middle ground with. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not to you two but another editor wrote, "I think the inclusion of these controversies right at the start of the article is not encyclopedic." It's not just about me.72.194.125.162 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In sum, there was no legal threat but it is not surprising this was misunderstood. The editor who started this noticeboard incident,and the editor who is its main protagonist, apparently think you can say a school has "serious social problems" and list numerous unproven allegations against it in the lead paragraph without attacking the school.[92]. I wouldn't call that a cooperative effort to build an encycopedia.72.194.125.162 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Under the law of defamation repetition and even hyperlinking is sufficient to incur liability for damages." That qualifies as a violation of the No Legal Threats rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the context. This was a discussion about repeating attacks, not republishing defamation - the analysis just happens to be the same. In any event, the absence of a legal threat was made explicit upon inquiry. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You did violate the "No legal threats" rule. Other than that, you have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are using a battle ground tactic. Despite being told to stop my numerous of users, your still trying to game the system. That does not work here at all, especially when everyone can see what you have written. AcidSnow (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

[93] This is not a legal threat of action on the part of Atsme. This is the hypothetical legal threat of action by the party of the article. It's laid on pretty thick to. Should this be reviewed under the legal threat policy?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a legal threat but deffinetly sounds like its supposed to have a chilling effect the whole if you dont think it could happen again definelty seems like its aimed at doing just that. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a legal threat at all to me. DocumentError (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

nope, Atsme was just informing you about the importance of BLP. took me a while to figure out what you are fighting over but it is Investigative Project on Terrorism and it appears to be a continuation of a past ANI. these are hard situations, and i am sorry you are in such a dispute, but this specific complaint has no merit in my eyes and reflects poorly on you. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Of course it wasn't a threat. This is what I get for agreeing to Serialjoe's suggestion to "seek out medcom for assistance." This ANI is nothing more than a continuation of Joe's relentless hounding and fulfillment of his publicly stated goal for me: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [94]. The BLP issue was actually raised again by ARB committee member User:Newyorkbrad during Joe's recent ARB request in another of his relentless attempts to get me topic banned: The issues addressed may include whether including the prominent "Islamophobia" template on this article raises a BLP issue. [95] Serialjoe refuses to acknowledge the problems exist. Other editors and noticeboard reviewers have also drawn attention to the BLP and NOR issues plaguing IPT. [96] [97] Atsme☯^Consult 01:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme diplomatically, perhaps too diplomatically, raises a valid point. This is most clearly not a WP:LEGAL issue. Under WP:BOOMERANG it would be merited to question the impetus for bringing it up here. It is not reasonable to just go around throwing things against the wall to see if anything sticks, in respect to other editors, and it appears - based on a history of interaction - this is what may be occurring with Atsme on the receiving end. This treatment forces other editors to divest from encyclopedia-building and engage in permanent defense and fort-building. This is something that needs to be addressed before this is closed. DocumentError (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Above you'll notice my first sentence. This is not a legal threat of action on the part of Atsme. Then you'll notice my last sentence. Should this be reviewed under the legal threat policy? Interestingly enough I asked this question in ANI.Someone mistakenly posted this at the top of the page This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. The reason I pose this question is that Atsme will do anything possible to end an argument. Canvassing is one example. I'll also point at that you will see above that I haven't asked for a ban. The reason for this is wp:legal suggests that a ban in these cases is to prevent disruption associated with litigation. At the conclusion of the legal threat brings the conclusion of the ban. Since there is no legal threat (again as pointed out above by me the original poster) there is no reason to ban. However while there is no reason to ban, is there reason to review it under the legal threat policy? Trying to promote fear of litigation to win a dispute could offer the same chilling effect as actually threat of litigation. At a point if this tactic becomes persistent then there is a cause to ban.

I'd also add that any promotion of a ban I've made has been that of a topic ban of Islamophobia and related articles. A topic of which Atsme has shown unquestionable bias in regards to. This is the first ANI I've opened on the subject. This is the 4th one in total. This about the conduct. I guess while quoting Newyorkbrad, Atsme missed where Brad said "MAY INCLUDE" and where ARBCOM offered no position on whether it was and further suggested the matter be taken over to BLPN. Did they move wp:BLPN? Is that why Atsme hasn't taken it there? There is currently a consensus to keep said template. Something crazy and unexpected could happen here. Atsme could take the advice of Arbcom and take it to BLPN and get a consensus that it is a BLP violation and that it should be removed. That would rather diplomatic. It certainly would be rare move in this tiresome dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Also, who wrote this? There's no signature. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your comment with a sig. I have just left a note to you, in response to your latest post on Atsme's talk page here. DocumentError (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Skeezix1000

I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but I would like to report User:Skeezix1000 for harassment, abuse of admin privileges, as well as conflict of interest. Since starting on wikipedia I have been harassed by User:Skeezix1000 and his friend User:Hwy43. I have falsely been accused of being a sock puppet of someone that lives +500km away. These editors have also accused IPs from Edmonton (+3000km away) and IP50 is from Prince George (+4000km away). I am from Ottawa, Ontario, and even though the person I'm allegedly sock puppeting is from Kitchener as proven by his numerous sock puppet IPs on [98] these users continue to harass me. I'd like for them to stop this behaviour immediately, apologize, remove the threatening messages/sock puppet tags from all our talk pages. I think Skeezix1000 should also have his admin privileges revoked for his behaviour. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Skeezix is not an admin as far as I can see. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I believe he is only an administrator on Wikipedia commons. I just want the harassment to stop from him and his friends and to be left alone. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't do any editing on wikipedia commons. He just happens to be an admin there. The harassment happens here on regular wikipedia. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know sorry about that I misread your comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no examples of harrassment. Skeezix1000 (re)opened a sockpuppet investigation to see if this IP is UrbanNerd (talk · contribs) once again skirting his indef ban. The investigation is surely only a formatlity, though, given how easily one can determine just from a simple comparison of edit histories (including those for all the other IPs this person has used) that the IP is UrbanNerd. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither an admin, nor have I "harassed" this sockpuppet IP of User:UrbanNerd. I wasn't even the one who reopened the sockpuppet investigation. As Miesianiacal points out, this IP's behaviour is classic UrbanNerd. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cow cleaner 5000 ban proposal

Enough is enough, this user is intent on trolling Wikipedia and has already made numerous sock accounts: [99] I propose that this person be banned by the Wikipedia community as clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. This diff [100] shows that he is starting to attempt to get to other user's accounts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, obvious longterm vandalism including trying to blank this section. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• From the time this was first added 4 more sock accounts have been confirmed as used by Cow as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Overt support: Obviously disruptive, probably takes joy in the fact that we are even having this proposal. This is behavior that will not stop, and having a ban proposal is just a procedural step to stop it. I full heartedly support it. Tutelary (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Full support Enough is enough with this one. They are one of the most insidious WP:GAMErs I've seen in at least a few years, especially with the Shonen Jump article, and we should use all the filters and tools we have to contain them from damaging the encyclopedia further. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - He wasn't site banned already? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, it's clear that this person will not assist us in fulfilling our mission and is wasting their time here. If they can't realise this and move on themselves, then we as the community should be happy to assist them on their way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC).
• Support - It not only wastes our time but in the end it wastes there time!, Enough's enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Could use another set of eyes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto

There's quite a bit of back-and-forth that should probably be reined in, but I'd like to have someone uninvolved handle it. Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC Shopping

A RfC created specifically due to a conflict over whether to include Syrian forces in the article 2014 military intervention against ISIS - but framed to finalize debate on inclusion of all non-USA forces - was opened here. The RfC is currently active and trending 50/50 split between support and oppose. One of the opponents of including the Syrian Arab Army in this article has initiated a new RfC on the same subject, differentiated only by its wording. I attempted to GF shutter this RfC, politely noting to him one was already open [101]. He reverted my close [102] with the explanation "That RfC addresses all non-us allied forces being included. This is only on Syria" a splitting of hairs that rejects the entire premise for the first RfC (wikilawyering on the nuances of the wording) and is seemingly designed for no purpose than to take another stab at getting Syria P(OV)ushed out of this article. Requested Action: Uninvolved admin close this RfC just so the original one can continue to a conclusion and avoid the necessity of re-gathering everyone who !voted in the first one to !vote again in the second (third, fourth, etc.). DocumentError (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Note - as a courtesy I have attempted to notify all editors who !voted in the first RfC about this situation. DocumentError (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not RfC shopping, I am trying to get some comment's on specifically the Syrian forces inclusion. The previous RfC which they are referencing was for "Should the article titled "2014 military intervention against ISIS" contain information about all nations and nation-equivalent actors involved in 2014 military actions against ISIS or should it only include nations whose military forces are operating under U.S. command, or have been declared allies of the U.S. regime?" It was not for specifically the Syrian inclusion which itself is an important issue. It was whether any non-us allied forces should be included. That group of non-us forces did technically include Syria but it also included Iran and others. This is specifically on the Syrian regime inclusion which again is a separate issue than Iran who are intervening. I just wanted to get some commentary on Syria specifically. I am not trying to game the system. - SantiLak (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact you registered a !vote in the first RfC that said specifically "The Syrian regime forces should not be included in the article." indicates you are absolutely aware of the premise behind the first RfC, which was started specifically due to controversy over the inclusion of Syria. DocumentError (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I was opposing the inclusion of the Syrian regime forces in the article there but specified syria to make sure that it was clear that I did not oppose other actors such as Iran from being included. It was started over Syria but the RfC covered all of the countries not under US command as was specified in the question. I see you have removed the canvassing accusations and I appreciate that as I was in no way canvassing, just informing members of original RfC who were not informed of ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make one big RFC so that we can settle this matter instead of making five RFCs at once. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What he said. :) DocumentError (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After all the different duplicate processes DocumentError started that lead to this ANi, and now this one on top, I can't believe he has the kahonnas to start this complaint. Pot calling the kettle black stuff. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I made the RfC was that I wanted to solely address the Syria issue instead of having a broad scope RfC so the question behind it includes all non-us allied countries, to just include Syria. I just want to get comments on specifically Syria, I'm not trying to game the system. - SantiLak (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to use an ANI you yourself started and that was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive, as some kind-of scarlet letter, is probably not something you want to make a habit of doing. Just a friendly tip. DocumentError (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think DocumentError needs to stop throwing around false accusations and other garbage he can't support with Diffs. Please provide the evidence "was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive" or retract this statement. I know DocumentError can make good contributions, but the BATTLE mentality needs to stop as it hurts everyone. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is OT, but since you asked: you asked to get me topic banned, eight ten editors weighed-in on it and only 2 !voted "Support" - you and your pal SantiLak. If you have anything further you want to drudge up on this, go back to your ANI and deal with it there. Don't junk up this one with your nonsense. It's been less than one month since you finished your last 1-year topic ban and it seems you're back to your same bad behavior. Stop it (or take it back to the thread in which this was being discussed - not here). DocumentError (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I changed my support to dispute resolution after listening to the arguments as you can see in the counter-proposal section. SantiLak (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this ANI, and I don't know how creating an RfC is a scarlet letter. Are you referring to myself or another user because I don't see how creating the RfC was in bad faith anyway and I don't intend to create any ANI's in the near future. - SantiLak (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I was addressing a different editor. DocumentError (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note the "new" RfC is not worded neutrally. Syrian forces are already included in the article;the way SantiLak has chosen to word his "new" RfC means that a lack of consensus for "Support" will see them removed (it should have been worded so that "support" !votes are in support of reversion of the status quo, not for maintaining the status quo). This is RfC 101 and seems to be a further indicator of WP:GAMING. DocumentError (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is not worded neutrally "Should the article include information on Syrian regime forces military actions against ISIS or not? This is different from the RfC earlier which addressed whether only US allied forces should be included". I don't see any POV in there. There was no actual consensus to include Syria in the article, the broadly worded RfC vote came up tied and since it addressed all non-us allied partners, I thought a more specific one addressing only Syria would be important. I formatted the Oppose and Support in a way similar to the previous RfC. I don't think that users will be confused at all even if the Syrian forces are already included in the article. The way the question is written if you write Oppose then you are obviously opposing Syria being included and if you write Support then you are obviously supporting Syria's inclusion. It is not gaming at all. - SantiLak (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My read is that the previous RfC started and now defended by DocumentError actually was started on the same topic as another RfC by someone else. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Support" !votes should always be "support" for changing the status quo, "oppose" against changing the status quo. Otherwise, a change to the status quo can occur sans consensus. This is RfC 101. Either you didn't understand that when you started it, or you phrased it this way intentionally. I'm GF assuming the former. DocumentError (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I added onto the RfC explaining what Support and Oppose specifically entail. Next time I will do it the other way but for now it seems clear what means what. SantiLak (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding. It's not a question of editor confusion - it's a question of loading the vote. You can't have a RfC in which a lack of consensus results in a change to the status quo. That's what you've got right now with current wording. (You also can't have duplicate RfCs, but that's being addressed above). DocumentError (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and I will change the way it is formatted right now. I assure you I am not attempting to load the vote. Again I really don't think it is a duplicate RfC, it is addressing one specific country instead of the more broadly worded RfC from before. - SantiLak (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WARNING/Attn Admins: Cut the abusive behavior and false accusation throwing DocumentError. You are not the police and your accuracy is seriously lacking. It is not constructive. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lord. DocumentError (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, SL, for doing that. That resolves that issue completely and to my satisfaction. I maintain my request for an admin to shutter the RfC as duplicate gaming but withdraw the entire second paragraph of comments as you've adequately and proactively addressed them. Best - DocumentError (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also changed the language to just "Syrian government forces" in order to make it as neutral as possible. - SantiLak (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

note - thread moved from "main" to "incident" - accidentally placed on wrong board

Attempted outing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal (2nd nomination)

I'm reporting it here because I'm the target of this attempted and needless to say laughably wrong outing. However, the editor has also named other people (presumably non-editors) and made other vague threats in his comment. The editor in question is:

Brain1605 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For background, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:OUTING and the edit rev-deleted by Bgwhite. Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an intermediate revision that needs deleting too. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Euryalus (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfriendly attitude of User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir

Hello! I am writing this report because I want to seek assistance in my relationship with the editors mentioned in the title. The statement The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus' inserted by them in the article Origin of the Romanians isn't apparently existing in the provided source, namely Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. The word Vladislaus isn't even present in the book.

I added the Failed Verification template and asked on the talk page for the exact quotes from the source that they refer to, but they remove the template and refuse to answer to my request. What should I do? Eurocentral (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am always happy to help in relationship matters between editors, especially those involved in topics like eastern European history, for which I'm quite unlikely to ever have a dog in the fight or even much interest. I'm going to be offline for most of the next 24 hours, however, if you don't get a satisfactory response from anyone else before then - and assuming the issues in question don't rise to the level of necessary admin involvement - please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to insert myself into the articles in question as an active interlocutor. DocumentError (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you are well aware the fact that Vékony used the word "László" (which is the Hungarian variant of "Vladislaus"), but I preferred the latter form because a Romanian historian (Victor Spinei) in his book which is also cited in the article used the "Vladislaus" form. We should be consequent when using names in the same article. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute. Actually, I even provided a link for Eurocentral. Instead of senseless accusations he should read Vekony's book.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Or, if he does not want to read the whole book, he should read the pages which are referred to in the relevant footnote. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I suspect that Eurocentral is not here to build an encyclopedia. He does not stop edit warring, even after an RfC had in the meantime been initiated, and all other editors were willing to seek a consensual lead ([103], [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]). He inserts words in well referenced sentences, although those words are not based on the cited reliable source ([113], [114]), and instead of fixing the problem, he deletes the proper inline template messages ([115]). Actually, I lost patience with him after spending years with fixing his edits which are not based on reliable sources or are based on books written in the early 20th century or in the 19th century (but are pretended to be published in the late 20th century or early 21th century). Fakirbakir, how do you think this problem could be solved? Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, his actions are very similar to a banned user's behaviour ("Iaaasi"). Your evidence above may be enough to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not identical. Iaaasi sometimes gets angry and uses disgustingly anti-Hungarian language, but he is otherwise correct. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know Iaaasi can be correct. He has even asked for my support (on Wikimedia Commons) recently because he wants to return to Wikipedia. However I still maintain that his attitude resembles Eurocentral. I hope you are right on this. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

Yes. Yet another Ryulong (talk · contribs) thread. This time he mass-deleted language articles just by labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields:

• languages with ISO 639-3 codes (i.e., Ethnologue entries): Tokunoshima language[116], Okinoerabu language[117], Yoron language[118] and Northern Okinawan language[119], and
• their supergroups: Amami–Okinawan languages[120], Amami languages[121], Amami language[122], Okinawan languages[123] and Kunigami language[124],

where I contributed substantially using a dozen of published sources (some of which are available online). This is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen since I joined Wikipedia in 2003.

Of course, labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields alone does not justify mass deletion. Otherwise one can revert any change s/he does not like. So his comment is synonymous with "I HATE YOUR EDIT!!!"

Ryulong is a regular at this incident noticeboard and is very familiar with 3RR and other conflict related stuff. But he has a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is. Given the fact that he is an experienced user, there appears no hope that he would amend his behavior. I think the only feasible solution is to keep him out of Wikipedia. Any suggestions (especially on procedural details)? --Nanshu (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U (that said, don't use such pejorative rhetoric there, or you won't get far) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I raised the edits in question on the Japanese WikiProject's page and another editor agreed that these divisions were not accepted by the linguistic community at large. The primary article on this language family only suggests that there are six when Nanshu created articles on five undiscussed languages. Nanshu has been particularly mad at me whenever I disagree with his edits, and this is frankly nothing new. He did not have to come here to this board first when he could have responded to the discussion at WT:JAPAN about his very issue. I see no such attempt. I will be restoring the articles to the versions prior to Nanshu's vast and u discussed changes, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nanshu has also been warned in the past over his unnecessary attacks against me whenever I dispute his expertise on these topics. While I cannot easily access these threads in the notice board archives right this second,mother can be found. In fact, he was blocked earlier this year for disregarding the warnings he was given for his comments about me. He has called me a disaster at the langauges WikiProject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"WP:BULLDOZERING" of article / Possible Editor Stability Issue

The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS is already a contentious article, however, Legacypac, who has recently come off a 1-year topic ban on WP:BLP, has taken an extremely disruptive sense of ownership over it, making substantial, unilateral changes - including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) - while discussions are ongoing or after consensus has been achieved. The article requires careful editing, and a slow and methodical approach. But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade. (I'm sorry for that colorful metaphor, however, that's the most appropriate way to describe what has recently occurred succinctly.) A very small sample (of many examples of page moves and snow closes he's imposed that had to be undone) -

- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [125] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" !votes to said move.

- On 2OCT he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [126]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[127]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action. Another editor had to undo it.

- On 5OCT, the same day a consensus discussion had closed regarding the order of nations in the Infobox, he - again unilaterally - changed the order of said nations to break consensus. His excuse, as always, was that it was "messed up" and he had to take immediate action, though he has been told it is not needed for him to assume "emergency powers" to make what he feels are "urgent" edits. The ordering/reordering of nations is a time consuming process and this behavior is supremely disruptive for those of us already putting hours into this article to see it trashed sans discussion in one fell swoop.

- On 4OCT he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [128]

- He, again unilaterally, has started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout 2014 military intervention against ISIS. But he's done it in such a sloppy way that we now have both terms being used interchangeably throughout.

- He repeatedly tells people who question these edits to "AGF" and repeatedly files frivolous ANIs asking for people to be topic banned. I use the term "frivolous" objectively - I was among those he filed an ANI against and it tracked 10 editor comments; only he and one other editor !voting in support of said ban.

Request: There is a fine "partisan" balance in these articles and the "side" on which LP has aligned himself (who, with the exception of LP, are cooperative and interested in consensus building) will most certainly oppose any action against him as this would disrupt said balance. So, I'm not asking for any "sanctions." What we would appreciate much more than that is an uninvolved admin simply doing a drive-by on the article's talk page for the next couple days. I know it's a lot to ask but I think it's more productive than bans or blocks. DocumentError (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The continual attacks and the editors own hostility and obvious bias speak for themselves. I already responded to most of these accusations in an ANi against DocumentError and on the talk page points 33-39. None of them have any substance. For example, the consensus dealt very clearly with the American-led coalition, but now DocumentError expands it to mean all parties - seems like a straight up intentional misrepresentation about me. I doubt I'll want to add much else here. Legacypac (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Telling you to "chill out" is not "hostility" but I apologize if you took it that way. We've tried everything from begging to bargaining with you in an effort to get you to discuss before editing, particularly the major edits that you specialize in (such as renaming every instance of ISIS to ISIL [which has to be painstakingly, manually, undone] or repeatedly moving entire pages). If I resort to California surfer talk, please construe it as total and complete desperation, not hostility. DocumentError (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

124.180.144.121 seems to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Justa Punk

A quick glance at the edit history (Australian topics and professional wrestling), priorities (placing multiple templates on articles and then trying to get them deleted), phrasing when requesting AfD completions, and IP address (very close to 124.180.170.151, which was blocked earlier this year as a sockpuppet of Justa Punk) seems to show quite clearly that this is a sockpuppet of a banned used.

I have initiated a sock puppet investigation, but this took longer than the AfD itself during his most recent series of sockpuppets in April. Because he is not a member of the community, he should have no ability to initiate AfDs. I placed a speedy deletion template on it, as I was told to do last time, but he has removed it. I do not want to get into an edit war, so I am bringing it here in the hope of speeding up the process (at least with the AfD). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I completed the AfD for the IP after they requested it at WT:AFD. Since it is not obviously contentious, disruptive or pointy - from the discussion so far there is clearly doubt as to the subject's notability - I am happy to take responsibility for it (it would seem pointless to delete it and restart it). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR is at it again

I tagged Tsebo Outsourcing Group as a creation of banned user WP:Wiki-PR, and the next day they used a sockpuppet to remove the speedy delete tag. Looks like the article title needs to be salted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If ever there was a candidate for salting this is it. DocumentError (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside canvassing incident

Hi all,

Not quite sure if this is the correct avenue (I haven't edited for quite some time), but I thought it might be important to mention an incident of outside canvassing -- see http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2ifn42/wikipedia_editors_please_help_christian_editors/

Best, --Iamunknown 15:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)