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

Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban?

• Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• WhisperToMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am not involved directly in this dispute. I found it in October 2014 following up on Skookum1's concerns of copyright violation in the article Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver (my first note on the topic). I found no evidence of copyright problems but was shocked by the hostile tone I found Skookum1 taking with WhisperToMe.

explanation of concerns

From that thread on that date alone: "your complete ignorance of the subject matter"; "half-informed comments"; "your presumptiveness"; "arrogant rubbish"; "your speciousness, and your arrogance, in these matters, is breathtaking." (All still visible at Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver#Focus of this article.) WhisperToMe subsequently requested my assistance with ongoing incivility (see recent talk page note, including some examples of edits that concerned him; also older note)). Particularly concerned to find he had left this hidden note in article space, I wrote on Skookum1's talk page on 30 December urging him to calm the discussion down and work towards dispute resolution, or I would be seeking an interaction ban. (See the conversation in context as of this writing here.) The situation is not improved: "Here I am trying to educate the woefully uninformed." (1/4); "Maybe "someone" will take the time to read actual sources other than his own personal preference for ethno-focussed history and LEARN SOMETHING instead of treating me like I was a liar. I am not; and he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (1/6; emphasis in original) Skookum1 claims the incivility is mutual, but the only example I've found cited of incivility from WhisperToMe is in his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective. To quote Skookum1, from January 4th: "I want verifiability and proof what you're saying' is AGF and NPA at the same time, as you're implying I'm lying (which is what your ethno-drivel sources do all the time, when not saying things out of pure ignorance of the reality); you have a responsibility to believe a senior editor who's been around here half your short life and who has read more on his province's history, and written more Wikipedia content on "Chinese in BC" than you apparently like to be blissfully ignorant of - or are too caught up in their own incestuous ivory tower to actually explore the province and read the local histories (not all of them written by "white" people and dismissable as such, as they are wont to do,even though those local histories are generally very flattering towards Chinese in their respective areas). This is the same concern I noticed and addressed in my first note on the subject - in response to Skookum1's 10/23 note that said, in part: I am at least three times your age, an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing, and very knowledgeable about my home province which you are NOT.... Who are you to say? You're a "Young Adult" (codeword for "late teenager") who just discovered this subject and now make pronouncements on it as if you were an expert to the point you can "assure" me of anything. WhisperToMe has recently filed a request for intervention at WP:NORN (thread) which may or may not be derailed by this battlefield behavior, although I note that Skookum1 has produced some sources, perhaps in response to that thread. I considered waiting in case that was revolved, but I think that the battlefield behavior (even in that post, he attacked WhisperToMe) is once again escalating and in any case has gone on long enough.

Unless somebody has any other ideas for how to stop this, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. A limited duration may be enough to do it - perhaps until the core issue is settled by others - but I think the behavior here is toxic, a violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and especially WP:DEPE. Skookum1 undoubtedly will feel that this interaction ban should be mutual; I think a mutual interaction ban would be better than no interaction ban, but would suggest a one-way interaction ban restricting Skookum1 from engaging WhisperToMe unless there is significant evidence that WhisperToMe has been incivil beyond his requesting verification of his Canadian elder. Skookum1 has voiced his concerns about this article; if he withdraws from the conversation, perhaps others can see it through.

This is out of my usual area (copyright), but I really can't stand by and not try to do something when I see a situation like this. I believe that fights of this sort can and do wreak havoc on Wikipedia. I think it needs to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If I might register a non-administrative opinion. First, I appreciate Moonriddengirl attempting to assist an editor who feels accosted. Many editors of all stripes lately seem unwilling to do that because of the pain and suffering it usually entails with no reward. That said, I think Skookum1 is simply expressing natural frustration at a proposal that seems to be pushed at a more rapid rate than is perhaps advisable. WTM and Skookum appear to be the only two editors active on this topic which seems to be the genesis of conflict. Instead of an IBAN, I would personally volunteer to involve myself in this article to increase the range of voices, if the discussion could be restarted in the form of a new and fresh proposal and the previous 3 sections archived. That might be unconventional but an IBAN should really be avoided in this case if at all possible IMO as it would leave the article derelict of editors. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a new proposal. Perhaps the reason why I have been pushing strongly first for a rename, and then a split, is because I created the article to focus on Vancouver in particular. The user unilaterally moved it and changed the focus, and my move proposal (my way of opposing the unilateral move) failed. - My guess on why this behavior is this way has to do with Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion. I first started Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. After he suggested making a Indo-Canadians in British Columbia I started it, and the interaction went south. I had the impression he thought the content from other parts of the province was neglected, so I would make one to collect the rest of the info, but he saw it as preventing a merge/page move he felt should take place. I was seeing as "I started the article on the subject I want to write about, and you can write about the subject you want to write about here, so we both can be happy". In retrospect I should have made a userspace draft as such a thing is easily reversible and not on the mainspace. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My interactions with the user began here:

WhisperToMe's note

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#If you make articles on ethnic Indian populations in Canada, be sure to include info on Air India 182's impact on the community. For full disclosure: There was one edit in October I made where I was criticized by User:Antidiskriminator, in Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion (background is in the first post about Air India) - He argued that I had made an error in conduct See: "Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" It concerns this text that I made at (WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ): "Oops. I didn't mean to imply that I'm of Indian heritage. I'm not of Indian heritage. Nonetheless, I have a revelation that you may be interested in. Let's discuss a lovely thing called WP:GNG. Let's review what it says. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So what do we have? [...]" Talk page discussions about the reply: User talk:WhisperToMe#Indo-Canadians User talk:Antidiskriminator#Conduct issues I don't recall receiving any messages like that since October. Antidiskriminator also talked to the user here: User talk:Skookum1#"that merge discussion" On 2 November User:Blueboar asked both of us (myself and Skookum) to let other people talk: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Should titles/focuses of articles be determined through reliable sources or personal experiences and opinions? and Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver#Seek a third opinion please In November a user reported that there were no issues on my end in that discussion: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Third opinion "Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My past interactions with Skookum1 were not so positive and in line with the behavior quoted above. He went to the wall saying nasty things to defend an erroneous news report about a birth name at Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, a position overturned by other editors in a RfC. A one way interaction ban may be justified. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only had positive experiences with Skookum1 and I don't see anything here that's really terrible. But as I said, I'm happy to become active in this thread as a third voice if both parties think that would be helpful and a fresh start to whatever the major edit question going on here could be proffered via a new section and the closing/archiving of all previous discussions. DOCUMENT★ERROR 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's okay, Document, would it be alright if you commented on the following views from me? These are my observations on the matter.

WhisperToMe's observations

Everyone comes in with a set of knowledge, and some people do know more about a subject than others. Wikipedia is very clear that verifiability is an important cornerstone, and so even if you know something, you have to present evidence (as per WP:V). The requirement for exact page cites/chapter cites is not instruction creep, and it's not a trivial/unimportant detail. It's meant to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and I don't want to be caught in a "you think you know but it just ain't so" situation. It's also why possession of the works you are citing from is very important, so you can go back and double-check what they say. Especially after the Essjay incident there is a reason to strongly emphasize "these are the sources I have, here are the page numbers, this is what the text says" versus "this is who I am" and trying to use that as leverage in a discussion Somebody else brought that up here: Talk:Chipewyan#Requested move 2 "Per Kwami, also I want to see reliable sources that establish that one usage is now more common or preferred over another - we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that, that is not how wikipedia works." (from User:Maunus) - I think this point needs to be strongly reinforced. @Maunus: Many replies are way too long. The personal tone and length makes them unpleasant to read, and I think this discourages other people from participating in the discussions. I think people said nothing to try to make it go away, but I think the best thing to do now is to address it. I think I have my own problem with making "lists of sources" too long, so a trick I have decided to do from now on is hatting the lists of sources/concerned edits so people aren't scared by the length of the reply. When you edit a super-local topic, many readers/fellow editors won't be from the area. Things that seem obvious to you are in fact not obvious. It means having patience with people not from the area, and taking extra effort to cite your sources to verify what you know. It is necessary to see all editors as equals, even those who are new and not from your area, even those of a different age.

What do you think of these comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I've had plenty of patience with you, despite your ongoing impatience and imperious judgment-mongering and very often rephrasing/distorting what I said; as has the even more uninformed person on your latest RfC on that page. When I mention other wikipedia articles, or events I know from my own readings on talkpages demanding page-cites rather than simple book cites is NOT called for by WP:V; I've given plenty of talkpage "here, go read this" recommendations and instead seeking help combating me.....he doesn't see me as an equal, but as an enemy. I think your comments are just more of teh same; you rejected me as a local informant right off the bat and there's another OR/ANI in the archives about that....and this is not a "super-local topic", this is a general history of a major Canadian province, with much more depth and breadth than he understands... or is even willing to give some t hought to, instead treating all I say with AGF and an implicit NPA. And Maunus, Maunus is a fierce Skookum1 hater see Talk:Chaouacha; his comments there should have seen him banned for life, instead here you are resarching what others ahve said about me instead of researching the topic as I have been doing while you have been ranting about me...to try and rfield the very sources you're too preoccupied with opposing me to deign to look for.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "fierceSkookum1 hater" I am a colleague who has found it very hard to collaborate with you for the same reasons WhispertoME is mentioning. 1. Your idea that your personal knowledge and identity has any relevance or validity as leverage in discussions or as a source of information for articles. 2. Your egocentered, abrasive and agressive argumentation style, and your extreme longwinded rambling answers. Yes I have had my temper flare up in our discussions with you and said rude things, but not an ounce ruder than you have treated myselkf and others, and not an ounce ruder than you have deserved. You are an angry mastodon to be sure, but one with extremely thin skin - you like to give out thrashings left and right, but act like an offended 4 year old when someone gives you back. Whenever you have decided to stick to the point, argue based on sources and rational argumentation, and follow basic policy I have had no problem with you. That has not been as often as I would have wished, but it has happened on several occasions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

given the amount of time this hornswoggle ANI has already taken, I'm not going to bother to do dig up your various explicit hostilities abut me, or the ANI you launched which was full of lies I did not bother responding to but did comment later when it was archived, and saw that reversed; that ANI, groundless and NPA as it was, was closed "no result". That "angry mastodon" comment is far worse than my "linguistics cabal" caution which earned me a block warning; you say rude things all the time, and distort things I and others have said; and in the case of BC history and geography, the idea that my knowledge has "[no] relevance or validity" is poppycock; I've been trying to help and educate him and pointing him at things he should be reading and providing examples of things that put the lie to gaffes and simplistic distortions/generalizations in his selection of academia and political writings. He's been the one rejecting me, not wanting to listen to me, instead seeking support to silence or negate me, or as with recruiting you here, to denounce me. INSTEAD of researching content/sources as I have been doing while all his ranting, and this ANI, has been going on.

I know the material, know what sources have what in them, even if I can't provide page-cites (which aren't needed on talkpage discussions though he's behaving as if they were), and have a concern that "fair" coverage of "white" British Columbians is not being provided by those sources, or his selections from them. He's the one more concerned with opposing the very person he could learn much from; the article is a pastiche of TRIVIA and UNDUE and sometimes even what amounts to SPAM; but he doesn't know the province or its milieu, only what he reads in academia and what he's looking for to bolster his line of thinking. But these are wasted words on you, you don't see that he's doing the same "walls of text" and BLUDGEONing behaviour I so regularly get accused of and that nearly anything he comments about me or to me is AGF/NPA as if, to quote you, "we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that" in our own uncalled for AGF/NPA campaign to block all those the RMs on all those speedies hat Kwami pulled without discussion and proceeded to tooth-and-nail any attempt to revert them to their stable and wiki-consistent forms they had had for so long..... on BC history and geogrpahy, I'm the "go-to guy" for resources and clarifications; here I'm being treated as a liar and "not to be believed".Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing weird in not wanting to take your word for anything, or in not accepting your personal knowledge. As I have tried to explain to you about a million times it is basic policy. We cite sources. What your karate teacher told you over lunch is not a source. Regardless of how knowledgeable he or she is. (I am not making this up, Skookum used something his karate teacher has told them regarding the preferred endonym of the Mi'kmaq people as an argument in a move discussion). I very rarely see you providing any written or online sources for your statements, much less pagenumbers which - yes can be a requirement if others are not otherwise able to find the source and verify it. I do assume good faith from you. What I dont assume from you anymore is competence. Especially social competence. By the way if people end up handing out interaction bans I wouldnt mind a mutual one with Skookum1 as well. Very rarely does anything good come from us crossing paths. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: What page discussion are you referring to? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the exact page right now, but it was somewhere in the loooong discussion that lead up to this which took page at different talkpages, wikiproject pages and article discussions. It was a minor part of the great Indigenous Naming War between Skookum1 and Kwamikagami. I am pretty sure that he mentioned earlier that one of the "acquaintances" he mentioned that he had consulted and wished to use as support for his argument was a martial arts teacher. Meanwhile he never linked to any of the very good Mikmaq dictionaries and discussions about the nomenclature that are reliable published and available online. It is not the only time that I have argued with him and he has insisted that his knowledge from acquaintances and personal experience trumps reliably published sources. That has been the main source of frustration in interacting with Skookum1, that and his belligerence. Actually I share most of his political and cultural views, but nonetheless he tends to paint me as "cultural imperialist exploiting/insulting native people" in these discussions. He even does this with some of our Native American editors when they disagree with him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Definitions of Indo-Canadian: "Point is about Duncan is one of my good friends in BC was raised there; he's Sikh, but lives now in Richmond; his life cannot be separated by arbitrary titling judgements made by someone in Texas who only knows about the place through books he's found so far. You sourced Kelowna but did you know to include West Kelowna, Peachland, Lake Country which are part of "Greater Kelowna". Of course not, because you have no idea where you're talking about. BTW the mayor of Lillooet I spoke about, his extended family is in Kelowna, I worked under his nephew (a film producer, now deceased) who lived in Burnaby; as with many IC families, they are not limited by the boundaries of Greater Vancouver, nor should your neophyte article be so limited; your opposition to the marge and the way you are doing it is obstructionist and your behaviour very questionable." - Do you mean something like this? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Personal anecdotes offered as supporting evidence for arguments about how to write articles. And hostility and aspersions to those who point out that it is not a valid form of evidence or argumentation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: WP:V says: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - What I want out of this discussion is not an interaction ban, but the Wikimedia community making it clear that published sources are the be-all-end-all on Wikipedia and that this is not a trivial point and it needs to be understood by everyone. I had attempted to make this clear at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Should titles/focuses of articles be determined through reliable sources or personal experiences and opinions?.

• @0x0077BE: had said: "Is anyone disagreeing with you (other than Skookum1) on the question of whether it would be OR to determine article titles or content based on personal experience? That's pretty much the definition of OR. I'm guessing it's not hard to find a consensus on that."
• On that OR noticeboard page I referred to this statement by Skookum Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver#This is all the more reason for there to NOT be two articles: "The Indo-Canadian experience and community you only know second-hand through your precious books; I'm personally interconnected to it and, as a long-standing BC editor who's contributed reams to Wikipedia about my home province, know what I'm talking about. YOU don't, no matter how many books or quotes your throw at me....or how many demands you make that *I* go find something to prove *my* case."

The OR page does say "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" - But I feel when someone is trying to determine article content, it should apply.

I don't want this issue to slip away. I want it clarified. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, in response to your request for a comment from me let me say that I understand and empathize with your frustration. However, I think that when you have two editors with diametrically opposed editorial viewpoints editing in a single niche article in which no other editors are active, this is a situation that often develops after a protracted period (and it seems this has been a slow devolution that's occurred over a period of time). I don't know anything about you, but you seem like a fine editor. I have edited on a couple of occasions with Skookum1 and have had nothing but a pleasant experience at those times, even though (IIRC) we were on the opposite ends of a content debate.

I don't believe either you or Skookum1 has done anything that can't be chalked up to the natural evolution of human emotions and interaction in this circumstance. Taking a holistic view with all that under consideration I just don't believe there's anything here that can't be addressed through a fresh start supported by the introduction of one or two additional GF editors into this article to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints. The only thing I can say at this point is that, again, I am happy to provide myself as one of those viewpoints if the two of you think that is an advisable path forward (if so, someone please leave a message on my Talk page as I'm unlikely to check this thread again). The topic of this article is not one in which I have any interest at all so I probably could be effectively neutral. Again, these are just my drive-by observations and they might be wrong (maybe massively so). DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:DocumentError, I appreciate your feedback here, particularly as I'm concerned that this may turn into yet another filibuster, but I would ask you: do you think that hidden, personal comments about other editors are appropriate in article space, such as this one? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, Maggie Dennis (WMF), I didn't see that comment until you posted it just now. That said, I don't find it that egregious. It was certainly a pointed remark, but within a holistic view of the evolution of the Talk page, I didn't think it was really outrageous. Skookum1 seems frustrated by repeated calls for the presentation of RS in Talk, while WTP is frustrated by Skookum1's expression of his frustration. IMO, neither editor is really at fault, this is just one of the daily conflicts of life. That said, you seem better informed generally of the situation than I am so if there was a more sinister subtext which I did not pick-up on I, of course, trust your judgment. As I noted below, my original comment was really just a drive-by observation and should not be taken with any more gravity or import than that. If it was not helpful, I apologize. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DocumentError, I believe feedback is always helpful, especially in cases where people may be reluctant to wade in. Although I disagree with you about the egregiousness of bringing personal disputes into article space, I appreciate your opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Moonriddengirl, I was multi-tasking and didn't notice the edit in question was in article space as opposed to talk space. I strike my comment (without prejudice to either editor). DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right, DocumentError; I name RS all the time, including many accepted as valid on various other pages about "content WMT doesn't know or care about [yet]" or just doesn't want to admit could be real. His interpretation of RS and V is that page-cites are "required", which as per my other comment about that below, is NOT what WP:V or WP:RS say; he's extrapolating and projecting instruction creepage with his personal "synth" of what he claims the guideline says but doesn't, and then being all wiki-cop about it saying he'll delete anything that doesn't have a page cite. WTF? Who's he to be so high-handed about things he doesn't know about when he's only just begun to be even aware of BC history, never mind its social geography and the political complexities he's wading into (and I don't mean ethno-history, I mean the presence of Chinese and Indo-Canadians prominent in BC politics...and crime/gangs). Good judgment and "knowledge of the field" are "required" and all that stuff has to be "handled with care"; I added certain "notables" to the page yesterday that are in need of doing for a long time, but as witnessed by the ongoing "weird" activity at Bindy Johal and Indo-Canadian organized crime it's an area I'm averse to getting much involved with; and re the Chinese, it's rather strange that given the role of the tongs and the history of the opium/heroin trade in Vancouver that's not in the article, but then it's not in any of he sources he uses which avoid so much while conflating and distorting much else (actually I recall one "new history" article which discussed white women being found in opium dens in China, deconstructing it to denounce Victorian values of course).

I've read dozens of those things, and the "tone" is always the same; and egregious historical and geographic gaffes are regularly made in the same breath as very judgement and negative generalizations about evil ol' whiteman. Want to build a POV article? Use only POV sources/passages and fight like hell to get anyone in your way off your back, and despite "his frustration at my frustration" it's HIM that's been conducting an ongoing campaign to discredit me and/or rally others to his cause; especially my "enemies" it seems, with out-of-context nastiness being trumped up here from the distant past to "build his case"; his agenda being to get me out of his way, perpetrate the POV fork he wants so it conforms to his parameters of "ethnicity-by-city", a cause which he went at when I pointed out no otehrs existed in Canada other than the Jews-in-Montreal one and certain very specific others; he created maybe 10 articles all in one day, throwing up quotes and formatting them so they were more than stubs, but they're just placeholders; Chinese in Toronto was an obvious POV fork of Chinatown, Toronto but I changed it to Ontario, because of Markham and other places; same as I changed his "Vancouver-limited" Indo-Canadians title to "in teh Lower Mainland" because of the very prominent Indo-Canadian community in Abbotsford-Mission, just outside the GVRD boundaries, which he thinks somehow is in isolation from Surrey, only 10-15 miles away.....he argued and argued and, to prevent me from changing taht tittle to "in British Columbia" as I'd done with this one, as Indo-Canadian society and history in BC are not limited by region boundaries, and his notions of what "urban" and "rural" mean in BC is taht of a distant person with a greasy spyglass.

The merge discussion on that he stonewalled to the point where even the RfC person he called in couldn't make sense of it, so we have a pair of POV forks caused by him there, and here, and he went at them without even looking at what else in teh way of Canadian content there is; he's on an agenda, and says plainly on his talkpkage, and he doesn't want anyone in his way. He's shown no sign of being respectful or admitting I might know what I'm talking about, instead launches tirades and loud demands about page-cites where they're not even required and claims I'm not providing RS because I don't have the books handy to give page-cites; which you, DocumentError, were perhaps misled by something he said about what I said but did not, as he has so often done in talkpage after talkpage and discussion board after discussion board. Again, I point to RS all the time, he gets anal and demanding and impatient about page-cites, when he knows I'm even farther from British Columbia at present and can't "comply" with his Borg-like demands.

Despite his supposedly soft speech, his actions are aggressive and negative and not productive; he wants a big stick to drive me away....from watching out for my own province's/country's history from misportrayals by well-meaning but uninformed people who've never been there and only just started writing articles about it...apparently scanning for sound-bite type content, and any old bit of trivia or community-bulletin board content..while being completely hostile to the idea that others might know of content that should be on there... and point him to places he could learn about that; instead he comes here, calls in RfC, and alleges indirectly and otherwise that I'm dishonest and 'not to be trusted'. I'm no fool, I see the campaign and know it for what it is, and have seen this kind of thing before, whether from ethno-agendists like him or from political interlopers like on Talk:Adrian Dix, and Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster...and oh yes, Talk:Chinaman and Talk:Chinaman (term) where he'll find others like him ready to come here and denounce me but where they lost their attempts to POVize and censor content; which is his agenda here, plain and simple. Other than that obvious fact, as a review of what he has added and waht he has fought off or denounced or challenged clearly demonstrates, he's exhibiting very obvious WP:OWN behaviour and seems determined to have "sole authorship" and does not want to cooperate with an experienced Wikipedian who's already contributed LOTS in thie particular topic-area....and is tired of being harassed and insulted, and needs his pills and some dinner...sorr this was so long it was only meant to be about RS, but this is not a simplistic matter despite the simplistic arguments and misrepresenations being made about me, adn about the content. Has he gone and read any of t he cites I added to the CCinBC talkpage yet? No, I'll be he's writing up another 100-word essay, with footnotes, just like Bo Yang's juicy quote about such behaviour when you tell someone of thtat background he's wrong; he can't admit he's wrong he'd lose face; he'd rather shame and denounce the person telling him he's wrong, and demand that they be punished for making him feel bad. I need my dinner...and to remember to say away from this hell-hole tomorrow, this procedural war has been going on for weeks, and doesn't look like it's giong to stop. Instead of reading, and ordering books if he's so damned interested in the topic (instead of only reviews of them...maybe he can find some Coles Notes too, to help him out so he doesn't actually have t o buy a book), and LEARNING he's here battling somebody into the ground who is the very person who could teach him a lot....but hey he has a degree and I'm just some angry old white guy with no degree (though I do have eight years of post-sec, just no walking papers), and he's learned to speak softly and ask others to use their big stick. I know a lot about my province's history and care about how it's portrayed a whole lot. To me he's a an "ethno-cultural imperialist" fond of revisionist and revanchist sources. Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Skookum1. I stand duly corrected. That was poor wording on my part. I meant only to reference your note below that page cites for talk page discussions on material unlikely to be challenged are not customary or necessary. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's statements on sourcing

@DocumentError: @Skookum1: When I said page cites are needed, I didn't mean that every single thing you say on a talk page has to have cite. What I meant was: If you want to challenge what a source says, if you argue that a source is incorrect, you need to provide a better source to challenge it (with page numbers and text, as access to the source is important), and/or a source that directly contradicts the claims made by the first source. The principle reason why I asked for sources is that I was told the existing sources I was using (such as Paul Yee) were wrong. Example: "which gold rush? Yee's sloppy history shoudl not be put here uncritically, he's wrong; see inine comments; and removing more POV-source-driven use of capital-W "Whites"" and "removing more racist language carried over from POV source (Yee); and more fixes of bad English style/writing" I wanted verification that this is indeed the case. If there is no verification that the sources are flawed and the sources qualify as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia, then I feel they cannot be challenged. I feel that if I cite from a source, the source should not be second-guessed unless evidence comes out from another source showing that it did make a mistake. For example, the historical mistakes in Hmong: History of a People (and the ones carried over to The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down) are documented in later books and this how the community knows it's a flawed source. AFAIK is different from a source occasionally making a minor error in fact (this happens in RSes and I knew this from reviews of Talk:Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China): Example: Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Victoria CBA and the Sino-Japanese War. I was able to check the Wikipedia page to see that the war indeed started years later, so I figured Shibao Guo may have made an error in fact there I had been told that all of the sources I am using are wrong and I should use other ones without being given the exact page/article citations proving the sources I'm using are wrong (Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#POV b.s. reinserted, I see). That is putting an inappropriate burden on me. WP:V is clear on who has the burden of proving content. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comments I don't have time today for all this gabble; re "I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct", he seems to have forgotten @Themightquill:'s advice that while my "tone" is questionable, 9 times out of 10 (or more) I'm right about the materials and information I bring forward; over and over and over again.

Skookum1's reply

Legacypac is a "hostile" who edit-warred and used false and/or misleading edit comments on his POV and censoring manipulations of the Ottawa page, which I delisted because of the stress and because others had come forward who recognized the issues I raised so that Legacypac and others like him in the "terrorism claque" do not have free rein to use such events to advance the "terror agenda". DocumentError echoes what you will hear from editors aplenty, that I work well with others who work well with others. @Floydian:, @Skeezix:, @Carrite:, @CLippert:, @Mindmatrix:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @VolcanoGuy:, and various others can attest to the scale of my contributions; even @GroundZero: and @Resolute:, who have been at times at odds with me, will attest to my knowledge and dedication and that I don't make things up as WMT is constantly impugning about me. Moonriddengirl, you say you were shocked by my tone, but you were a late-comer to the ongoing 'MASS of talkpage and discussion board wall-papering of forumshopping to try to stop me from everything from correcting the name of Asian Indians in Vancouver, including his "war" over that term alleging it was right because some non-Canadian source is so out of touch that they use that instead of "Indo-Canadians". Then he went to war over that, and wanted to merge it to South Asians in Canada, and his "walls of cites" and original research analysis of things he's selectively looked have kiboshed merge discussions and RMs alike. He's right, it started with him being confrontational about the Air India bombing supposedly not being covered, and ordering "us" to do it, just as he demanded "I want an answer immediately" in his latest talkboard attack on me at the OR board, which I consider a rank NPA/AGF alleging that I'm lying. So that, Moonridden girl, is UNCIVIL, as is constantly warring with me on nearly anything I say, including pointing him to resources that, rather than go look for them, or read the other related Wikipedia articles (he POV-forked big-time on the creation of CCinBC, but he has a stated agenda of building a global "ethnicity-by-city" series of titles, and titles that don't fit that model he just doesn't want in his way; despite the existence of Chinatown, Vancouver and other articles already covering "Chinese in Vancouver"; also a term he went to war about, even bringing it to the CANTALK page disputing that it's a global term so "Greater Vancouver" isn't needed; a long-dead issue. It seems that I can't tell him about something I know without him demanding a page-cite because he doesn't believe me; and wants others to take action that he can continue to WP:OWN his stable of articles; he wants me out of his way. But of all Wikipedians, I'd venture, I'm the one most "up" on BC history and geography and as many know, I built a lot of the content and category structure for those areas in BC, and I also made sure that Chinese content was on town/region/gold rush et al. articles; so it's not like I'm trying to oppose Chinese Canadian history, as is the other thing his ongoing attacks on my subtextually assert, but rather trying to see that it gets dealt with fairly; and not written as an ethno-politics bulletin board or tract. His sources are biased and have huge numbers of bad geographic and historical gaffes and "false statements", which is a problem of that particular school of "thought" (soapboxing); he rejects the idea that there are things that are out there that he doesn't know of yet, nor did his oh-so-hoity-toity academic sources. The idea that a bulldozering OWNership artist's battleground behaviour on nearly anything would lead to me having an interaction ban re BC history or geography articles is absurd; he knows little about BC, has never been there, knows none of the rest of the province's historical and social context other than his snippets of cites (he can't possibly have read them ALL, given he posts dozens at a time), and rather than researching and learning, he's waging war. Here's what I say: interaction ban, fine, but to me that means a topic ban for him and he can go to some other country and continue his "ethnicity by city" agenda there; the article is a mess, full of TRIVIA and UNDUE and bad writing and POVism....and because of his warring and procedural games, now including this one though Moonriddengirl started it, I haven't had time to add to the non-WMT content on that article re gold rush history and smalltowns in the Interior and more; it's all the stuff he, and his sources, don't know about and given his behaviour don't want to know about, as it's in the way of the ethno-bias they advance; his instruction creep demand that page-cites be provided - which is an extenuation of the citation guidelines and rule-mongering; that simple book-cites aren't enough for him because I can't be believed is plain and simple AGF and a vulgar NPA not just insinuating that I am a liar, which is a gross insult given my years here and teh begrudging respect I've earned, even from those who don't like my straight-talking style, about my scope of knowledge and of the resources out there. Being treated as he has been doing since day one is what is UNCIVIL, Moonriddengirl, and his behaviour on all titles he's started is plainly OWN and nothing but. That I might see a topic ban on an area of my own province's history I know very well because of the battleground and OWN and POV behaviour of someone in another country working from biased and/or faulty sources is ludicrous; he needs to cool his jets, stop being so frigging demanding and impatient and re things like demanding page-cites, cool it with the anal OCD behaviour. He's creating articles and dart-boarding them with ethno-trivia so rapidly they're pastiches and too many to watch all at once; how he finds the time to write his discussion page diatribes against me I don't know; the impatience of the young, plus their incredulity and hostility towards thsoe who know more than them, or who tell them things they don't want to hear, is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia, and older, well-informed editors like myself should not have to deal with "I don't believe you" and cite-demands and discussion-board warring. Wiki-copping by someone who doesn't even know the material and clearly has no respect or good faith in another, long-established Wikipedian, from the topic-turf he's only so recently invaded, is what is disruptive; not me. Is throwing up his anti-Skookum1 tirades helping improve the article or the encyclopedia? No. why is he warring with me when he hasn't even begun to look at the vast array of sources out there I pointed him to? I looked up his user contributions and it seems he has opted out of the edit summary tools; so I can't see what percentage of his contributions are talkpage contributions vs actual work on articles. I'm betting 60-40 or 70-30, from what I've seen. Here I am, another hour of my day taken up with yet more procedure and yet more walls-of-cite distortions/whining by the very person who's been so difficult and confrontational to deal with, and condescending too; so much wrong with his behaviour I'm AGHAST that he's an admin. his combativeness and ongoing disruptive and hostile and OWN behaviour should go to RFA as I think he should not continue to have admin powers, as he clearly has little good judgement and as one of the authors I cited, who I know personally, re the content commented when I showed him the CCinBC talkpage, "Hmmm. Well, I think I have a copy of Dan's dissertation. What is this guy's beef exactly? He's not exactly coherent..." (he's referring to Dan Marshall's Claiming the Land PhD dissertation which broke new ground in BC historiography (he's a protege of Cole Harris of The Resettlement of British Columbia) which I brought up to oppose some bad content form WMT's "academic but inaccurate" sources about there being only 300 Chinese gold miners at t he start; the first boatload, yes, but hundreds of boats made the trip in the next months; within a month Victoria had gone from 300 people to 30,000, about a thid of them Chinese - according to Marshall; but not according to the badly-written sources that WMT seems as infallible. I'll actually be able to page-cite Marshall, as it sounds like Don (Hauka) is going to email me a digital form of it; I'll consult Dan and see if it's copyrighted or if it's citable online; and what reviews there are about it. Last night I went through the first three pages of BC books on nosracines.ca and linked on Talk:CCinBC books found that a search for "Chinese" will get results; he'll complain I didn't format the links properly, no doubt, even though it's talkpage and not article. the Living Landcapes page of the RBCM has lots more. But he's not reading them or even trying to look, he's writing lengthy talkpage attacks/complaints instead and being .... as frustratingly stubborn as always. "Doesn't work well with others" and has no WP:RESPECT for a person who could be very helpful in his studies, including I've suggested book-translation projects for him, since he's suddenly so very now interested in BC, but instead he attacks me again....and others like you, Moonriddengirl, see only the surface and the result of ongoing and both arrogant and misinformed/biased warring on content and on talkpages. So here's "what", as far as I'm concerned: he should be told to cooperate with others knowledgeable about the topic area he's coopted for his empire-building and treat them with good faith; and not demand page-cites and other OCD crap which is utterly AGF, just as his forum-shopping and discussion board diatribes are implicitly NPA, and NOT CIVIL in the slightest; obstinate and disruptive in "soft speech" is often far more UNCIVIL than plain old "you're a jackass" rudeness; it is uncooperative in the extreme and not the way to write a balanced, informed article; rather the opposite. He should spend time reading more BC history, outside of his narrow-field ethno-history sources, before adding much more to the article, which needs massive revision, as do his other opuses on Indo-Canadians and other ethnicity-articles he's started, "staking out turf" on peoples and places he doesn't have any direct experience of. If he doesn't want to change his aggressive and obstructionary and actually defamatory attitude and actions towards me, and doesn't broaden his view of BC history outside the narrow ethno-bias he's been cultivating, and his particular geo-bias t hat he'd like to have (to fulfill his OWN agenda), then if there's an interaction ban, the very simple way to accomplish that without cutting me off from BC history and society articles is for him to find somewhere else on the planet to go appropriate and pontificate and edit-war about How much otherwise productive time has been taken up by ongoing procedural board-talk since he first showed up on CANTALK making demands and insinuations a few months ago? Way too many. If I could see his edit summary, it would be I'm sure very telling as to where he spends his time when on Wikipedia. his articles need "eyes on", they're random assemblages of found trivia, and credulous rendering of quoted material out of context, and without any effort to represent or understand "the other side of the story" and he makes no effort to listen to advice. NONE AT ALL including Themightyquill's comments about me generally being right despite my tone. If this ANI is going to take up days of people arriving to denounce me for making poor little WMT feel bad (and how do you think I feel, hm?), then despite my efforts and goodwill, if this results in a "bad call" that trashes me while shoring up a (to me) very irresponsible, rude and juvenile-in-attitude/behaviour edit, it may be time for me to leave Wikipedia for the seventh or eighth time; I always get asked back, or find myself "coming back in" because of POV manipulations, often, of native content/vandalism problems. Have a look at the star/badge section of my Userpage re that, just because WMT doesn't want to RESPECT me (as in WP:RESPECT which needs to be rewritten) doesn't mean that others don't respect me so much that they ask me to come back and/or not go away. he wants to drive me away, even get me blocked perhaps; I was pondering pointing to the OR board underway as an ANI myself, on NPA/AGF and other grounds, but internet service here in Cambodia is spotty so I was offline yesterday; and that I am regularly painted as the bad guy, just as MRG has started out with here, makes me shy away from using procedure to deal with problematic behaviour of this kind; and no wonder, given how much of my life, time and blood pressure aggressive attack ANIs have cost me this last few years; how much I could have contributed in the way of content and ongoing edits/maintenance instead of having to deal with obstructionism and ignorance is incalculable.

• I know my stuff, and have been trying to educate him; he's been rude in response, and procedurally and talkpage combative and NPA towards me; and yet it's me that's the attack-point in this ANI. MRG, you don't know the material (all of why I say what I say about him), just as he doesn't know BC history/geography or the full range of sources and reality/facts out there that he doesn't have a clue about; and apparently wants to remain as clueless as his "academic" sources are, even though there's sources aplenty that put the lie to the silly and biassed claims/statements that they so often make/allege.

• I have no more time for this today; how many hours of my life is his nonsense towards me going to take? the young have time to waste, it seems, but the old (I turned 59 two months ago) find time is precious and want to put it to good use; and we all (old folks) find it disturbing that the young are so disespectful...and so ignorant about the past, or what others who are older than them have to say. WP:EXP has various passages but none, as yet, about "wiki-elders" such as myself (another editor I'm working with is 84); just as there is an oingonig discussion about female editors in Wikipedia, there needs to be one about older Wikipediasn and the barriers to them, male or female, which include having to deal with "walls of b.s." procedure/talkpage/guideline warring like WMT is so clearly full-time at doing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum, I will attest to your knowledge and dedication, and that I have never believed you would "make something up". However, I would argue that you often do not handle conflict well and are generally better off when left to your own devices. That, alas, is not always possible here. Where you say you work well with others who work well with others, that is really just a fancy way of saying you rarely are opposed by those editors. And, other than the sentence I was mentioned in, I won't even pretend that I read that giant wall of text. Summary style man, not blog style. That said, nothing I say here should be viewed as commentary on this dispute, or on WMT, as I have not paid attention to this dispute at all. In that regard, I must trust Moonriddengirl's assessments. In any case, I wish DocumentError good luck with their offer of attempting to resolve this dispute. Resolute 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The intense irony of "Summary style man, not blog style" is what you shoudl be telling WMT; would you like a list of all the places where his ongoing blather and "walls of cites" have sought to WP:BLUDGEON merge discussions, RMs, and other ANI/OR board "discussions" with yet more "walls of text" even longer than I have been blocked and threatened with bans over. yet here again, pot-kettle-black. And at issue is the history of my own province being overrun by an agenda-ist who doesn't know the history-at-large, is on a POV bias-campaign and looks for POV material in POV sources, and carpet-bombs any discussion, and regularly makes overt implications that I am a liar; he's committing NPA/AGF with each and every one of his "walls of text"; all the while not following the leads I provide for him, instead demanding page cites RIGHT NOW (even though I'd told him my last few days were in life-crisis; others here know I have high blood pressure and that other withdrawals form Wikipedia were because of similar stressful combativeness by POV/OR artists on the Ottawa shootings article, Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster, and the "Kwami War" which I'm sure you remember, as others here must. And if you can't be bothered to read "walls of text" and so don't even read his walls of text either......then whatever I have said you have blithely passed over once again. But yes, while you say nobody disputes me that's not true; and many collaborate with me on various topics and respect my knowledge of hsitory/geography/sources and don't throw up board discussion after talkpage discussion after board discussion after talkpage discussion time and over again, instead of acknowledging that he doesn't know twaddle about what he's posting up POV content and TRIVIA and UNDUE about and might actually learn something from a real live British Columbian. But nope, Skookum1 is the bad guy, once again, for getting frustrated by somebody else's disruptive and obstructionist behaviour.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, my comment here does not reflect on the dispute that brought everyone to ANI because I have not paid attention to it. But you pinged me here in the expectation that I would act entirely in your defence. Instead, I gave my truthful view of both the defence you were asking for (which I agree with and support) and your argument that you work well with others (which I don't necessarily agree with). But in terms of your "intense irony", you know I have suggested in the past that your wall of text debate style is often counterproductive. If you have finally found an opponent as verbose as you, then I hope you at least begin to understand how difficult it is to parse. And if your opponent is that verbose, then I would suggest they need to keep the very same thing in mind - people don't read walls of text. They just become background noise that drowns out salient points. Resolute 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When I ask for page cites, it's not an accusation that the other party is making something up. It's simply to satisfy a demand to verify content.

An example of me asking for page cites: Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#annoyingly POV edit comment is a reference to (this edit which added a pagecite to Berton) and a reversal of this edit which argued that to highlight whites was racist - In diff#639658193 I am using page cites to support my position and I think it's fair to ask the other party to do the same.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can't the particular latest invocation by him of WP:V and he claims that it's not instruction creep to demand page-cites as per that guideline; in fact is is instruction creep, as his position does not appear in that guideline and appears to be an extraplation/combination of its first two paragraphs:

• All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]

• Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

• "The burden to demonstrate verifiability...is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." is plain and simple and can refer to a book cite without page-cites as we often see around Wikipedia. The next paragraph is in reference only to "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" - yet I have field no quotations, and the only person challenging what I know to on other wikipedia pages, and in cites and sources I point to, is him. Demanding page-cites so demandingly for talkpage discussions is NOT IN THE GUIDELINE.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." it is demanding division citations. For a large book, that means page or, at minimum, chapter citations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment because of an edit conflict with Maunus, I lost the place this bit was meant to go into:
  • Since you're researching anything negative about me that you can find - rather like your habit of looking for anything in your ethno-history sources that's negative about European/British-ancestry and only adding that - and are trying to recruit people who might have something to say about me in the hopes you can get me blocked and out of your bulldozing way, why not ask for comments from those that have given me barnstars and other awards. Of cousre, you don't want positive input about me....anything but huh? I've pinged some of them, but can't go around asking for comment myself directly; seems to me I deserve a barnstar for "speaking truth to ignorance" something like the "speaking truth to power" which @Viriditas: gave me in relation to keeping Legacypac and his ilk from the POVism/censoring of the Ottawa shootings article;

• • My position about this ANI is what it has been since my first reply; that it is misplaced and the wrong person being accused of being at fault for the "battlefield" conduct he's been waging against me. His researching others' negative comments about me, some very old, is very clearly a personal attack, and "not fair" - but then neither are his preferences in sources and content, either.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• 'comment to MRG in your exposition you say "his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective" but give your head a shake; verification with page-cites is NOT called for by ANY guideline, and it's not "perspective" I've been providing, but examples of events and articles and resources he needs to read to broaden HIS perspective. The only "perspective" I have is that NPOV is not served by his articles, and that they are effectively POV forks, and badly-written ones, albeit with massive cite-farms and link-farms that he cannot possibly have read; among so much else that he doesn't know about. He's also pushing above for a POV fork split again after that was already shot down by RM/consensus over a month ago; his agenda is "ethnicity-by-city" but frankly he doesn't even understand the boundaries and geography of the city ("Vancouver" meaening in his world the Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver (either or both apply internationally; even Whistler is written of as though it were part of Greater Vancouver which it is expressly not) and dosn't 'get" that Chinese history and society in BC is not defined by the city's boundaries, or that of its formal "metropolitan" area the GVRD/Metro Vancouver; the informal "metropolitan" are includes the Lower Mainland; My "perspective" is frm someone who knows his province's history and geography, and also what else is out there on Wikipedia already, which he ignored when he started hias POV forking and OR thesis-writing.Skookum1 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, in response to your note above that I am a latecomer, this is true. I do not say that WhisperToMe hasn't been a problem; I say if he is that you need to resolve this problem differently, if you are to be involved in resolving it. My efforts to get you to moderate your tone and use proper dispute resolution have unfortunately not succeeded. You indicate that some of the people who have issues with your behavior above are combative or have disagreed with you in the past - so far as I know, you and I have never disagreed, and I am not in the habit of attacking people. Even if he is doing something wrong, it doesn't give you license to attack him, with fresh comments (not stale) like "he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (from the 6th; diff in my opening note above; emphasis in original). Moreover, it's ineffective. Demonstrably in this case, your tone has become the focal point, and it will impede your efforts to demonstrate why you feel he is a problem.

A topic ban is not reasonable unless there is consensus that what he's doing is inappropriate and, after being advised of this consensus, he refuses to stop. At this point, such consensus doesn't seem possible because of the battlefield behavior.

As a side note, you are perhaps incorrectly remembering what he said at WP:NOR. He didn't say "I want an answer immediately." In full, he said, "Disclaimer: I have been in several disputes with the other editor. I was trying to use WP:Third opinion but based on the last post I feel that I want feedback immediately." It was not directed at you, but disclosing that he had tried and switched methods of WP:DR. He is not demanding an immediate answer of you, but requesting quick feedback on your dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ah, yes, that discussion where he says things about me but didn't notify me, and very wrong things I must add, also; behind my back, and pointedly so, and all of a kind with his many attempts to find others to confront me so he can have a free hand to OWN the article. IMO your interpretation of that line is just enablement, approving of his discussion-board warring ad nauseam. Dispute resolution? - I've been too busy responding to his many attacks and sundry absurdities -and also amassing online resources for him and others to use (hopefully others, because someone with more sophistication and open-mindedness to come along would be just great right about now) which, of course, he's not going to look at because he migth have to admit his biases and POV/biased sources aren't infallible. And re that comment, yes, he's impatient in the extreme, apparently has lots of time; I'm trying to survive in a foreign country and am in ill-health and dire circumstnaces yet here I am, because I care about my province's history and I care very much about people using Wikipedia for soapboxes and POVism of any kind. He wants me t o spend my time to fulfill his to-me-anal demands for page-cites, claiming guidelines say what they do not...and acting like both a propagandist and info-warrior intent not on reality, but with his own assumed authority over what's right adn wrong in Wikipedia and his imperious and very impatient demands that things be found right now. Pages have sat for years with unref and refimprove tags; he wants them two hours later. Rude and impatient and demanding; and mis-stating things I've said, even back to my face on certain talkpage posts which I'm not going to spend yet another hour finding and diffing.

Please shut this down, it can go nowhere constructively and is taking up valuable time (and some of my health and remaining precious time); his demands for page-cites on talkpages and articles alike are "too much" given his deletionist/hostile nature to what his own choice of sources/quotes build as "their case". An interaction ban can only mean one thing: a topic ban for him that thanks him for his contributions to BC and Canadian ethno-content, but suggests he take his "ethnicity-by-city" self-authored series of articles to some other country where he might actually know about the place a little bit before launching into a war with one of its reisdents, denouncing him and impunging he's a liar and waging procedural war against. Enough already; he should learn to work with me, learn to not challenge every damned thing I say and give credit wherre credit is due; 50 years of readings, and now 9 years on Wikipedia,and over 85,000 edits, and respected as a resource "go-to guy" for where sources are for BC, and about BC history in general. I'm not talking from an "original research" personal-testimony angle, but from someone extremely well-read in the field he's only just got his toes wet; he's not respectful and this ongoing war is what is UNCIVIL....IMO he needs a week off to discipline him and bring him to heel, because without that he will feel vindicated as to this kidn of conduct; he's happy to take up other peoples' time with his demands, his impatience is also an expression of that lack of respect for others. The AGF/NPA from him has been ongoing since our first interaction; he escalates it, takes it to forum after forum, and continues to "wall of text" in response to neaerly anything. I'd rather be working on that artidle and others; not having to keep him from succeeding in getting me gone, which by now is his very evident true agenda. If you don't like what a messenger is saying...shoot him...or rather, get someone else to so you can pretend innocence. And never admit you're wrong, that would be tantamount to shame, no? I've seen it all before, here and in Wikipedia and in the news/propaganda forums and blogs out there, including the pretentiously righteous and those who demand rules be followed. "You must comply", quoth Seven of Nine. If he's not putting thsoe sourcers I amassed while all this is going on into the article, but preparing another diatribe against me, actions speak louder than words; he doesn't want to learn, he doesn't want anyone else to edit "his" article....Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, he did notify you - he told you at WP:NORN that he did, and he gave you the link: [1]. It was observing that notice on your talkpage through my watchlist that drew me to look in on how the situation was going. I understand that you may have overlooked it, but it's there and it was posted immediately after the NORN discussion was opened. I'm very sorry to hear about your poor health, but I cannot in good conscience withdraw this request. Even the tone of your comment here concerns me, as it seems to view his behavior entirely in a negative (and in one point demonstrably untrue) light. :( It remains WP:BATTLEGROUND. If I felt that you would put aside your obviously strong personal feelings about this user and work out the problem in a collegial manner ("civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation"), I'd be happy to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Skookum1, I’ve defended you in the past, for the same reasons you articulate above - that you are dedicated, and knowledgable about B.C. history and geography. I identify with your pride in the place, and your love for its history. But what I’ve seen over the last two years or so very much seems to be a downward spiral towards anger and battleground mentality. It's a cycle - you work constructively on topics for a while, then find a contentious area, then find an opponent (or they find you), then all hell breaks loose. You have a tendency to fire point blank with both barrels when a shotgun isn’t even necessary. Then you are blocked, or quit. A few months later, the whole cycle repeats. Its bad for the content, its bad for editors caught in the melee, and, as you’ve said above, its bad for your health. And, sadly, it discourages people from working with you on the topics that could benefit from your knowledge. I’ve personally been on the edge several times of suggesting a big cleanup project to work on together, only to discover that you are so deeply embroiled in a talk-page war that I don’t even bother. Take this dispute, for instance. It may well be that I would agree with your position, if I was able to wade through all the interpersonal battling going on and get a handle on it. But I simply can’t. That would take up any bandwidth I have for editing, and then some. So I just don’t bother looking in to the disputes you find yourself in, even if they relate to topics that I have knowledge of, or access to knowledge of.

The collaborative part of this project isn’t just a matter of working well with people you work well with; it’s also about finding common ground with people you don’t. (And if that common ground is really not attainable, seeking consensus for your position from your peers.) No one “wins” with these highly charged and adjective-laden talkpage and noticeboard spats. Except maybe the internet service providers. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it, TE: I'm not the one starting or maintaining these discussions; all arise from his refusal to accept good faith about sources and facts and events that put the lie to, or dispute, the POV sources he's obsessing on; rather than address the sources I come up with, he disputes their validity, misquotes guidelines ("policies" he calls them) and has repeatedly sought to impugn my honesty and discredit what I have to say; I'm not the problem. If more BCers took care for their own province's history pages it would help a lot; I find myself the lone soldier against a tide of POV b.s. and, frankly, bad writing full of TRIVIA and UNDUE on a topic very important, and also highly-charged, in BC history, past and present. As usual, I'm being made a pariah even when I'm not the perp. he has behaved in an AGF and anti-consensus way since his first appearance in Canadian articles-space re the Air India bombing on CANTALK; I'm not dishonest, as you know, and I do know my BC history; trying to inform him of other aspects of Chinese history in BC and sources where he can read up has gotten me only insults and rejections and overweening "do it now or I'll delete it" ultimatums and discussion board after discussion board attacks on me and the sources I'm trying to get him to read and learn from. I really should pay attention to that meme around FB about "never argue with someone committed to misunderstanding you"...though that needs amending to "someone intent on misrepresenting anything you say". How much has he accomplished with his dozenz of incredibly long talkpage/board discussions othdr than to defray any energy I might have to work on the article itself?Skookum1 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, Skookum1, have it your way. No, I don't "get it" with this dispute, because, as I said above, the way you approach disputes discourages me from getting involved. I was trying to make some more general points about how your editing comes across. If you don't want to talk about the bigger picture, that's your right. But, as you can see below, there are people talking about blocking you, and I wouldn't be surprised, if not this time then the next, people start talking about indef blocks or bans. That's not something I want to see, but I really believe the only way it can be avoided is if you take a step back, and re-evaluate how you deal with opposition on Wikipedia. There will always be someone with whom you disagree, or some suite of articles that has fallen on hard times. There is almost unlimited opportunity for confrontation on this project. That isn't going to change. The Interior (Talk) 05:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently WhisperToMe isn't going to change, either, and his ongoing OR/SYNTH about what he claims WP:V means is only escalating with even more extrapolations about "requirements" that don't exist except in his own assertions/SYNTH claims about WP:V. I've toned down my language per this comment about his latest escalation of his continuing and obstinate attempts to censor even talkpage comments describing issues/events that should be in that article; see also Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion where his "walls of text" are way beyond the pale even beyond anything I've ever done; and yes "sophistry" is a very adequate and correct term to describe his ongoing and repetitive board-warrings and talkpage-bludgeonings; and bro, if other Canadian editors leave me to battle such tomfoolery on my own and see me get heated, that's the time to step in and provide Canadian-input and not see me get further baited and insulted; that would keep things frmo getting as far as they have here; same with that ridiculous campaign in previous ANIs to block me for having successfully RM'd most of the unnecessary and undiscussed moves that applied obsolete and often offensive names to Canada's native peoples; same with applying WP:CSG#Places, where there were a few "hostile closes" by the same admin who blocked me without consensus to do so while she had me blocked. I'm the one trying to be informative and responsible and being subjected to very clear anti-good faith comments and challenges and demands that talkpage discussions be page-cited and apparently need reflist templates. The same kind of hands-off-because-Skookum1 is there re Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster was similarly unproductive. If we leave Canadian history to be commandeered by someone with a very clearly POV agenda/bias about our own history, more's the pity. But blaming me because nobody else will intervene isn't working either; there's a lot of issues with various articles that need dealing with, and someone being obstructionist and disruptive by board-warrning intstead of listening and discussing issues and granting good faith about what's in sources he's never heard of is t he real issue here. Making me the issue is AGF; the content and Wikipedia's NPOV should be the issue. .... and also violating guidelines by board-warring asserting false claims about what guidelines require ("policies" he calls them, which they're not).Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I just lost at least a half hour of my life reading that massive wall of text, 90% by Skookum1. First of all, WP:V is policy and is not negotiable. No editor can say that they read the book six or eight years ago and later sold it, and cite it that way without page numbers. And then demand others buy the book. That is unacceptable. Every accusation that Skookum1 makes against other editors can be applied against Skookum1, ten times over. This editor has a lot to offer, but their combative attitude is way out of line. As is their longstanding habit of saying in 5000 words what can be better said in 100 words. It is wearying and disrespectful to other editors. Somehow, it must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you haven't seen all the other discussion board and talkpage rants by WMT huh? Too many to link, and he writes more than I do. The combative attitude has been HIS from the very start, when he started demanding coverage of the Air India disaster on WP:CANTALK and persisted throughout his many talkpage attacks on me and ongoing AGF towards anything I say; the OR board discussion is entirely AGF and rankly NPA, and full of instruction creep extrapolations on e.g. WP:V where the passage about page cites is ONLY about quotes from sources; it does not apply to talkpages; he even hunted out negative comments from others about me from the distant past; it's not ME who needs the cooling-of period; he hasn't done a thing with the mass of cites I came up with while he was expanding his attacks on me on the OR board and elsewhere; actions speak louder than words; and he's not working collaboratively and not treating me with respect. As for your put-down of my account of what I know to be in Morton, that's just more AGF and you should know better; I brought Morton up on the talkpage and when I put a tidbit from it on the article it was not a quote and so that bit from WP:V does not apply. I also don't have a few dozen other books I used to have which are used on various pages; that I didn't page-cite them because they weren't quotes I was using them for is a further point. As for "ill-informed" being supposedly an NPA, that's just more instruction creep, and he clearly is NOT well-informed about BC history; his hostility to non pro-Chinese sources underscores the "prejudiced" views he has about non-Chinese in BC's history, as evinced by his ongoing hostility towards anythign that disputes the rank POV and 'bad facts' in the sources he prefers; he doesn't want to admit to the existence of anything in the way of his agenda and has posted dozens of long talkpage and discussion board "walls of text" which you are apparently unfamiliar with; I'm way too familiar with them.. That's not an NPA, that's a statement of fact.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the wall of text response that helps prove that what I said is true. Are you incapable of being concise? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for a wrap-up User:The Interior provided a very insightful summary of the problem. No IBAN is going to solve the underlying problem, only an enforced time out for Skookum1's own health and sanity. Can an Admin rule on this? Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And who are you again? the guy who made false edit comments on the Ottawa shootings articles and conducted a POV censorship campaign there? that guy? Right.......but you are not involved with this article, only have a grudge against me for thwarting your attempts to POVize/censor the Ottawa article and pointing out the details of your suspicious-behaviour false edit comments.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely false accusations (check here) no supporting diffs. Thanks for so quickly confirming the point. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely false denial of facts about you, as per your usual m.o. i.e. your repeated deletions of my summaries/analysis of your edits on the Ottawa talkpage; apparently re-deleted before the archive were created; I have connectivity problems here (as does nearly everybody else here) so haven't had the time to research the talkpage history so as to provide the diffs. Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth; you made such a stink about those summaries of your behaviour there so as to redact/delete them more than once. Maybe you do so much of this kind of thing that you jsut don't remember. I do, all too well.Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Action is needed here post by Moonriddengirl

At this point given the feedback of User:Maunus, User:Resolute, User:The Interior, User:Cullen328, and User:Legacypac, I am concerned about pattern. (Sorry if I've missed anyone; please ping them on my behalf. There's a wall of text up there.) I am not only seeing ongoing but escalating hostility at NORN. User:Skookum1 is continuing to assert that User:WhisperToMe is violating WP:AGF by asking for page numbers to verify claims in spite of feedback from multiple people that this is a common burden we all share. He seems to be continuing to take the request for verification as attacks on his "credibility and honesty".[2] The only claims of personal attacks I'm seeing from WhispertoMe is his request for specific verification, coupled with what seems to be a misunderstanding of what original research is: "am conducting "original research" as if I'm a liar. WHICH I AM *N*O*T*.'"emphasis in original (There's a word of difference between "original research" and "hoax".)

But there is ongoing hostility and incivility from Skookum1:

• "Time for you to take a modesty pill, apologize for being such a %@Q%@% about this business about page-cites "; "Get a grip on your ego and your POV"; " 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• "why don't you get a grip on your ego and backtrack from setting yourself up as Supreme Inquisitor and Executioner and stop being so goddamned arrogant about you "saving an article." "Your behaviour and sophistry just gets deeper and deeper and uglier and uglier" "Intellectual flatulence, sophistry, and rule-happy wiki-copping arrogance and deletionism is all I see from you" 17:21, 10 January 2015
• "If it matters so much to him let him read the book for himself isntead of being such a @#%@#%# about what it says that he just doesn't want to admit belongs in the article" 18:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For full disclosure: User:Skookum1 contacted me once via email over this issue, and I responded. This is where I offered to request mediation for him, although I emphasized my policy of discussing Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia; this contact was yesterday. I can share the text of my response if there is desire to see it, but can't share his letter without permission. That said, his idea of mediation (which I saw after that correspondence) is concerning to me, as it seems to be non-transparent and one-sided. He tells User:DocumentError: "I'll write you privately to lay out what i see is wrong with teh article, as there's no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll write another "100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong"" 09:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether you've been involved in this discussion before or not, If you could please indicate whether you support an interaction ban or other action, or no action at all, it would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Temp Block: This post is not going to make him like me, but since that ship sailed already, I'll go with blunt honesty. What I see here is a repeat of what I experienced first hand, confirmed by other editors. Skookum does excellent work in geography etc, until he picks an editor as a target and engages in war. This behavior then starts to hurt his health and he gets even more hostile blaming the other editor for his problems. It's not a regular content dispute or POV pushing, it's attitude, so a topic ban will not help and an interaction ban only becomes a burden on his chosen enemy and the Admin who has to enforce. The best solution for both the rest of the editors and Skookum1's own health is an enforced wikibreak. That seemed to help the last time, and hopefully will help him again. I wish him all happiness and good health, which I expect he will find easier on a Thai beach then battling on Wikipedia for a few days. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • Point of incidental information; I'm not in Thailand and haven't been since September; I got out, along with thousands of other people, because of the mounting anti-farang nature of the place and the daily murders and beatings of foreigners and scapegoating of same by the corrupt Thai police; the bloom is off the Thai rose; I'm in Cambodia now and glad of it.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Reply Seems to me, Legacypac, that that recent ANI about you and me ended with a promise to disengage and stay out of each other's way, provided I promise not to "out" you which I never intended to do anyway; you should not be in this discussion as a violation of that agreement and closer's orders; you should be blocked yourself for breaking that promise. You do not belong in this discussion, and have nothing to do with the topic, only nursing hostility towards me and now voicing it despite the ANI forbidding you to do so.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

More Skookum Contributions

I haven't seen your reply yet, but your claim that it's one-sided is rubbish; the campaign against me by WMT across dozens of talkpages and board discussions is AGF/NPA from start to finish, and it's funny-ironic that others here slam me for the volume of my posts when his are so much incredibly larger and persistently on-attack-mode when he's not working with the sources I came up with to improve the article while y'all were pontificating and condemning me here. His continuing AGF at the OR board is insulting and persistent; he's not interested in cooperation only in getting me out of his way. As for wanting to lay out the case of what's wrong with the article and what should be in it, there IS no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll just post yet more WP:BLUDGEON sophistries and false claims/demands about his interpretation of guidelines that don't say what he claims they do and don't apply to talkpage (page-cites for mere descriptions of what's in a book/source). It's clear, and yes, him writing "a 100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong and demanding that I read it" is a paraphrase from a book by Bo Yang and it fits him to a 't'; it had come up in discussions concerning the Chinaman articles where similar obfuscatory and obstructive POV behaviour as I am seeing from him was rife; no I don't have the page cite, the quote came from a UofT site reviewing the book, which is no longer online. It's clear you are not capable of being a mediator, my mistake for thinking you were rational and not as biased and judgmental as you have just shown yourself to be.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up my reactions to his ongoing AGF and very concerted and ongoing NPA towards me, which I consider his mass of rants criticizing me to be, as "uncivil" is pot-kettle-black; his whole treatment of me has been uncivil from the very start, over and over and over again, to the point of burying merge discussions and wallpapering his claims and source-incantations in at least 20 places...... his behaviour is uncivil, provocative and negative and is against guidelines but he's being let off the hook here while you vilify me. More proof that ANI is not logical or rational or neutral; you're being an enabler of his behaviour, you should really look at his contributinos in the last six weeks and see how much you're missed of what I've been subjected to; but he has opted out of edit summary stats so we can't look up hwo much talkpaging vs actual article content he's been doing; why he opted out of that is a very good question.Skookum1 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Skookum1, I've moved your note, which you placed in the middle of mine. Please don't do this; it makes it confusing for others to follow. I have never concluded that the problem was one-sided, but have invited you to offer evidence otherwise - diffs. The only accusations you've ever made about personal attacks and incivility against him is his asking for specific citations to support your assertions. This is not a personal attack or a failure to assume good faith; this is policy. Readers and other editors must be able to verify for themselves that what you are saying is true; it's not because you lack credibility. It's the same standard we all face. That said, you really don't seem to understand how mediation works on Wikipedia. It does not take place behind closed doors: "The basic aim of mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content." (Wikipedia:Mediation). If you enter mediation through anyone, you will be contributing willingly together with User:WhisperToMe. That's the way it works. Compromising with the other party and working with him is essential. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban AND Topic ban for WMT An interaction ban is not possible unless there is a topic ban for WMT concerning Canadian/BC history; to exclude me from 20-odd articles that are related to the one in question, or from that article which is his WP:OWN, so he'd like, is not viable. There's plenty of the rest of of the world he can take his pet "ethnicity-by-city" series of badly-written articles and busy himself elsewhere; he hasn't worked on that article in the last week though spending huge amounts of time continuing and not relenting in his ongoing AGF and patronizing demands such as "do you own the book" even though I've told him ten times at least that I sold it when I left Canada; efforts to get page-cites from the local histories he doesn't want to look up or admit to being valid re underway; but IMO once I have them t he nature of his ongoing AGF is he will continue to claim I'm making it up and fabricating them; that you tolerate or are blind to his excessive rule-mongering and, yes, sophistry and ongoing AGF towards me yet make me the bad guy here is another remind that ANI is a bearpit of negativity and contrariness and subjective, shallow, vindictive tyranny by people who do not know the material and have axes to grind; and too much power to go with their lack of knowledge or common decency.

• THAT is why I didn't file an ANI against him weeks ago; this place is futile and full of nasties and "bad logic" and you can't call a spade a spade if you're under criticism, but man can people ever amp up the AGF/NPA here with some regularity. He has tried to commandeer control of a very important AND controversial aspect of Canadian history for his own, even though he has no experience of Canadian Wikipedia content and even has challenged long-standing naming/usage conventions. It's not just the CCinBC article that he's BLUDGEONED his talkpage spews on, but several others, and has engaged in procedural warfare and ongoing harassment and criticism without every showing any sign of conciliation and ANY sign of good faith that, gee, goddam, Skookum1 might know what he's talking about and the sources he's mentioning are, duh, things I should really try to get hold of and learn from. Nope, he's recruiting "enemies" of mine to this ANI and continuing his AGF assertions and haughty claims about what he's accomplished on the OR page; yet here the dogpile effect is underway, and someone who's not even supposed to be engaged with me is calling for a block when he is in violation of an ANI governing our mutual conduct. That Cullen would whine about a whole half hour of his time trying to read my post makes me wonder if he should even be commenting, if he's so limited on time and so off-the-cuff hostile to me when WMT has posted far more than me on this page, on the OR board in the current discussion and another a while ago, and on a couple of dozen talkpages; I'm the one being "accosted" as DE puts it for around six weeks with his "walls of text".... a half hour? Lucky you. Of course I'm frustrated and getting irate about, being confronted daily with yet more condescending and patronizing challenges and demands, while the rest of you ignore that completely and come after me instead. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not the problem, I'm his victim and the abusive AGF continues daily while nothing is done with the sources or pointers I have compiled for him while he's been busy attacking me.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I asked repeatedly because I wanted to check whether you had any books whatsoever in your possession which would help give verification to any of the arguments (there were multiple books discussed). If you do not have any books in your possession and there are no alternate ways of accessing them, you cannot cite from any of them and they cannot be used as arguments when trying to decide article content. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sez you, according to your SYNTH of WP:V, which doesn't say that AT ALL. WP:V does not apply to talkpage discussions. I'm telling you about sources that I know have this or that in them, you go on a WAR about page-cites to refuse to acknowledge other sources than your own preferred type of sources - instead of reading up on BC history, starting with all those links I provided while you were here and on the OR board writing up your diatribes and SYNTH claims about WP:V. You are wrong, and in the wrong. Sounds like once I do get someone from back home to find page cites for various sources I've mentioned you will AGF them, claiming that since I don't have the book in my hands I can't be believed/trusted. That's AGF pure and simple and it's also abusing guidelines (which you describe, falsely, as "policies", a recurrent habit of those who love rule-mongering seen very often in such cases). You have apparenetly made no effort to explore the mass of cite-links I provided, the ones from nosracines.ca being all page-cites. But here you are, holding forth that even talkpage discussions are to be censored if you don't like what's being raised as issues and needed content. That you would make this kind of argument at all instead of accepting good faith from someone who has read extensively in BC history and contributed loads of same to Wikipedia and has been trying to point you in the direction of content and sources that the article needs underscores your POVite nature about this topic, and your arrogant presumption that you decide what can even be discussed/raised on talkpage discussions. You are not interested in collaboration, only in censorship.Skookum1 (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough! I just searched the Notice boards to find this supposed sort of IBAN against me. Turns out this behavior is very common and occurs regularly back to 2009 - same complaints by editor after editor and same hostile responses. Between the editors who actually filed ANi's and 3RRs against him, and the many editors who chimed in saying they were attacked too, I could quickly put together a list of maybe 50 editors he has savaged, while crying he is their victim. If there is no temp ban I will start my own ANi about the latest personal attacks against me and it will include a greatest quotes section. The pattern is so clear, its painful. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply you are in violation of the outcome of the last ANI which you seem to not have been able to find despite your hunt for hostile comments about me; I have plenty of supporters too, who tell me to ignore the b.s. and witchhunting perpetrated like you and those hostile and very often off-guideline arguments against me; you yourself have seen multiple 3RR and other violations; what where you're pointing the finger...it will come back to you and may have other repercussions for you that you should be mindful of.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Honestly Skookum, how do you expect to defend yourself against a charge of consistently being combative with others by being combative with others? I really don't want to support calls for you to be blocked or topic banned or anything along those lines. It would help if you could help out by disengaging voluntarily. If other editors are the problem, that will then be much easier to see. Resolute 04:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Tell ya what, Resolute, why don't you help me improve the articles in question? see what I've been doing while this witchhunt has been going on....I've been being productive and doing research and improving articles while he's still making false, repetitive claims about what WP:V means; if I had more Canadian editors helping me with important matters on Canadian articles I wouldn't be being backed into a corner or being buried by "walls of b.s." on dozens of talkpages and now, again, in this witchhunt of an ANI. Many more sources and improvements could have been found but for the time this unhelpful and unproductive nonsense is going on; thte behaviour problem that WMT has is going unaddressed and I'm being set up for a block by a hostile interloper with a sketchy record of his own; see below about both what I've been doing and about the NPA/attack "votes" section and what's up with that. I'd really welcome help trying to digest and use all the cites/sources I've amassed, which WMT has ignored and apparently doesn't want to use or even look at. I know (or think) you're an Albertan with not much interest in BC history, but please come across the Rockies, there's much to be done. Quite a few BC editors have long left Wikipedia because of ongoing absurdities and bureaucratic/procedural b.s. so more interest from people who know Canada and don't want to argue about what a given term means based on their exterior perspective and biased readings are asserting. Your help on content rather than criticism of my "behaviour" would be very productive. Clearly none of my critics here have any intention of improving content, only in blocking me. Why? Well, good question, see below again and if you didn't witness the content war at the Ottawa shootings and Saint Jean-sur-Richelieu articles and talkpages, your help would have been good to to have there too. I get along fine with people who aren't confrontational and rule-obsessed like WMT, or (Personal attack removed)... in fact that's the other thing I've been doing lately, guiding an older (84 years) contributor who's doing valuable local-history content; see my UCs.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Voting

This ANi has gone on too long for everyone's good. Decision time.
Propose: Two week block for User:Skookum1 for WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and personal attacks etc. Please limit responses to a line or two, and vote Support or Oppose. Any other discussion/rants/walls of text will be moved to a section after this section to keep the poll on track and easy to follow. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Skookum1. Volcanoguy 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing that requires anybody to be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Both here and over at WP:NORN, there is a consistent pattern of WP:Disruptive lack of WP:Civility, coupled with a dose of WP:IDHT with respect to WP:V and its reasons that may rise to a WP:Competence issue. Couple that with user:Skookum1's threats to take his ball and go home and it seems obvious. With 3 blocks in the last year all for WP:NPA, WP:Disruptive, maybe an indef is more appropriate. Paleking (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as one of the dozens of editors who have clashed with Skookum1 on thousands of talk pages, long overdue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. Civility issues seem apparent (mainly convinced by Moonriddengirl's posts and Skookum's walls of text), so a temp block might help reset the tone with a break. Very tough to gauge the actual situation with the walls of text here to comment on things like an interaction ban, but Skookum's behavior does seem high strung if asking for a page number was an issue for them. I'd say just take a break to take another stab at it later. If issues continue warranting an interaction ban, come back here with very clear examples supporting it so it's easier for uninvolved editors to get a read on it next time around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month block. I'll support lesser sanctions too if the community hasn't the stomach to do what is obviously necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any blocking. I think Skookum1 was baited and has self-control issues that others exploited. I've asked him to stay away from ANI unless he can control himself in the future, and I think that's the best outcome here. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure the fact that Skookum1 may or may not have been baited has anything to do with the proposed block, if he has self-control issues, he needs to keep those issues off of Wikipedia, I was personally blocked once for losing my temper, and since then have made sure I didn't let that happen again. If I can control myself, no reason Skookum1 cannot, regardless of whether he is being "baited" or not (although, by the mass of user issues he's had I don't think it takes much to bait him). The fact that he cannot control himself, especially when being baited may be exactly why he should be blocked, and not an argument for his defense. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a matter of principle, I generally oppose sanctions that are proposed by involved parties. I do hope that Skookum1 takes Viriditas' advice to heart. Blackmane (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Blackmane I'm not an involved party - in spite of his posts to the contrary - just watched him do the same crap elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. Struck that portion of my statement, but the rest still stands. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

LP is definitely an involved party; not to the articles under discussion but with a history of edit-warring and hostility towards me and anyone in the way of his POV. He is an involved party for launching this vote call purely out of hostility and not relevant to the issues of the articles in question and/or the board-warring the prompted MRG to launch his ANI in a search for mediation NOT punishment. The rank NPA in LP's comment immediately above is yet more pot-kettle-black behaviour. And re "but Skookum's behavior does seem high strung if asking for a page number was an issue for them" - what's high-strung is WTM's incredibly long OR board insistence that any mention of any source including on a talkpage MUST be page-cited. That's not the case, he is the one who's high strung. So comical that I'm being the one dumped on for "walls of text" when WhisperToMe has done that on 40x talkpages/boards. It's amazing to see people who have had nothing to do with this do a scan of LP's rants about me and vote for a six-month block. Contrary, negative, unproductivee, disruptive, that's all this vote-call has been about; replete with LP removing my comments about things being said and REMOVING MY VOTE and placing it separately; none of you say "boo" to that very anti-guidelines behaviour yet you're ready to vote for a block against me. I'm looking for the edit-war on the Ottawa shootings talkpages re his conduct which he'd deleted a few times and seems to have been done again before that page was archived.

• Oppose Reinserting my vote as Legacypac had moved it out of this section. This vote-call was personally hostile and part of a pattern of harassment and accusation by LP that I see is also the subject of another ANI here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here rises to the level of a block or ban. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment separated from voting area

• • Comment I see another uninvolved-but-personally biased editor has weighed in on this witchhunt; the "thousands of talkpages" is a typical exaggeration and belies the fact that I "won" 80% or more of the talkpages in question, which were reversions to long-standing consensus speedily-moved then virulently fought against reversion with board-warring and false claims about what guidelines say; None of the votes supporting this biased vote-call by someone with an axe-to-grind have anything to do with the article that precipitated this...and WMT's board-warring and false claims about WP:V ad nauseam remained unaddressed as also his obvious POV and attempt to censor/limit talkpage discussions by demanding page-cites for same need disciplining. I see my reply to Legacypac was redacted to a separate section again and that is against guidelines...but then that's par for the course with his own record on articles and on talkpages. ANI draws contrarian and hostile "votes" when in fact this ANI Was started about mediation and this vote-call by a non-admin is out of order; I'm the one working on articles and sources while non-involved hostiles are seeking to have me blocked. Such is Wikipedia, and more's the pity. Nothing constructive will be accomplished by blocking me, that much is clear; and that applies especially to the topics/articles that are at the crux of this matter which none of them have anything to do with.Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about the content, its about the conduct. Stop posting comments in the voting section. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop calling votes based only on your hostility towards me and which has nothing to do with the articles/issues and board-warring by WTM that have nothing to do with you. What are you doing archiving and re-arranging this board when there are open ANIs against you on it?Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments posted in the voting area

• Oppose for obvious reasons; Legacypac is in violation of the ANI about him and me recently, that's one issue and his agenda here is clear, which has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. While this has been going on and WMT continues HIS disruptive board-warring about his assertions about what is "required" by WP:V, I've been the one actually working on the articles he's wanting me gone from and finding sources to enrich them. I'll link the previous ANI about Legacypac and must raise the question of his purpose here; which is clearly axe-grinding and revenge-mode hostility...and must reconsider my promise made at the end of that ANI. Here's what I've been doing while y'all are dogpiling on me here:

• Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Sources for Kelowna's Chinatown
• Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#sources in nosracines.ca/ourroots.ca that have search terms for "Chinese"
• Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Living Landscapes and RBCM website results
• improvements and expansion of "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia]
• expansion/improvement of "Chief Hunter Jack" article, which he'd added a page-cite demand for {{nofootnotes}} to, which I substituted {{refimprove}} for, as other than one line that is in all four sources since provided; WP:V does NOT say anything like what he claims it to say; not even close

• because of the ongoing NPA harrassment here, in this mad place of resident contrarians, I have not had time to add to the Indo-Canadians article about Johnder Basran, nor write his article yet, here are sources found while the witchhunt here has been going on:

• Former mayor Johnder Basran dies at age 83, Wendy Fraser, Lillooet News, 6 January 2014
• Obituary at Dignitymemorial.com
• Various other articles and improvements on other topics and some very non-confrontational and collaborative/fruitful discussions on various article talkpages.
• I'm the one actively researching sources and improving articles while continues to board-war over his claims about what WP:V requires, which it does not, continues; unaddressed and out of control. Blocking me when I'm the one actually working on articles and not expounding claiims about guideline-rules that don't exist is not constructive and IMO Legacypac is being deliberately disruptive here. Issues about his username continue to puzzle me, and his own record of disruptive behaviour makes his attack-posts here about me utterly hypocritical; but that's the nature of this place: hostility and hypocrisy. That a busy contributing editor who continues to create and improve articles should be blocked while the person obstructing those improvements is let to run free and go undisciplined is a complete absurdity. @Moonriddengirl: you began this as an attempt to mediate or seek mediation; the result is that people with axes to grind who have nothing to do with the topic needing mediation are seeking to have me blocked for no good reason other than their own animosity towards me. Legacypac's vote-call here is clearly NPA and hostile and not constructive in any way. WMT's claims about WP:V and his insistence that talkpage mentions of sources be page-cited are rubbish yet he's allowed to continue repeating and escalating his campaign to censor even talkpage discussions of t hings "in his way".Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• this is the previous ANI that he is in violation of the terms of the close @Wifione: you were the arbiter there, this is clearly a violation, so I'll now be blunt - I still don't understand why "a real estate developer in British Columbia, Canada....enjoy writing professionally and for fun...will occasionally contribute to articles on topics I actually know about" spends his days being confrontational here on ANI and in writing and POV edit-warring on anti-terrorism articles, and what kind of "professional writing" hes talking about, as he's not being very "professional here" and I have yet to see more than a very few edits on British Columbia articles from him. A [https://www.google.com.kh/search?q=legacypac+-wikipedia&rlz=1C1AVNC_enKH612KH612&oq=legacypac+-wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57.11959j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 google of his username suggests other things that were in fact challenged and questioned when he first appeared on Wikipedia last year; he disavows ever having heard of that organization but he works in American-oriented political articles all the time so that claim seems highly disingenuous, as even I've heard of them as have many other Canadians; whatever, if he doesn't want to respect the outcome of that ANI, neither will I so have raised the question of his motives/agenda here as his hostility towards me is his whole reason for being in this thread. How is his behaviour here contributing to improving the encyclopedia? its not, it's disruptive as he has been so often before on countless other articles as a good long look at his usercontributions will show. I'm the one working on BC history content, which WMT is trying to control/co-opt and which Legacypac has had nothing to do with.Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no IBAN against me. You linked to a 3RR report where you said among other things:

(QUOTE from Skookum1: "2) I apologize to Legacypac and User:Inthefastlane and will tone done my use of adjectives and emotional-response expletives (or acronyms thereof) in any future (unlikely) discussions with them, or when similarly confronted by aggressive/insulting or NPA/AGF posts/comments on my talkpage or in other article talkpages or edit comments. I'm old enough to know better but come from an upbringing where speaking your mind is expected, in whatever terms. I expect and hope that Inthefastlane can do the same, whether to do with making disparaging/insulting comments and maintain wiki-decorum in future.") (end of Quote from Skookum)

Do you want this ANi to drag on for weeks or you want to get on with your life? This kind of rant is not likely to help your case. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I"m ignoring this and have been working on articles and research towards same while you've been here furthering your witchhunt; the problematic behaviour by WTM remains unaddressed while you continue to make AGFs against me as just above re "rant". You moved my vote, TOO: and what are you as someone with open ANIs against you doing re-arranging this page and archiving it. Why don't you get on your with your own life (property development according to your Userpage) instead of warring over terror articles? This vote-call serves no end other than to continue/expand you hostility towards me for thwarting your attempts to censor/POVize the Ottawa shootings article. You have no relation to the BC history items this is about; curious that you are more interested in MidEast politics and anti-terror propaganda themes than in any more than six or so minor edits to BC articles...well, not curious at all, really...I suppose if you did comment on realty-related articles in BC that would be a COI huh? not that rules matter to you as your behaviour here and elsewhere aptly demonstrates. Skookum1 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I simply added a header between your rant and the votes as promised to keep the vote area clean. User:Viriditas given these recent posts (and edits to them), did you want to revisit your vote? Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Your rant" is another AGF/NPA like so much of everythign you do, here and elsewhere; and here you're engaging in vote-swaying and you REMOVED my vote; you are not an admin (god I hope not, you don't deserve it) but are wiki-copping this page, even as you continue to incite a block against me...even though you have nothing to do with the issues/articles this ANI of @Moonriddengirl:s was in a search for mediation/ not revenge/punishment and harassment of me by someone who has his own very questionable history of suspect edits and countless edit wars; Viriditas is right, I should just ignore this "hogwash" of yours and keep writing articles while you keep trying to feed this fire to burn me at the stake. Go lead your own life, by the way.... you must have something going on than wiki-warring to maintain POV on the "terror theme" that 99.98% of all your edits have been about.Skookum1 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not true? Difs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrefutable proof of...something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Winkelvi

User page

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

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

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

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

Diff added: [14], note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the WP:AN3 dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

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

Bess Myerson

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

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

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

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

Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson[16] and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days,[17] six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why Viriditas believes his unsolicited opinion on my editing is relevant or why he thinks he knows what he's talking about in regard to any of the things he mentioned above, but he's getting so much wrong, it's nearly comical. Out of the blue (never having edited the Myerson article, that I can tell), he came to my talk page not once, not twice, but three times with claims that I was harassing Coretheapple. Which is totally incorrect. His edits to my talk page (where he admitted in the first comment, "I don't know what's going on between you and Coretheapple...") are found here [18]; [19]; [20]. His comments were totally inappropriate and became harassment, in my opinion (as are his comments above, the more I think about them). As far as the RfC he referenced where I was asking for advice at an administrator's talk page, the RfC was to be about a content dispute, not Coretheapple. Lastly, his suggestion I am a sock is ridiculous and I'd really appreciate him striking the accusation above. What he's doing is, in my view, surreal drama. If there was truly an issue with my edits or alleged disruption at the Myerson article, I would have been blocked for it days ago. For whatever reason, it appears Viriditas is interested in seeing me sanctioned for something, anything he can come up with. And I have no idea why. Like I said, this is all out of the blue. And weird, if you ask me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can respond as well. I dropped by the page a few days ago and made a lone post about the substance of the debate. From my perspective CoretheApple does appear correct that Bess Myerson hosted Miss America contests, and there is good sourcing supporting that.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] I don't plan on getting involved other than to briefly share my take on the evidence though, evidence that hopefully helped resolve the contention. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bess Myerson topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(@NE Ent). It's a bit more than that. The user does not appear to be reading sources, or has been reading them and not understanding them, and generally ignoring/disregarding/not grasping what is said to him. I had never previously encountered this person until he appeared on my user talk page a few days ago concerning my edit summary here[30]. Ms. Myerson had suffered a bout of ovarian cancer, and someone had tagged it "When?" I looked at the reference at the end of the sentence, added when she had cancer, and said in my edit summary "Rather than tagging "when," more constructive to look at the footnoted article, which gives the date." Winkelvi went on my page to say as follows

Re: this edit and edit summary [7], it's actually more appropriate to put the content in the article than in a footnote. Casual readers or readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia goings-on-in-editing are unlikely to look at a footnote and will wonder the same as I: when? where?. We're here to inform readers not force them to look deeper for content that can just as easily be inserted in the body of the article.[31]

As you can see, I very clearly and explicitly did not call for text to be put in a footnote, and I did not do so. I simply said that the answer to the "when" question is in the footnoted source. There were two other replies, both misunderstandings on his part.[32] At no time did he acknowledge error or misunderstanding, he just charged on, and as far as I know he believes to this day that he was in the right. What happened on my talk page is no big deal, but having this person hammer away on the article talk page and in the article itself and not getting the point is disruptive. He blames this problem on everything and everybody except himself. Lamentably this editor's position seems to be that "that's the way he is," and I guess it's just our tough luck if he's disruptive. He is just a burden that we have to bear, and if we don't like it we can lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, but you see, the problem was that WV treated the situation as a zero-sum game, that he was "right" and the various obits describing her as host were wrong, and said on the page[33] that "Myerson was never the show host" in the face of all the sources that were offered up. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Support The editor, WV, has shown incompetence - and is an edit-warrior,[34] and they should be embarrassed for the way they have handled themselves beginning with their attempt to censor the word "antisemitism" from the article,[35] and the statement in their first talk-page comment: "I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers" Here's good advice, don't edit, if you have not looked into the sources. Then their flat-out contradicting the sources that use the term "host" in a way the editor personally disagrees with and their false claims of plagiarism against other editors p[36] [37], but most of all their utter inability to work with others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

One down and how much to go? We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious.[38] Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree that it's relevant. Whether it should be hatted or not is sort of a separate issue. Hatting does tend to "hide" material, and yes, it is used to hide irrelevant material. But when the irrelevant material is, essentially, the "case of the defense," then why hide it? It's a distraction, but that in itself is relevant, as it indicates how he behaves in talk page discussions. Winkelvi's response to this ANI report has been to smear Viritidas, who has never been in conflict with him so far as I know, and to bring this discussion to the attention of an editor he apparently is on good terms with.[39] The hatted discussion, which was commenced by Winkelvi raising his medical condition, was in sum and substance an appeal for sympathy on the grounds that he has a medical situation of some kind. But what I find a bit illogical is that he claims to have done nothing wrong. If he has done nothing wrong, then what is the pertinence of his autism or whatever it is he claims to have? He wants to have it both ways. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm separating this subsection from the one above it, as it was brought by a different user and is totally unrelated. As for the topic ban, I didn't originate this ANI (and to be frank I am not sure I would have come here in the first place, as this is really cut out more for the old "RfC/U," now terminated, than for a drama board.) Anyway, once Viritidas, an uninvolved editor, started this, I had thought that the Bess Myerson talk page spoke for itself. But it's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through mountains of text. If we need diffs of disruption and edit warring, we can start with this user's revert-warring. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Now I raised this previously at WP:AN3,(see [50]) and the result was page protection. Winkelvi viewed that as a vindication of his "good editing," to use his words. I can provide further examples of his "good editing," and I guess it's necessary because I can see Winkelvi only worsening if his behavior is not curbed. He has absolutely no understanding of the disruption that he has caused, as borne out by the exchange here with User:Cullen328 on Drmies' talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Topic bans generally don't solve the problem and usually are just fodder for others to keep baiting and attacking the person so restricted. Full protection of the article, applying the principles of WP:BLP to it due to being about a person recently deceased, applying WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, and supervision by a highly respected admin who has the authority to institute immediate 24-48 hour blocks for bad behavior should do the trick. Most of the time, people's tempers simmer down and they figure out how to work in an appropriate way. If not, WP:ROPE applies to escalating behavior. See my additional comments above. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This is fairly common behavior for Winkelvi, aggressive edit-warring based on misreading of sources, picking-and-choosing what can be used for sources, and so on. So a TBAN here is just a silly band-aid. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a fairly narrow topic-ban; hopefully it will motivate Winkelvi to reign in some of the issues that have been charitably described as "difficult." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. As if this couldn't get any stranger, Winkelvi has decided to take this puppy to 11 by claiming that the supporters of his topic ban are actually the problem because we're all supposedly autistic like himself, but we're hiding in the closet. According to Winkelvi, the problems he's encountering here are due to his detractors engaging in autistic-related behaviors.[51] Can we get an indefinite block now, please? It's one thing to obsessively identify with your own personal neurodevelopmental disorder as the total measure of who you are, but it's quite another to start diagnosing other editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

That is outrageous on a number of levels. First, he raised the issue of his autism here as a defense for his bad behavior[52]. Basically his position here has been "I haven't done anything wrong, but if I did it's not my fault." Second, the reaction to his statements about his autism, even among his supporters, is that they are diversionary and irrelevant - clearly far short of "not showing AGF" to autism sufferers, whatever that means. After finding his play for sympathy here didn't work, and started to backfire, he has "taken it on the road," canvassing all the editors who signed some kind of autism declaration, and attacking editors here for discriminating against him based on his self-identified medical condition (which nobody here knew about until he raised the issue, and view as a diversion). Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I'm now watching your page, having posted a note there, I noticed that he left you a canvassing warning[53] that warned you against posting inappropriately on user talk pages. In his notice he refers to this note by you on the WikiProject Songs talk page and this note by you on the talk page of a "list" article. Winkelvi just doesn't "get" WP:CANVASS, and putting that unwarranted notice on a user talk page in the midst of an edit war just inflames things. The fact that Winkelvi did this just after he himself was warned for canvassing[54] is discouraging. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

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

---

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

In checking his contributions I see a slew of similarly worded posts seeking "advice" from other persons he has identified as sharing his alleged autism affliction. See also [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

Note this follow up note[64]. No, not canvassing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

His referring to canvassing in his posts indicates that he is familiar with the rule already. So while this notice is appreciated I don't feel that it is necessary. Besides you can't "unring the bell," and his effort to skew this discussion through canvassing has already begun to work in his favor.[65][66][67][68][69]. His canvassing has already gotten him participation in his favor in two parts of one active partisan weighing in on these discussions, and more on the way I'm sure. The only question, as I said previously, is whether this is a violation of the canvassing policy, in which case what are the consequences for Winkelvi, or whether our lying eyes deceive us on that point. If they do, I'm off on a trek for "advice." Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User name

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meghan Trainor

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

---

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

A few things in response:

• I've never referred to this editor as "a fanboy who can't edit objectively".
• Whomever looks into this editor's comments, please look at the talk page for the article All About That Bass here: [70] and see the interaction between him and me. You'll find none of what he's claiming. In fact, I go out of my way to explain to him in two separate replies that my comments and edit summaries are not directed and him at all.
• This editor's frustration has been days in the making due to a number of talk page discussions where he has been using personal attacks against editors who don't agree with his edits and edit wars that he has been taking part in. Because he's new, several editors (including me) have been quite patient in trying to work with him and reason with him regarding his editing, edit warring, peacock wording, bloating articles, and the scathing talk page comments he directs at others. One look at the edit history of his talk page shows that he's received several warnings over the same articles, all related in one way or another to the singer, Meghan Trainor. (talk page history here: [71]).
• I'd like to point out, as well, that the reporting editor who brought this here never informed me on my talk page (as is required) that he created this report. Weirdly, another editor moved this report from Lips to merge with this week old discussion. A report that (as another editor pointed out) is classic ANI: something gets reported, others keep adding to it with new and different accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Moved to preexisting section, with agreement of initiator of this report[72] Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This user is still partaking in an unnecessary edit war on All About That Bass and derailing the topic which is a WP:GAN, and insists on reverting unsourced content, factual errors, vague wording and non-song article MOS back into the article, and insists the formentioned be discussed on the article's talk page, but the user remains completely ignorant to these faults pointed out on the talk page, removes warnings from his talk page, and has already been reverted by 3 different users within the last 24 hours. See [73] and Talk:All About That Bass. A quick scan through This also reveals that I am not the only one experiencing these problems with Winkelvi, but several others are as well. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see Winkelvi's observations as constructive at the song article "All About That Bass". Anybody interested in Meghan Trainor would certainly be interested in her ginormous smash hit song, so it's not much of a case of hounding. My advice to Lips Are Movin is to accept the talk page advice at its face value, and try to see the article more objectively. It certainly was a patchwork quilt of awkward fan prose before you got to it, but you added long quotes[74][75] which were seen by Winkelvi (and myself) as undue or peacock or redundant, and when they were removed, you were able to work with that;[76] I suggest you continue to do so. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic is not wikihounding. Given Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are Meghan Trainor WP:SPAs [77] [78], more neutral editor eyes on the articles would be beneficial. NE Ent 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

After dealing with tag-team edit warring from both MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin yesterday, I filed a 3RR report [79]. Today, I offered a good faith proposal to both accounts. No response as of yet. My hope is things will resolve as far as the edit warring and other editors being kept from editing the Meghan Trainor-related articles due to the ownership taking place there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meghan Trainor topic ban

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

• Support a topic ban. Marano ^fan 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support: See also the sub-section above. The user is a WP:WIKIHOUND[80][81][82][83][84][85] and edit warrior.[86][87][88][89] - Lips ^{are movin} 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion above is pretty ridiculous. What I see here is a case of rapid edit-warring, little discussion, OWN complexes, and editors who are taking disagreements a little too personally. If the article has been fully-protected twice within a month, perhaps that's a sign that all editors of this article – MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin included – need to do a better job of cooperating. I see no reason why anyone should be banned from Trainor-related articles at this time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Strong support - His autism doesn't really give him any excuse for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. I left him a polite message on his talk page earlier, but he ignored it and harrased me on my talk page saying that I am not welcome on his talk page. User:MaranoFan then reverted the message, but then Winkelvi restored it, harrasing me again. I don't think he is WP:HERE to contribute to this encyclopedia in a orderly manner, so of course a topic ban would help. IPadPerson (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar with the Meghan Trainor situation. This ANI report originated when one user reported an issue with Winkelvi's user page. Viritidas then raised the issue of Winkelvi's conduct at Bess Myerson, for which I had previoussly and inconclusively reported him at AN3. The edit-warring, disruption, tendentious posts and various nonsense (such as a phony plagiarism complaint) that Winkelvi caused there seem to have dissipated at Myerson and Talk:Myerson for the moment at least. Meanwhile, other complainants have popped up on completely different articles but very similar complaints. If you search the noticeboards, there's a pattern of Winkelvi drawing complaints for various kinds of very similar-sounding problems, such as in this complaint here from a user named Vuzor in April entitled "Disruptive, authoritarian editor." That involved yet another set of problems in yet another article. There are multiple edit warring complaints, both by him and against him, including one in which he was warned just today.[90] But another editor was warned as well. There is a pattern here of Winkelvi inflaming situations and generally showing poor judgment. He shows absolutely no understanding of the animosity he causes and the degree to which it results in repeated and time-consuming disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am uninvolved with the pages. I Oppose this ban because its a content dispute. The AN/I page appears to now be the latest battleground for this dispute. No party in this dispute is blameless. The wikihounding is baseless as the articles are all on one artist. One of the editors calling for a bloc/ban are overly involved in the topic "Lips Are Movin" is the name of a Meghan Trainor song, taking that name clearly shows they are a fan. Their edits all revolve around Meghan Trainor, her songs, her page, location on charts. This sounds to me like a clear showing of WP:Advocacy. Its clear that MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin have a shared outcome in mind by filing bogus 3RR reports linklink2 and commenting here. If anything a boomerang should hit them. AlbinoFerret 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose As an example of what's going on, consider Lips_Are_Movin#Reception_2 which is POV all positive comments; WV attempted to insert a balancing critical opinion from a RS and gets reverted [91]. NE Ent 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would point out here that this person is completely ignoring my edit summary:"All the ...s and WP:PARAPHRASE needs to be worked out before this review sees the light of GA criteria." I did not blind revert anyone. [92] Also to point out, Winkelvi has been sucking up to this user for support. MaRAno ^FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One example where he has constructively edited does not make him innocent to where he has persistently disruptively, and unconstructively edited and harassed users.[93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106] - Lips ^{are movin} 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr.

User Earl King Jr. continues to harass editors at Zeitgeist (film series). His new m.o. is to revert IP's [107] and make the very uncivil claim that they are some kind of "puppet" instead of actually following WP protocol (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) --- Just as problematic is that when a user recently called him out on his behavior[108] -- he simply deleted the message with no response.[109] --- User:AndyTheGrump brought 2 separate ANI's against him awhile back and eventually left the article all-together out of what I perceived as frustration (the ANI diffs are available). He continues to harass both myself [110] and User:The Devil's Advocate [111] and with over 80% of his edit history somehow related to Zeitgeist [112] it is very clear to me that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, the main reason he's gotten away with his behavior for so long is because most editors couldn't care less about this content. I ask that you please take the time and look into this. Thx. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Since I ceased my involvement with Zeitgeist-related articles, Earl's ownership behaviour seems to have got even worse - he now appears to be using Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) as his own personal blog, where he endlessly promotes his conspiracy theory - that TZM is nothing more than a money-earning scheme concocted by Peter Joseph for profit (e.g. "He [Joseph] collects the donation to his pocket" [113] - an entirely unsourced assertion of financial impropriety at minimum) . Anyone disagreeing (or even asking for evidence) is immediately labelled a sockpuppet or a TZM supporter. If only for the self-evident violations of WP:BLP policy that ensue from his characterisations of Joseph, he should probably be topic-banned. That will of course leave the problem of actual TZM supporters trying to spin the articles their way, but we've dealt with similar problems before, and I'm sure we can again - by adhering to Wikipedia policy, and following sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just notified the user with the subst:ANI-notice template Weegeerunner (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a thorny problem, because Earl King Jr. has done a lot of hard work cleaning up the promotional content that has been systematically added to these articles. Removing EKJ from the equation would mean that these articles swiftly return to their original state as hagiographies and WP:INUNIVERSE puff-pieces. There has been plenty of off-wiki canvassing like this and this, so let's not be too hasty to assume that EKJ is the bad guy, if reverting yet another IP making similar changes... bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider it appropriate for Earl to continue to violate WP:BLP policy on the talk page? It was this behaviour (and the fact that nobody seems prepared to do anything about it) that led me to cease editing the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly speaking AndyTheGrump, things improved after you left the article in my opinion and I think its fair to say that your participation and consequent leaving the article was your choice and if you are saying it was because of one editor disagreeing with you and what ever arguments you had, that was also your opinion but why equate that here with the current subject? The last time at ANI you also called me a 'little shit' and I asked for you to be blocked. I have noticed that you will exaggerate to the point of outright twisting things in these situations. I am not a part of your fan base. I am not using the article talk page as my personal blog Andy. Anyone curious about the article might go to the talk page and read my comments and look at the article page itself for my edits. My goal is neutral editing without pov on the article and trying be a critical thinking editor without defaming anyone on the talk page. The case that someone, SomeDifferentStuff is making here is that I am insulting to some I.P.'s somehow. Because of the call to arms/editing of the Zeitgeist Movement [114] droves of people involved in Zeitgeist come to Wikipedia to try and make the article part of their information presentation. I have pointed that out on the talk page. SomeDifferentStuff has a long time editing relationship that is very akin to supporting the Zeitgeist Movements information as does TheDevilsAdvocate who he mentions and I think that is what is irking him most about my editing. I am not for or against it. If I have insulted anyone I am sorry. The article is now page protected for Admins editing only and that will slow down the single purpose editors and i.p.'s for a while. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your goal is clearly not 'neutral editing' - instead you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. Yes, we all know that TZM members have tried to spin the article their way - but the same thing happens regarding all sorts of Wikipedia content, and we don't fill other talk pages with the sort of nonsense you routinely trot out. It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions, and violates multiple Wikipedia policies in the process. And as for SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate, I have no great admiration for either, but as long as they comply with Wikipedia policy they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else. You do not have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and you are not some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the following two diffs are all I need to offer in the way of a response: [115] [116].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

...and the only appropriate response after reading those difs is a Template:Headshake combined with a Template:Palm-to-forehead-smack. Damn, seems like those templates should exist... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that. TheDevilsAdvocate, there was a debate on the talk page about Caps. It turned out that we capped Zeitgeist and left the rest uncapped for the reason that it is not a formal group as being a non profit, NGO, incorporated etc. Mostly it is an internet organization that is adhoc/informal. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as anyone reading the talk page can plainly see, you decided all by yourself to ignore sources and apply your own personal standard here - motivated, as usual, by your enmity towards TZM. And who is the 'we' you refer to? There was no consensus for your edits - just you and a SPA trolling account using the page as a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Earl would rather that people didn't look into his behaviour. The evidence is however available at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), and in Earl's edit summaries for the article and talk page. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. Possibly they think that TZM supporter's own past behaviour justifies this - I however think that Wikipedia should have consistent standards, and that the best response to POV-pushing is not to hand over control of an article to a POV-pusher from the other side. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another response: [117] [118] [119].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Andy I will not be taking the bait. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. end quote AndyTheGrump. Lets not use the excuse that few people care. There are a parcel of neutral editors on the Zeitgeist pages that hold an overview that is basically neutral and report what the sources say. Making absurd accusations of 'conspiracy' stuff does not cut it and I have no idea what you are even talking about except that you try and make mince meat out of a tofu sandwich with that approach. Your derogatory approach to other editors is one explanation why your block record is longer than my arm. I won't show any more disdain than that right now. Oh by the way this is about my being hard on I.P.'s by the way so why are trying trying to throw as much sh*t against the wall as is possible? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Earl's bullying behaviour on the talk page is self-evident. As is his violation of Wikipedia BLP policy when he repeatedly promotes his entirely unverified conspiracy theories concerning Joseph supposedly inventing TZM for profit. Nobody has to take my word for it - the evidence is in plain sight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you start a new Ani then about that subject (this one is about how I interact with I.P.'s) and supply all the diffs and make a case. I think its a real pity injecting so much false drama into this current conversation like asking me if I am a former member of Zeitgeist that is now alienated. You said above that I am clearly not 'neutral editing' and saying that you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. that is pretty strong rhetoric. I have no conspiracy bones to pick. You also said the nonsense you routinely trot out. Do you realize you are being insulting Andy? Does no one tell you to stop attacking other editors you disagree with? You say It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions. Do I really have to put up with your mental health analysis? You say they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else. You say You do not have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and you are not some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. No, I don't want to be an article gatekeeper and am not and I do not really care who participates in the article as long as they are non pov and use cited material. And you say And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. My 'warped viewpoint'? that is pretty nasty. You also say Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? end quote.

• I would like to make a request now for Andy The Grump to be blocked for uncivil behavior by making a mockery of a decent debate, attacking another editor that generally is supported by the neutral editors on the page in question and turning or trying to turn this into a battlefield and not what it was supposed to be, a request to see if I am too hard on I.P.'s on the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Technically, this discussion is about your overall treatment of other editors in this topic area. Just look at the heading and read the whole opening statement from SDS.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So Earl is now arguing that I should be blocked for suggesting that people see for themselves how he has behaved on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), in a thread on his behaviour regarding the article. A novel suggestion, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No I am not and that is just another example of your 'way' of misrepresenting things. I suggested before you did for others to go there and see what they think. I did not tell people how to think. I also am suggesting you be blocked for extreme attacking another editor with mental health comments about them, general attacks with no diffs about them etc. Zeitgeist is categorized in the conspiracy theory department. Your rhetorical flourish of putdowns is annoying and you just keep doing it over and over. Now you are putting words in my mouth. Bad form and I think you should be penalized. You are not debating you are flinging accusations and they are not supported.

The Devils Advocate was blocked from editing conspiracy articles (Zeitgeist 911 Truther thing) a couple of times [120] I am not saying he believes one way or another but he seems to have a stake in the article that is pro Zeitgeist Faq's material as does his editing partner SomeDifferentStuff. Together the two of them have brought me to Ani numerous times I think to make it easier for them to edit unencumbered. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How does "Zeitgeist is categorized in the conspiracy theory department" (whatever that is supposed to mean) justify you using an article talk page to make entirely unsubstantiated allegations that Peter Joseph concocted the Zeitgeist Movement for personal profit? A claim you have made repeatedly, both on the talk page previously discussed, and at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement before that was turned into a redirect? How does this entirely unsourced and unsubstantiated claim have any legitimate bearing on article content? What purpose do you think is served by making such claims?

And incidentally, can you point to any Wikipedia policy that makes a contributor holding pro-Zeitgeist opinions (if that is indeed the case) a matter for ANI? You have entirely failed to provide evidence that either contributor has violated any policy or guideline - and indeed you seem not to have provided any evidence that anyone mentioned in this thread has done anything but disagreed with your attempts to spin the article for your own purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not spun the article to my own purposes and since you do not know me why are you saying that? I have used the information available on the subject to try and make a good article. I am not pro or con. I have asked questions and given information on the talk page and asked for ideas many times. I guess a look at the block log of TheDevilsAdvocate might indicate that he has had problems in the past editing 911 related articles since he was blocked from editing them before but I already said that [121] and this article is a 911 conspiracy article. It is a fact that SomeDifferentStuff edits with TheDevilsAdvocate in a pro Zeitgeist way. Anyone curious can look at the article history or talk history. You are pretty extreme in your negative characterizing of my editing. I will leave it at that for now except to repeat that your battleground mentality is not appropriate. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'battleground mentality' being discussed here is of course Earl's, as evinced in his contribution history. His claims not to be "pro or con" are clearly and unambiguously contradicted by his negative depictions of Joseph, of the movement, and of anyone and everyone who disagrees with his agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist topic ban proposal for user Earl King Jr.

Earl's continued harassment of other editors, battleground behavior at anything Zeitgeist, and just plain general disruption needs to stop. This behavior has been going on for over a year; this is the THIRD ANI brought against him [122] [123] [124] in less than 7 months and so far the only response from Administrators has been to hope that the problem clears up on its own; well it hasn't and it's very clear that it's not going to. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is in order, at the very least present a formal comment on how to deal with this type of disruption. It doesn't take a heightened sense of awareness to look at this edit history [125] and see that Earl King Jr. is not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It is inevitable that as contentious a topic as the Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph's related movies will result in conflict, flared tempers and the like (I've blown my top a few times myself). There are ways of dealing with that, however. What cannot be tolerated, if we are to adhere to appropriate encyclopaedic standards, are contributors who needlessly inflame the situation (and violate WP:BLP policy in the process) by using talk pages as a forum for conspiracy theories, and who invent entirely specious reasons to ignore sources, in order to pursue their own personal agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Extra weight should be given to AndyTheGrump's testimony. The pro-zeitgeist people have accused both AndyTheGrump & Earl King Jr. [126] of editing with an anti-zeitgeist agenda. This would suggest that (1) Andy is not a zeitgeist supporter and therefore likely has an unbiased opinion of Earl King Jr., and (2) Andy has had a lot of first hand experience dealing with Earl King Jr. and the zeitgeist topic. Please consider this.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support People can see my previous proposal for a topic ban to get an idea of how persistent Earl's misconduct has been in this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. I sympathise with Somedifferentstuff's concerns, but across Zeitgeist as a whole I think EKJ's work is still a net positive. I would, however, support some kind of final warning, or a sanction which prevents "personalising" disagreements or the more adversarial approach. It would be difficult to strike a balance; when a topic is besieged by editors, often coordinated offsite. who are trying to promote the topic - which is surely happening here - it's easy for an established editor to see themselves as standing on the ramparts, sword in hand, fighting off the barbarians... If we stop EKJ editing, without addressing the broader problem (which is harder to fix), then the articles will be much worse. bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the 'broader problem' - which is TZM supporters refusing to accept Wikipedia policy regarding article content - would be a darned sight easier if Earl complied with policy himself. And yes, we know that TZM has engaged in offsite canvassing to try to spin the article. This isn't new. It isn't unique to TZM supporters for that matter either. We already have processes to deal with this, and TZM members tend on the whole to be easier than many POV-warriors to deal with, given the complete inability of most of them to actually grasp how Wikipedia works (I'll refrain from making comparisons, but I'm sure we are all aware of parallel situations that have caused a whole heap more trouble). We don't need EKJ (or anyone else) reenacting the Battle of Thermopylae on talk pages to deal with what is actually in the grand scheme of things a fairly insignificant problem. Someone (i.e you Bobrayner?) less emotionally involved, and with a bit more sense of perspective, could do the job a whole lot better. And frankly, I have to suggest (though I'm sure that EKJ won't like it) that it might be better for Earl to find other topics to involve himself in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this absurd editing could be considered a net positive. He has been trying to downplay the existence of the movement for a while and reverting others to keep it that way. He's buried material about the movement in sub-sections for the second movie and has been repeatedly removing the movement infobox from the page. Earl went as far as sloppily unhatting the disruptive commentary of an anti-Zeitgeist SPA even as his own response recognized the editor had no interest in constructive discussion. Any editor who does everything Earl has done and actually proclaims himself to be a neutral editor is clearly not someone who should be editing this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the majority of outbursts from TZM supporters is because EKJ is baiting them.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support For serious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP issues and blatant disregard for WP:RS, BRD, and DRN. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• No support Thanks for the kind and I think accurate words by User:Bobrayner. He is one of the neutral editors on the article I referenced before and there are only a few of them. As mentioned SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate tandem edit with the socks and meats from here often [127] and Andy apparently will say just about anything without providing any proof about his accusations. Peter Joseph sells DVD's of his movies which was all that was said by me, so so what? Regardless I hope Andy is blocked from editing Wikipedia for his methods of trash talking people last time calling me 'a little shit' and getting away with that. He contributed very little to the article in question, virtually nothing but seemed absorbed in battlefield drama on the talk page. For the most part I find the Zeitgeist people funny and the whole editing the article interesting. I have tried my best to make it a good article that is neutral and reflects good sourcing from reliable sources. It is a controversial subject which I have no personal stake in beyond finding it interesting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. All Earl is doing is keeping a bunch of POV pushing nonsense and fancruft out of the article. I don't even think this Zeigeist stuff is anything other than an internet meme and the author is just sitting back watching his giant troll evolve at the hands of some weak minded morons. Earl King doesn't deserve a topic ban for being a voice of sanity.--MONGO 03:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If that was all Earl was doing, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Thank you for making your opinion of Zeitgeist clear.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support As one of the targets of Earl King Jr.'s false sockpuppet accusations and blind revert harassment, I was about to create an ANI about him myself when I stumbled onto this one. The only problem with banning him from Zeitgeist (film series) is it isn't broad enough. His WP:OWNERSHIP complex spreads to all topics related to Zeitgeist, The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project, Resource Based Economy, and Peter Joseph. For example, [128] and [129]. Based on his talk page history, Earl has been using wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND ever since he created his account in 2012. He is the subject of numerous edit war warnings, Dispute Resolution, and Administrator Notice boards every year. Earl King Jr. should be banned for the following reasons:

1. He is openly negatively biased against Zeitgeist related topics
2. He has a WP:OWNERSHIP complex with these topics
3. He assumes bad faith and accuses people of being sock/meat puppets without evidence
4. He constantly reverts edits based only on his blind accusations of sock/meat puppetry.
5. He has a history of conflict regarding the topics he 'owns'.
6. His goal seems to be to slowly marginalize and undermine the topics he controls in order to not raise any red flags.

On Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series) Earl King Jr. can be seen repeatedly accusing people of being sock/meat puppetry, and sharing his clear negative bias of Zeitgeist related topics. His extremism is intent on making wikipedia worse when it comes to characterizing the topics he controls. Wiki articles with constant disagreement are known to be of lower quality. I've asked him to please be civil and neutral, and he only responds with his bias.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following are some comments from Earl King Jr.'s User Talk page history to demonstrate that he has been conflicting with people for a while. There were also many edit war warnings and dispute resolution notifications that I did not include:

Comments from Earl King Jr.'s talk page history

Personal Attacks & Accusations

Please refrain from attacking other editors, as you have done repeatedly on Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

You may also want to familiarize yourself with the following articles:

• Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too
• Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry
• Wikipedia:Civility (one of Wikipedia's five pillars)
• Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

–68.7.95.95 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Cambodia

First, I'm a far more experienced editor than you, so please don't make threats. Second, my edits are not controversial - you're the only one who objects. Third, Islam is not a major religion in Cambodia, nor isanimism - 95% of the population is Buddhist, and adding the others violayes the due weight policy. Finally, if you have concerns about my edits, take them to the article talk page.

Warning

Questioning people's motives is one thing, but questioning people's mental heath is a violation of our policy against person attacks. See WP:NPA. If you can't make a reasoned argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you'd best find a different hobby. Do again and you'll be reported to the admin noticeboard for possible suspension of editing privileges. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem concern

Hi, Earl. I'm posting here to explain a little more my twice-stated concern on article-talk pages that some of your contributions may appear to be character attacks (ad hominem). I'm posting here because this concern is not regarding any specific article's content.

WP:NPA advises: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The following diffs include examples of contributor-focused dialog:

• [[130]] – "…you are tendentious even in simple communication."
• [[131]] – "…you are against any small consensus."
• [[132]] – "You have proven a tendentious edit warring personage."

I want to assume good faith in your reasons for editing Wikipedia, and I hope you do the same for me. Please note that while I once undid your change of the Venus Project's business status from nonprofit to profit, due to the change lacking a citation ([[133]])…once a citation was established, I've since undone another editor's change of its biz status back from profit to nonprofit, due to their change lacking citation ([[134]]). I hope this shows, in one small way, that I'm not trying to bring an agenda to my edits.

Best, startswithj (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

war

I've tried reasoning with you like an adult. If you want war you're going to get it. Ites76 (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC) You obviously don't have anything better to do. Why don't you go and buy a playstation? Go out and make some friends maybe, if you're capable of giving a shit about anyone besides yourself. Ites76 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your false accusation of sock puppetry and meat puppetry at ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trolling

I need to speak to you personally, because you are trying your best to undermine a very serious effort to improve the Zeitgeist article. If you continue to interject and overtly troll my edits, be advised you are just making a fool of yourself. In the short term you may think it's funny to go against the grain to see just how far you can push me but you are being extremely immature. The idea is to improve the article in specific ways; so either improve the article, or at least contribute meaningfully about how the article could be improved, or do nothing i.e. concentrate your efforts elsewhere. You are a nuisance. Xabian40409 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. is a Anti- Peter Joseph & Anti-Zeitgeist Gatekeeper with Strong Bias in editing.

In reference to Peter Joseph's Wikipedia entry, this editor continues to remove relevant data with respect to Joseph's Work based on bias and whim. This editor is not competent and works to control information - not expand it. Flowersforparis (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IP 68.7.95.95, it's obvious you're a sock of a banned editor but even if your aren't you are a single purpose account and a POV pusher. If there is a topic ban needed here its one on your IP address.--MONGO 14:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, your comment is irrelevant to this topic. And just like Earl King Jr., you are making accusations without evidence. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:SIGNS, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:CIVIL.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

MONGO's comment is very relevant - and quite insightful. 68.7.95.95 looks like a sock devoted to TZM and harassing Earl King Junior. Strangely enough, 68.7.95.95 also cites Flowersforparis' attacks on EKJ as part of their case. Flowersforparis was banned for sockpuppetry on TZM pages. 68.7.95.95 geolocates to the same place as previous Flowersforparis socks. Now there's an interesting set of coïncidences. bobrayner (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to continue this conversation on your user talk page but I cannot post there because it's semi-protected. Bobrayner, if you think the coincidence you mentioned is evidence of sock puppetry, then you should make an official report here: WP:SPI. Otherwise, please do not continue to modify my comments. Modifying other people's comments is against WP:TPO. Thanks. — Back on topic, the main issue here is that there are strong POVs both for and against Zeitgeist-y stuff, and anyone openly demonstrating such POVs, like Earl King Jr. being very anti-zeitgeist, clearly should not be editing those topics, that is unless he can demonstrate that he can behave according to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. As it stands currently, the behavior of Earl King Jr. (and anyone else with a strong POV on the topic) is not acceptable for building an encyclopedia.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Some number of cranks and conspiracy theorists want to use Wikipedia to promote their ideas. Earl's work makes this difficult. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be true, but Earl is not the only editor on Wikipedia who can correct improper edits. The solution cannot be to allow Earl to continue his negative behavior. Something must be done.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a single purpose account here solely to promote fancruft on this nonexistent movement.--MONGO 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Emotions run high in these topics, and a break is a good thing on occasion. Forced breaks and bans do little except to make the subject stew over the issue during the ban period. I have seen bans for less offensive behavior than described here; I have seen editors practically get away with Wikimurder and suffer no consequences. I would recommend all parties involved take a two week break while the article is fully protected. Give yourselves a little break, grab a cup of coffee or tea, take your dog (or cat, or ferret, or anole) for a long walk, and your significant other to dinner and a movie. Spread the Wikilove :-) ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose From the outside looking in, I see two reasons why a topic ban for the user would be a bad idea. First, given that everyone involved is guilty the impression is that Earl Jr. disagrees with several editors and those editors all want him banned because they disagree with his edits. That isn't a valid reason. Second - and this is important - even if, theoretically speaking, the user's edits are problematic so are some of the edits he has reverted. Since it seems to be a one vs. many scenario, topic banning the one would allow the article to become skewed during that time. There will likely be poor edits both with and without a topic ban from multiple sides; this renders the topic ban ineffective in regard to improving the quality of the article, related articles and the site as a whole. It's frivolous, especially considering that compared to some of the years-long processes of talk page negotiation I've seen, what has transpired on the Zeitgeist talk page is nothing. The various editors involved need to try harder because they have not so far. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the Earl's edit history and the complaints against him, this has been going on for years. The Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) does not contain the full talk history because other articles (like Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement) were merged/copied into this one. If nothing is done, Earl's disruptive editing campaign to drive away productive contributors will surely continue.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Editors may be interested in this sockpuppet investigation of 68.7.95.95. I struck out the sockpuppet's comments, so they've revert-warred to strike out my comments instead. I knew there was a reason I gave up editing Zeitgeist articles... bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your CheckUser request has been denied. In the future, please provided evidence for your WP:SPI reports. Now can we please stay on topic?—68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't been 'denied' it was requested that more information/diffs be presented. Editing Zeitgeist can be a black hole because of the promoters, single purpose accounts and hangers on from Facebook etc. that apparently know the 'system' of editing and complaining. Having a few editors over view things is no doubt tedious for them.

I want to mention that the person that brought this Ani was blocked previously from editing The Zeitgeist Movement for disruption caused by edit warring Here is that record [135] Whether that means anything now is debatable but that and the fact that TheDevilsAdvocate was topic banned from 911 related articles [136]. He is not topic banned now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have started this ANI if he hadn't. Earl, if you don't mind answering: Why do you want to remain involved with the Zeitgeist article? --a topic for which you openly express your dislike.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose EK is the usually the only editor opposing the walled-gardening of zeitgeist articles and SPA's that regulary attempt to insert nonsense. Barnstar, not topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• What do those arguing for Earl's vital role in combating Zeitgeist supporters think of the fact that Earl is a frequent plagiarist? See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, these two edits from a couple days later ripped from Radio Free Asia, this edit from November ripping material from East Asia Forum and Global Advice Network, and this edit from December ripping material from Human Rights Watch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Those articles have zero to do with this. And if I paraphrased them to closely, that is another issue? I added citations for source material. Plagiarists keep sources hidden and claim they wrote something. Is it good to witch hunt? I have mentioned already that you were topic banned previously from editing conspiracy articles like Zeitgeist but did not mention that you broke your topic ban then and were reblocked. Maybe someone could think about topic banning you again from those articles connected to Zeitgeist. I have mentioned already that you tandem edit with SomeDifferentStuff in a pro Zeitgeist Faq's material way another editor previously blocked for disruption and edit warring the article. The neutral editors have more or less defended me here at least somewhat. The now blocked sock I.p. is history for a month or so 68.7.95.95|68.7.95.95 (talk). Andy has his fans on Wikipedia of which I am not one, but presented in my opinion an aggressive, angry, inaccurate view of my edits. He seems to haunt the Ani board dishing out diatribes. Anyway, could someone close this? I promise I will be easier on I.P.'s in the future even the one that will be unblocked in a month from the sock report request. In other words I will try to be more Milquetoast and just provide facts. For some reason the Zeitgeist articles bring out strong emotions in people, I suppose the 911, Truther, conspiracy connection. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Two essays come to mind: Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you and Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable. Beyond that, I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"if I paraphrased them to closely, that is another issue"? It would be, if it was close paraphrasing. It isn't. It is straight copy-pasting of copyright content. If this isn't going to be discussed here, it certainly needs to be discussed somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I put things in quotes from the article themselves if using information from them and made citations to where the information came from. This is extreme sidetracking. How about discussion on the article talk page or just editing them yourself if you think I did something? Those are rhetorical but relevant points Just my two cents worth. I know Wikipedia does not need me and I know I am replaceable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright. [137][138][139][140] Your attempt to deny what is clearly visible in front of your own nose strikes me as further evidence of your problematic attitude. It may not relate to Zeitgeist, but it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I watched the Zeigeist movie exactly once and was not a fan. I don't know if I have ever looked at the Zeitgeist FAQ and, if I did, it would be because it was brought up here at some point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear

For a long time now, the article Christ Myth Theory has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user Renejs is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the WP:TRUTH. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]. Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. [149]. Another problem related to the same user concerns WP:COI. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Wikipedia account is an WP:SPA to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring [150], [151] are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Wikipedia rules, ANI would be the only option [152], Bill the Cat 7 agreed [153] while Martijn Meijering proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules [154]. That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the WP:TRUTH, there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually is right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think we've got a really good basis for a topic ban here. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Unfortunately, this is a case that was deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee in order to close in 2014, and they failed to impose the requested discretionary sanctions, which would permit the topic-ban by arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is very much troubling. The most troubling diff is the January 2nd one where he says he will deliberately game the system by reverting to 3 times a day, opting that he has 'no other choice' to do such. This editor has been told repeatedly to stop, think, and listen and he seems to not think that they're actually saying that to him, or that it doesn't apply because he's right. A topic ban would be suitable, but I think that a 0RR restriction would be better; forcing him to not revert but discuss on talk page his changes, and try to get consensus for them would be better. That would negate all the reverting, and force him to present his changes on the talk page in an attempt to get consensus. Tutelary (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is more troubling than the COI he rather clearly has on this topic. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but technically, you aren't disallowed from editing the page, only strongly discouraged. The diff represented means that he's willing to game the system, violate the spirit of the edit warring policy, and ignore all objections. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would never bring up a situation at ANI where a serious user had a COI, so what triggered the report was the extensive edit warring, the "promise" to continue and the refusal to hear. But I think the COI is a an additional problem in this context, as it adds another dimension to the problem with the SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg [155]). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. GoldenRing (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the editor's entire history here, I don't know that he has ever really edited outside of the history of Jesus topic. His only apparent substantial editing in history was in regards to the Nazareth/Nazarene articles, which was apparently the topic of his published work. A topic ban from early Christianity would deal with all those problems, or, alternately, I suppose if we think of him as being basically an SPA on the topic of Jesus, a site ban might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Declaring their commitment to edit war to push their version of the WP:TRUTH is grounds for a 0RR restriction or a topic ban in my book. Blackmane (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I'd like to say that (1) I wasn't the first to revert (that honor goes to Mmeijeri) and so don't think I started the "edit war"; (2) I was by no means the only one to revert. The list is as follows (with descending number of reverts): Renejs -- 8, Bill the Cat 7 -- 5, Mmeijeri -- 2, Jeppiz -- 2, Gekritzl -- 2, T. M. Drew -- 1; (3) I've been a very active explainer of my reasons on the Talk page, very solicitous to listen to others and follow logic in this discussion, not emotion. I started the RfC section to get input as to why we should keep the Grant statement at the root of this whole bruhaha--I've simply acted according to logic: there IS no reason to keep the Grant quote because nobody's offered a reason, while very good reasons have been offered to the contrary! (4) I've been a big provider of new information, gathering, compiling, and uploading the reference section "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT); (5) I've tried to be cordial despite in-my-face insults like "Peddle your fantasies somewhere else", and Bill the Cat 7's claim of "consensus" without Gektrizl or myself included; (6) if you read the short explanations in the revert history, you'll see that I'm not focused on gaming the system but on the facts, using the words "provably false", "obviously false", etc. In fact, I think Gekritzl and myself are the only editors who have been 'content' oriented in this whole edit war, while all the other editors seem 'behavior' oriented and have forgotten that it should be about the facts. Here's the revert history with the explanations on the history page:

- Mmeijeri 12:14, 30 December 2014‎ (Undid revision 640174799 by Renejs (That's arguing with the source, we'd need a reliable source who says it's no longer tenable)

- Renejs 21:00, 30 December 2014 (This is fact, not argument (as the preceding section of this article makes clear). Harpur & Brodie have appeared as Jesus mythicists since Grant wrote!)

- Jeppiz 22:51, 30 December 2014‎ (No need to repeat what has already been said. The text makes it clear Grant said this in 1977, and those two authors have already been mentioned.)

- Renejs 00:07, 31 December 2014 (The problem is precisely that what Grant said is now incorrect. The whole paragraph on Grant should probably be deleted.)

- T. M. Drew 03:22, 31 December 2014‎ (Grant's assessment is correct, and this sentence is not needed.)

- Renejs 20:12, 31 December 2014‎ (The facts prove otherwise.)

- Bill the Cat 7 18:42, 1 January 2015‎ (This is getting tiresome. CMT is FRINGE.)

- Renejs 17:31, 2 January 2015 (Deletion of provably false statement.)

- Bill the Cat 7 17:48, 2 January 2015 (It is provable. Take it to the talk page. If you want references, let me know.‎)

- Renejs 18:31, 2 January 2015‎ (I'm got references supporting the CMT, too, and they'll be on the Talk page soon.)

- Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)

- Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)

- Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)

- Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)

- Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)

- Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)

- Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)

- Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)

- Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)

- Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)Renejs (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

Therefore, it is not obsolete. And it is certainly fringe, as practically all scholars say (click on the Show link to see the list). Rather than fixing the quote as it appears in the current article, he instead is trying to promote the CMT while misrepresenting what virtually all scholars have concluded. So, I think a topic ban is appropriate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more note, because I don't wish to tire administrator's with this issue. . . You're moving the goalposts, Bill, and are now engaging in a bit of slight-of-hand. You know very well that those important additional words ("or at any rate very few") is not in the CMT article. So, all the reverts never go there. That's not what this is about. This is about the wiki article and what IT says (which is wrong today), not what Grant may or may not have said (misquoted or otherwise). The "status quo" wiki version everybody wants to reinstate (except me and Gekritzl) is:

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[156]

Not even the date 1977 is given in the above (that's found in the reference tag), so it reads as if the above were still current today, almost 40 years later. The nuts and bolts of this revealing issue are straightforward. According to the wiki version, Robert M. Grant (one of the most prominent historians and theologians of his generation) asserted that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (In fact, the quote ultimately wasn't by Grant himself--he was actually citing somebody else, as his footnote reveals.) Such an assertion has long been obsolete. Not one, not two, but at least three (and arguably more) "serious scholars" have now come forward and denied the historicity of Jesus. I duly brought up their names--Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, and Richard Carrier--all "Jesus mythicists" with Ph.D's in a relevant field. At this information, it appears that certain editors simply went ballistic. I provided a lengthy reference section of "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT) in order to show that, indeed, there are numerous scholars who support this view today. I also started an RfC section (on the CMT talk page) inviting editors to give any reason at all why Grant's assertion--as stated on the wiki page!--might still be true. Nobody did. That RfC section is still there, by the way.

The whole point, for me, is the admission that today we have multiple "serious scholars" who deny the historicity of Jesus. That is indisputable, and the CMT page needs to reflect that, and not continue saying "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." In short, we can not revert to status quo! That's why I insist on deleting that assertion--it's false! We're not talking here about a carefully worded retrospective sense, e.g., "Though in 1977 Robert Grant stated. . . today a number of scholars endorse the CMT." That's something else, which no one has yet proposed. Everybody, instead, is insisted on retaining Grant's false wording (without any additional words). That's the problem.

This is (or should be) a simple issue. I'm maintaining that a single critical assertion in the CMT article is no longer true, and I can easily prove my point--and have done so repeatedly on the Talk page. Astonishingly, however, other editors have ignored verifiability and made this an issue of revert warring and COI.

I'm certainly not the most important element here, and have other things to do than edit Wikipedia. But I think Wikipedia is on the line in a small way, and in a sense so is its legacy. I can imagine--maybe a century from now--people saying, "Oh yeah. . . Wikipedia. . . Wasn't that the early digital encylopedia which couldn't handle controversy? Instead of keeping to its stated philosophy of verification, it caved to internal pressures--mostly of a conservative nature. The Jesus issue is a case in point. As late as 2015 Wikipedia still insisted there wasn't a single serious scholar who disputed the historicity of Jesus. Of course, there were quite a few such scholars by then--and had been since the turn of the millennium, if not before. . ." Renejs (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Quite a few" doesn't really mean anything. What's the percentage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go, that can be decided by the normal consensus process, including things like adding the "dubious - discuss" tag that cannot be removed without a consensus, and of course the various conflict resolution procedures. The point is that edit-warring is against the rules. Renejs has no special privileges that allow him to operate outside the rules that apply to everybody else. He cannot be allowed to impose his will unilaterally. He should self-revert, add a dubious tag and appeal to some conflict resolution board. If he refuses to abide by the rules, I think he should be blocked for 30 days to show him you cannot get away with blatant violations of the rules. That also gives the rest of the editors an opportunity to work out a solution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "dubious-discuss" tag. You know, I'm pretty inexperienced at Wikipedia. . . And I don't wish to claim "special privileges." The fact that these accusations are being leveled against me indicates that I'm not getting a fair shake. . . After all, don't you remember that it was I who started the RfC precisely to get 'input' on the Grant statement? That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "impose [his] will unilaterally." But you don't like the facts I'm bringing, so you want to ban me. I understand this perfectly.Renejs (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I not want to ban you, I'm bending over backwards to prevent that from happening. If you agree you aren't very familiar with Wikipedia policy, you shouldn't go around lecturing people about it and ignoring the many complaints about your policy violations by others who are familiar with it. You should now self-revert, declare your intention to abide by the rules, and be very hesitant to assume others are wrong if they say you are violating the rules. That may not be enough to prevent a block or even a ban, but it's your best shot. You are free to add a "dubious - discuss tag", or one of several NPOV tags. None of these can be removed without a consensus. If you don't know how to use them, you should spend some time googling and using the Wikipedia search function. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen to Martijn here, OK? If you aren't familiar with policies and guidelines, then you certainly shouldn't be trying to impose your admittedly flawed understanding of them, or adding templates you don't apparently completely understand the usage of. Also, honestly, if you want to reduce the chances of some sort of sanction being imposed, you might really want to read WP:ADOPT and have a good chance of getting some help there. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just like Martijn Meijering, this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong. The report is based on Renejs's behavior: repeated edit-warring, explicit "promise" to continue to edit war, and violations of COI. Content-related issues are irrelevant and belong at the talk page of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Itemizing the various proposals made of late to deal with this situation below. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Renejs

• Proposed and supported by me and Blackmane above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV, he has shown time and time again that he will edit war to do this, and he has vowed to continue the edit warring. I think that's enough, even without the rather blatant COI.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support If he/she is here to build an encyclopedia, then he/she can edit other topics. If he/she is not, then he/she will go away, or breach the topic ban. If he/she learns to edit collaboratively, then in time the topic ban could be removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough in the diffs provided to support a topic ban at this point. Renejs appears more reasonable than some of the interpretations of his diffs suggest. I don't know much about this area, but in the diffs provided above, some of the content he wants to include appears more neutrally written than the current text. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The complaint isn't about his views, it's about his edit-warring and other policy violations. He is not trying to win over people to his point of view, he is trying to force his views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged. Edit-warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with a content dispute. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are falsely accusing, Mmeijeri. I am not trying to "force [my] views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged." There IS consensus on the Grant status quo version--it is false! Do you want a singing telegram informing you about this? EVERYONE has *already* agreed (even you, I'm sure). No one is contesting that there is at least one "serious scholar" today who espouses the CMT. No one challenges that Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, or Richard Carrier (at least one of these) is a "serious scholar." As a formality, I opened the RfC on the talk page precisely for this point (which is pretty obvious, anyway), merely for 'official' confirmation. In sum, then, there is no dispute regarding content here. Now, once Grant's statement is seen to be wrong today, then there is absolutely no reason for keeping this very serious (and easily proven) falsehood in the article. It needs to go immediately. (Once again, I caution that the Grant quote is not a historical statement 'from 1977,' nor does the status quo version have the words "or at least very few.")

I think that this whole discussion and arbitration was wrong-headed from the start and that there never was cause for arbitration, which has IMO been trumped up. Jeppiz and Mmeijeri keep insisting it's not about content but about behavior. However, it is about *content determining behavior* (at least, my behavior). It is against my principles to revert to a statement which EVERYONE (including myself) has already determined to be false. I consider Mmeijeri's insistence on such a revert grotesque. If Wikipedia insists on retaining statements which have already been *proven* false, then I would want nothing to do with the encyclopedia anyway and a ban would be welcome to me. BTW, I can say that this Grant statement is a very rare case. I doubt I would (or could) be so insistent on any other statement. So, let's get beyond this and put aside a statement which everyone agrees is false.

I'm afraid Mmeijeri's edits show rigidity and great difficulty "hearing" the other side. . . Once again, there has *already been consensus* that the status quo Grant statement is false (the RfC section simply confirmed the obvious). There is no voiced disagreement on this point. . . Thus, his insistence upon reverting to an obviously false statement is wrong-headed and could be interpreted as POV pushing--for it is not fact-based. Similarly for Jeppiz, John Carter, Bill the Cat 7, T. M. Drew, and the editors who refuse to part with a (cherished) statement by a well-known scholar from 1977--a statement that today is obviously invalid. Is such insistance not POV pushing?

Mmeijeri seems philosophically opposed (and strongly so) to a change made in an article before the discussion phase has ended. I think this is theoretically correct. But what he refuses to grasp is that *in this case* there is no discussion--the status quo statement has already been determined false by EVERYBODY! No one (not even Mmeijeri) contests this. Thus, BRD is not in force. That's already past. Now it's time to reject the statement (or update it by consensus!) and move on.Renejs (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false, but not that it needs to be removed.

Say no more. . . This is the problem--right here! You've got two parts to that sentence, Mmeijeri, and they don't go together: (1) There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false; and (2) but not that it needs to be removed. I say this: For heaven's sake, if there's "a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false," then it needs to go! That's my point. You don't need TWO consensuses, one for the determination of falsehood, and another for the deletion. Someone else could come along and object that there needs to be a 3rd consensus, etc. etc. All this is unnecessary and nowhere in the Wiki policy, AFAIK. Somebody does, however, need to take action on the fact that a seminal assertion is false. That action is important. After all, what benefit is it if people work to determine if statements are true or false, and then but everybody dithers and no one takes action? [BTW--for my education--where does one find the "dubious-discuss" tag? I've looked.]

You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first. As for the "dubious - discuss" tag, see Template:Dubious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[MM] By your own summary of the reverts there are at least four people who oppose the change, and you're the only one advocating it. The truth or falsehood of Grant's claim is irrelevant. We quote people saying false things all the time, as inevitably we must when we neutrally report on a debate where various sources disagree. Two sides that contradict each other cannot both be right, and yet we must neutrally report both. Also, even if there now was a consensus the line should be removed, that does not justify your earlier edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this even clearer: you refuse to revert a change that four or five people oppose and only you support. Clearly, you do not have a consensus for your change, and therefore the status quo version should remain. Nevertheless you refuse to revert. That's edit-warring, even if you are right. The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue. If you think five editors are ganging up on you to push a point of view, then you can add an NPOV tag, a "dubious - discuss" tag and appeal to one of our conflict resolution boards. Yet you refuse to do that, and insist on having things your way. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• CommentI just looked though the article in question and I think that Renejs has some concerns, which don't justify bad behavior but may mitigate it to some extent. First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs. If Renejs would agree to exercise patients and follow policy, then this thread should be closed. If that doesn't work, then a topic ban or more might be the way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to work with others and exercise patience. But to do so we have to work together and listen to each other, not just make rules for others.Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment. First you say some concerns don't justify bad behavior but then you argue that in fact it does. I don't think this is the place to discuss the content, suffice to say that it's an article on a fringe theory and the articles mixes both serious scholars and conspiracy theorists, so it's true it could and should be approved. But I know of no Wikipedia policy that allow heavy edit warring because one is convinced one is right. In the absence of such a policy, I'm afraid I fail to see the point of the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The bottom line is that after reading through this, I think you guys ought to give it another shot to work together. Renejs, from the his comments above and below appears to want to make it work. I may very well be wrong, but my gut tells me you might just be able to make it work. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been very willing to work with Renejs the whole time, and I think the others are too. The problem is not that we disagree with him (although we do), the problem is that he insists on reinserting a change that others have repeatedly reverted and otherwise objected to. He needs to stop edit-warring and try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing. If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board. If you want to join in the actual content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the Talk page, not here. The complaint here is his wilfully going against the consensus on the basis of an argument that he himself finds satisfactory but others don't. We aren't asking that he should stop arguing his case, but that he should stop edit-warring. You are not suggesting that he can unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached, are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is really not the place to introduce the *highly charged* and probably complex issue of whether the CMT is "fringe theory". That category tag has already been the target of edit warring (it is presently not on the article) and clearly no consensus has yet been attained there (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=639175941&oldid=639175067). Look, this very interesting article is really going to require the best in us all to attain NPOV. We all have a point of view, but I'm willing to work with you guys, if you're willing to work with me!Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, so do you agree to stop edit warring, revert your latest edit warring and to remove the sections about yourself from the article? Jeppiz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad the admins have kept this discussion open. It's Jeppiz who was largely responsible for hauling me in front of the admins for POV ("The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV," above). But Jeppiz' own considerable POV is now finally coming through, as with his one-sided view of "fringe theory" just mentioned above. We all have POV! It's like a zebra's stripes. We just don't all have the same POV. But by working together, we cancel out each other's POV and produce an article which is (hopefully) NPOV and beyond the scope of any single user. That's the beauty of Wikipedia--when it's working. But for this to work, it's critical to keep editors of a variety of POV's on board. If a user like Jeppiz is on a crusade to eliminate people with opposing POV, then Wiki gets a weak, non-fact-based article like the current one on the CMT--outdated and skewed to the conservative side, as admin 'I am One of Many' has implied above: "First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs." Speaking for myself, of course, I concur. This article needs me! We don't want crusaders chasing people away. . . I will be more specific--this article NEEDS my POV precisely to counter the POV of Jeppiz and a few others. Evidently, the article has lacked my POV for some time, because it leans to the right (as admin noted above) and is a decade or more behind the times. (We see it now: we're arguing about a Grant quote from 1977, and three-quarters of the "Further Reading" section is before 1950!)

If Wiki wants NPOV articles on Jesus (which is obviously a very important topic) it must accommodate users with a variety of POVs. This is how the system works--one balances the other. Though I don't agree with your POV, Jeppiz, I'm still willing to work with you. In fact, I welcome your participation, knowing you will cancel me out and Wiki will benefit. But are you ready to work with me? That's the question. And, if not, which one of us should go out the door? Obviously, the one who is NOT willing to collaborate, the one who insists "my way or the highway". . .

Specifically, I've already answered your edit warring charge. It takes at least two to do that, and I provided a list of edit warriors above (which includes you).

I've also answered YOUR demand that I revert my last edit. This is a reversion to a proven false statement. Why would anyone want this? Insisting on a proven false statement from 1977 demonstrates a serious inability to live with the facts today. That's more than just POV. Inability to tolerate proven facts is a serious liability for an agressive Wiki editor like Jeppiz. I would suggest, that if Jeppiz cannot accept the facts that 'fringe theory' is still unresolved and that the Grant statement is categorically false, then HIS role and behavior pattern needs to be examined. (Incidentally, I have no such opinion regarding Mmeijeri, who seems to have the gift of pulling to the center from all sides. I just think he has a hangup on protocol.)

As for the section on me in the article, if users think it should be it removed, then remove it! I will stay entirely away from that discussion, per COI. That doesn't interest me at all.Renejs (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for him to remove the sections about himself, in fact I think he should steer clear of them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should clarify my comment re the topic ban. It is not to remove Renejs completely from the article indefinitely. I would only support a fixed length topic ban with the intention that Renejs go edit something that isn't as close to his interest and learn the ropes. This is true of most topic bans. Stepping away for a period to gain experience does work wonders as long as the Tbanned editor recognises the opportunity. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have seen quite a bit of edit warring on the Christ Myth Theory page and a couple of others. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to harass and edit war.--TMD Talk Page. 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per TMDrew. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per my above comments on the matter. The editor does not seem that they wish to change their opinion on the subject. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Too drastic a measure to try first. I think Renejes persists in his behaviour because he is getting away with it: his edit has been on the page for over a week, even though at least four editors object to it. Giving him a final warning and blocking him for thirty days if he doesn't react could change all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• previously involved support This is a perpetual issue on this article, and we need to start being severe with those who are disrupting the process of building real consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since he doesn't edit anything else, this would be equivalent to a siteban for him. Not (yet) warranted in this case. Bacchiad (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This comes across as a kneecapping in response to a routine content disagreement. BlueSalix (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 30 day block of Renejs

• Which Martin Meijering proposed above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My actual proposal is to give him one final chance to do the right thing. This probably involves having an administrator issue a final warning. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Way too much cyber ink has been expended on what is a fairly run of the mill case of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus. Let's start here and if they don't learn their lesson we can always come back to the more serious sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Bacchiad (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block, particularly a 30 day one. BlueSalix (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm proposing. Over the past few days the disruptive behaviour has been dialed down, perhaps in reaction to statements made here. If so, I'm happy to see that, but the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed. Ideally Renejs would take it out himself (and in that case we don't even need an explicit administrative caution), but if he doesn't someone else needs to do it and then he does need to be warned that further edit-warring will not be tolerated. I don't know if 30 days is the appropriate length of a block in case of further violations, and maybe it doesn't need to be spelled out in the warning.

Also, note that while the content disagreement may be fairly routine, the user conduct has not been. The complaint here is about highly disruptive user conduct, and the details and nature of the content disagreement are not relevant to this complaint, though they are obviously relevant to an eventual resolution of the disagreement itself. If you read his statements in this ANI thread, you'll see he has blatantly denied existing Wikipedia policies! Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering, I think you're confused. You're also getting a little wild. You write that "the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed." But I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. FYI, my participation in the group edit-war got an obviously false statement by Grant OUT of the CMT article. I didn't put anything in. My last revert was on Jan 6 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641192563&oldid=641176576. Also, since then I haven't touched the article until today when I updated a reference tag.

Admins: this is transparent harassment from Meijering. I'm surprised he's been able to continue doing it for so long. I think it's time to institute formal harassment proceedings against him (because he's really persistent) and I'm asking you directly how I might go about doing that. You can contact me on my user page or how you think appropriate. Wikipedia:Harassment defines it as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." This is exactly what's been happening to me, and there's a growing record of it right here on this page. There are consequences, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking_for_harassment. Meijering has now graduated to inventing dirt to throw at me, and he's trying to hoodwink you admins. I think that's getting pretty serious.

As for conduct, I find the conduct of Meijering absolutely inexcusable.

Renejs (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion you have edit-warred two changes into the article: the removal of Grant's statement that no serious scholar has put forward the CMT and you've added a rebuttal, both of which changes survive in the latest version, in altered form. Both changes have been repeatedly reverted, and reinserted by you.

You don't seem to know the difference between removing something and putting it in. And what "rebuttal" did I put in? Are you inventing again? (Time for chicken soup. . .)

If you read my posts on this thread, you'll see that contrary to your assertion I've not at all been concerned with trying to get you blocked, but simply with getting these edit-warred changes reverted, at least until there is a consensus for a new version. In fact, I have been bending over backwards to offer you a way out.

I prefer you to stop bending over backwards and start making sense.

Since you claim none of your edit-warred changes survive in the latest form of the article, I'll now feel free to remove them until there is a consensus that supports them.

You don't seem to have yet figured out what my "edit-warred changes" were. They were the removal of one obviously false sentence from Grant: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That's it. Nothing else.

If you revert them again (as opposed to arguing for them on the Talk page), that will be (yet another) crystal clear case of edit-warring, which should have consequences.

Dunno what you're talking about. The only thing I'll definitely revert out is the Grant statement if you're foolish enough to put what everyone considers an OBVIOUS FALSEHOOD back in.

If you don't, then this thread will serve as a record of the complaints about your behaviour and your responses to them in case the disruptive behaviour resumes.

I'm happy to let this page stand as a witness to my behavior. You're the one being disruptive. This would have never happened had you not taken it to the admins and continued to prolong this charade for two weeks.

I've stated several times now, if you don't resume edit-warring and your edit-warred changes are removed, I see no reason for sanctions at this time.

Before anyone cares what you think, Meijering, first you have to demonstrate that you're rational.Renejs (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How the others who support sanctions will react to this is for them to decide. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering has just reverted to the old Grant statement which 100% consensus considers false (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=643228427&oldid=643128901). This needs to be noted.Renejs (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Renejs

• Suggested by me above, but not necessarily supported by me, who would prefer a topic ban if anything, based on his edit history showing him to be basically an SPA on the broad topic of the existence of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per John Carter.--TMD Talk Page. 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per John Carter. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason for a site ban unless and until he misbehaves on other topics as well, which seems unlikely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, how is repeatedly inserting a change that no one else supports and several others object to acting in good faith? I agree we should not be contemplating a site ban now, but I don't understand how people can say that without also pointing out there do need to be sanctions, because this blatant edit-warring is unacceptable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

---

This "wikihounding" of myself by user Martijn Meijering (Mmeijeri) has gone on long enough. I appeal to the administrators, whoever you are, to adhere to Wikipedia policy and not to invented "protocols" by Meijering or anyone else, especially when they don't understand Wiki policy themselves (see further). Meijering has now emerged as the main engineer of sanctions against me, continually forcing this issue. He says it's not about content (the Grant citation in the CMT article)--but it is--and he's getting weirder and weirder, writing things like "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant"(Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?) Such an attitude is astonishing when Wikipedia is about verifiability and getting statements as correct as possible. The critical 1977 Grant citation in the CMT article ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus") is causing this brouhaha, though it has already been verified FALSE by everybody today!

I have been hauled in front of arbitration for removing the above proven false statement by Grant. This is, however, entirely correct Wiki policy, especially when there is consensus--and there has been consensus (contrary to Meijering's obstinate insistence on the contrary)--because NOBODY thinks the Grant statement is any longer true (or that it has been for quite some time)! In Wikipedia one is supposed to remove clearly false material. When I first removed this assertion, I explained why--first in the brief edits, and then on the talk page. Because of resistance, I finally instituted an RfC section on the CMT talk page to confirm the (obvious) incorrectness of Grant's statement today. But Meijering, Jeppiz, and others still resisted, and they even hauled me in front of the admins for this. Meijering wants to go through some kind of arcane process and "try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing"--when, of course, we already have complete consensus. He writes: "If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board"--but these are all his own false protocol requirements.

In fact, a statement doesn't even have to be provably false to be removed--just unsourced: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). What is Meijering going on and on about here! I am being wikihounded, plain and simple. . .

Meijering writes that I cannot "unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached"--but, once again, no one doubts that a consensus HAS been reached. This is what he refuses to see. We're talking about removing information from an article which is simply and easily proven false. (At least three PhD's in the field now ascribe to the CMT, and at least one has since the 1970's--the New Testament scholar Fr. Thomas L. Brodie).

Here is Meijeri's convoluted solution (?) to this matter, which he astonishingly considers "very simple": "You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first." Sounds pretty damn complex to me, especially when we're dealing with a statement by Grant which the consensus has already determined to be untenable.

Meijering makes such a big deal about Wikipedia policy when he himself doesn't understand it, as in his misinterpreting RfC policy (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?--scroll to bottom). He continues to imperiously foist his OWN requirements for FALSE 'protocol' on me. The only reason I can see for this is presumably to attain compliance of behavior or even a topic ban. This is tantamount to censorship of the users which, of course, amounts to censorship of Wikipedia (POV).

Finally, Meijering and Jeppiz come out with one ridiculous assertion after another. Here are a few:

--Meijering: "The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue."

-- Meijering: "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant" (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?)

--Meijering: "Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go. . ."

--Jeppiz: "this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong."

I rest my case and probably deserve a Barnstar. I'm being wikihounded and appeal to the admins to deliver a severe warning (at the very least) against Meijering and Jeppiz concerning their aggressive and unjustifiable behavior. It would be a most serious matter if any of the admins allowed themselves to be swayed by a wikihound like Meijering, one who is an active, aggressive, and controlling editor who is apparently closely patrolling the Jesus pages on Wikipedia.Renejs (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Four or five editors have reverted Renejs's edit, only he has supported it, yet he keeps reinserting it and it is still on the page. It's crystal clear that there is no consensus for his change. Also, I'm calling for the lightest possible sanction: a final warning telling him to revert his controversial change until there is a consensus for that specific change, as opposed to some related issue he thinks is decisive. If he refuses, I'm calling for a thirty day block.

I'm starting to wonder whether it was a mistake to bring this to the general section as opposed to the edit-warring / 3RR subsection. There is a clear violation of 3RR, which I thought was intended as a bright line. Can some administrator step in and take action? Is there anything we still need to wait for? A controversial change has been edit-warred into the article by a single SPA with a COI, over the objections of four or five other editors, and it has remained there for at least a week or so. I'm not sure why people are voting on the various proposed sanctions, especially the involved editors (myself included), since I thought this wasn't a vote. Are we waiting for some kind of quorum of administrators to weigh in? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer he refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add that Meijering (user Mmeijeri) has been accused of bullying in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Me.2C_.22constantly_mentioning_other_editors_by_name.22. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The user making that accusation (Homni) is a sock puppet of PennySeven and has been blocked indefinitely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You were still bullying.

And I see that you yourself have refused to self-revert, heatedly saying "don't lecture me! . . . I don't have to undo my revert". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Fractional_Reserve_Banking You're evidently a hypocrite too.

There as here I was insisting on a consensus for a controversial change. So, no, I did not have to self-revert. The reason you do have to self-revert in this case is because in your case the sequence was: bold edit by Renejs (fine), reverted by someone else (fine), reinserted by Renejs (edit-warring, several times in fact). You are not supposed to reinsert a bold change that has been reverted by someone else before obtaining a consensus. You are welcome to make a Bold change, and everybody else is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And what about your history of obstinately refusing to "get the point"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note . Here the user even said "we are all going of die of old age on this." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Comment_from_PirateButtercup

And I see you've resisted changes to the Grant quote before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note Renejs (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Conceding some commonsense exceptions, we don't usually start with the nuclear option when dealing with a problem editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• oppose no evidence of problem editing outside the area. They are currently a WP:SPA. give them some WP:ROPE. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't see enough to take a drastic step. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose Site bans are reserved for the most tenacious of problem editors, generally only after they have gone prolonged periods of time violating behavioural guidelines with no sign they will ever internalize our policies and procedures. Renejs certainly does have a long way to go with regard to understanding how our content decisions are made on this project and contributing appropriately, and some kind of sanction (if only a temporary block for the next revert violation) may very be in order, but he hasn't begun to approach the level of disruption that has traditionally been reserved for site bans. Indeed, those kinds of decisions are rarely considered to be in the purview of ANI and I doubt any admin is going to act to try to impose such a massive punishment based on the behaviours being discussed here. Snow talk 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block or site ban, except in some dire emergency of which this clearly isn't. BlueSalix (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says User:Magnolia677

This isn't a coincidence or a "shared interest"; This is a pattern of abuse, in which Magnolia677 falsely projects an interest in all things New Jersey in order to get his pound of flesh because I demanded in the past that he add sources.

1) I first encountered User:Magnolia677 when he was operating under User:Richard apple and problems arose quickly as he persisted in adding material and refused to add sources. Here, in April 2013 I asked that he "be sure to always add sources for all edits like these" adding notables. He blindly reverted the edits, so I asked again for sources. He was back to his ways days later, so I asked again for the required references. He in turn deleted the request, yet again. By July 2013 he was at it again, so I asked yet one more time and he deleted the message, again. I asked about another unsourced edit and seemed to have set him off.

2) In a rambling reply on my talk page, Magnolia677 comes out and makes the attacks that foreshadow his present abuse: "You do a lot of edits, and you have certainly added to Wikipedia. But you don't own it. When you act so harshly with people who add to articles about New Jersey, you inhibit them from contributing. This is a problem.... And please note... 'Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia'" explicitly citing Wikipedia:Harassment. He knows full well what WP:Harassment means, but thinks that asking for sources is harassment.

3) I wasn't the only one raising the issue, with John from Idegon warning about unsourced edits, edit warring and removing talk page edits and refusing to discuss. The Rambling Man asks here followed by Nightscream asking for sources.

4) On December 11, 2013, Richard apple became Magnolia677, presumably looking to move past his tainted start as a belligerent editor who refuses to add appropriate sources.

5) As Richard apple, he had no apparent strong interest in places in New Jersey, with just 6 in February 2013; 5 in April 2013; 2 in July 2013; and 22 in August 2013. Even as Magnolia677 he had little interest, with 2 in December 2013, 1 in February 2014; 3 in March 2014 and 2 in October 2014. In almost two full years of editing, our "New Jersey expert" has barely achieved 40 edits to places in the state.

6) Then the floodgates open. Starting on November 21, 2014, Mr. Mississippi, the Magnolia Stater, has developed a fascinating -- and disturbing -- interest in the Garden State. I love New Jersey too, but he starts gushing with hundreds upon hundreds of edits a month for the state, quite often, as described above, deliberately provoking confrontations on such trivial matters as flag usage, pushpin maps, the use of page links in pdf references and other argumentative bullshit. Thousands of edits in two months for a place he had never cared about before.

7) Magnolia677 knows what WIkipedia:Harassment is -- "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons.... Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." -- and he's doing a damned deliberate job of it.

We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677, who has manufactured himself into an "expert" on the state solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations so that he can run here to ANI to complain about how he has been mistreated. If it was up to me, I'd site ban him immediately per WP:NOTHERE, but a topic ban and interaction ban should be imposed on Magnolia677 at a minimum. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and perhaps to a few Wikipedia admins, but this kind of shameless abuse of process for the purpose of exacting revenge on another editor has no place on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could an administrator please step in?

I've come to ANI over and over to get some relief from this editor's relentless bullying. I actually have a strong connection to New Jersey, and wanted to have several thousand edits under my belt before I started editing New Jersey, because I learned early that New Jersey belongs to one editor and I wanted to know how to defend my edits.

Now he thinks I've spent the past two months creating articles about New Jersey just to torment him. This is beyond weird.

Last night I added Ridgeway, New Jersey and Brookside, New Jersey. Does anyone here really think this was done "solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations"?

"We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677". Alansohn, I have news for you. I'll edit where I please. You don't own New Jersey and you don't own Wikipedia.

And this "vengeance belongs to the Lord" stuff is creepy. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And dragging my ass here AGAIN, over crap that Magnolia did over 18 months ago, without notifying me, is beyond annoying. An administrator needs to do something. I have better things to do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I will ever understand this New Jersey drama. As far as I can tell, this is a rehash of drama from 2013. None of the diffs are even from the past year, and the complaints about recent activity lack any evidence. The last part of Alansohn's rant reads like textbook WP:OWN. And I really don't understand all this talk of vengeance and malevolence. Since no recent diffs were provided, I looked at New Jersey. No recent edits from Magnolia677. Then I looked at Magnolia677's recent edits. I saw him create sourced articles at Brookside, New Jersey, Ridgeway, New Jersey, and Bunnvale, New Jersey. I see no edit warring, disruption, or malevolence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the last episode of Alansohn vs Magnolia677 just put to rest recently? Unless Alansohn can bring something credible to the table, they're going to need a ban from posting anything to ANI regarding Magnolia677. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For reference:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Removal of two edit summaries

I would suggest an interaction ban, but then they'd just start even more threads on here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Bans - User:Раціональне анархіст

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

---

Раціональне анархіст (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Registered 2014-11-03[157] Раціональне анархіст has nominated 33 articles for deletion in 67 days. See here

5 have closed as "Speedy Keep"

7 have closed as "Keep"

1 has closed as "No Consensus"

1 has closed as "Wrong Venue"

1 has closed as "Too Soon to Relist"

1 has closed as "Redirect"

1 has closed as "Speedy Delete"

0 have clased as "Delete"

16 have not closed yet

Раціональне анархіст has received multiple comments/warnings regarding AfDs [158][159][160][161][162][163][164]
List of AfD Nominations

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eco Pickled Surface
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong Kong 1981 riots
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam College of Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) - Note:2nd nomination only 2 weeks after 1st ended with Speedy Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grub Girl Note:Full disclosure - closed by ban nominator
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charmane Star
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teanna Kai (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva Angelina
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talon (pornographic actor)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurt Lockwood
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brittney Skye (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014 ISIL takeover of Derna
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quaid-e-Azam College of Engineering & Technology, Sahiwal
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seattle Post Globe
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra Quinn (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannibalism: The Last Supper
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valentina Nappi - Note:"The result was keep. WP:SNOW"
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justine Joli
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole Aniston
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brea Bennett (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vamsi Paidipally
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Army Public College of Management Sciences
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan Bahu
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan-ul-Arifeen
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarwari Qadiri
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake Mosser
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy Clabots
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gypsy 83 - Note: "The result was Speedy keep and close of an unnecessary AFD."
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Another Gay Movie - Note: Раціональне анархіст edited article from "gay romantic comedy film" to "pornographic film" 1 minute after nominating[165]

This activity has been disruptive by needlessly adding to the backlog of AfDs. It suggests a strong likelihood that it will continue if not addressed. It also suggests a lack of understanding WP:Notability and WP:AFD that Раціональне анархіст can improve.
It is therefor proposed that:

Раціональне анархіст be banned from nominating at Articles for Deletion for a period of time to be determined by consensus. (Prop #1)

Раціональне анархіст be banned from editing articles about or related to pornography for a period of time to be determined by consensus. (Prop #2)

Respectfully submitted,
 ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1 for 30 days, as nominator. Support #2 for 30 days, as nominator.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning from AfD I have seen several of these AfDs and I have seen several users complain about анархіст's apparent lack of effort in nominating articles. He does not give a reason and the only common factor seems to be they are all related to porn. Given the low quality of the nominations and the failure to respond to criticism I support this topic ban. He is just wasting peoples time at AfD. I don't see the need to ban him from pornography related articles talk pages at this time. Chillum 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The editor appears to miss the point of WP:SOAPBOX. They don't seem to like the fact that articles about porn films exist. Thus, WP:NOTCENSORED applies as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Meant to mention WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality is being demonstrated by this editor as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Both 1 and 2 - There's already backlog issues and transclusion issues with AFD and piling these on certainly isn't helping, As for 2 - I'm getting the feeling if we ban her them from AFDing for 30 days she'll they'll simply move on to PORNBIO articles and cause more headaches with something or other, It's great she they wants to help but nominating the amount she they has in a short span of time is IMHO disruptive and certainly isn't helpful at all. –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Her"? Did I have a sex-change operation when I wasn't watching? Anyway, nobody's going to say anything about the good AfDs I've submitted, because it looks like selective tunnel-vision has commenced over the porn AfDs and the one thread in PornBio are going to be all that people see - because why not assume bad faith and assert I've got nothing better to do than head over to PornBio? Pax 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops my apologies I assumed you were a female for some reason, I've struck/reworded. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Раціональне анархіст: for participating in this discussion. I should start by saying the pornography ban is meant to be secondary to the AfD issue. And if the information I've provided above is not representative of your contributions I apologize. I have relied on the wmflabs afdstats tool (See here). It appears to say that of the 33 nominations you submitted to AfD, only one resulted in a deletion. And that the most recent 5 that have been closed, all resulted in "Speedy Keep" or "Keep". If you could link to the other "good Afds" you mentioned above, I'm sure that would resolve this quickly. I would be happy to withdraw these proposals then.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've been participating in AfD discussions and noms for about three weeks, with little if any prior to my Lars Walker article being nominated by someone else (given that Lars is still pending itself, it's not surprising to me that most of my Afds are still unresolved as well). The easiest thing to do for a broad overview would be to start on the [166]1st or the 2nd, and just scan down for "pax" or "анархіст" for a broad sampling. You'll easily see that porn Afds were at most half of those submitted, and considerably less than half of the discussion.

The seemingly damning list up there reads: "Раціональне анархіст has received multiple comments/warnings regarding AfDs...."

- In other words, the list apparently (I have not exhaustively examined it) appears to contain every AfD with a comment (I presume "comment" means any reply or vote up or down) including those speedy deleted per my nomination (Hello! "Swedish" college! More on you later.) This is a far cry from maintaining that I have been warned in most of those or even more than a few. Let's take the first one on the list:

My first AfD was Hong Kong 1981 riots, a threadbare article that managed to survive after a editor sourced material from Chinese-language sources. Voting was light (most likely because the topic was dull), and it could have easily gone the other way. Nobody was angry or ripped me. (IMO it's still a junk stub of an extremely minor event; half the cities in the US Midwest probably have worse homecoming riots in the history books after a particularly bad season-ending beat.)

My first vote on a porn topic (Dec. 25) was Lanny Barby; the vote was in favor of the eventual result (deletion). The nominator of that Afd was Redban, a user who shortly thereafter managed to get himself banned for one or more reasons. That was on the 25th; of the half-dozen Afds I contributed to that day, it was the only porn topic. The majority of my votes were cast in favor of the eventual decision.

On December 26, I made votes on ten AfD topics on the 26th (no porn). (Note: I'm not accounting for relisted AfD original dates, just as they appear on the log lists as of this moment.) On the 27th, I again made votes or comments on ten AfD topics (no porn); people had a good laugh over the "Nigerian spam" restaurant. Only a few votes over the New Years break; no porn.

On the 30th, the Whitney Stevens Afd was relisted, and I voted for deletion on the 3rd after the topic was well enjoined. During the AfD, I was accused by the apparent porn SPA Rebecca1990 of being a sockpuppet of Redban, a charge she would make by my count at least four times in four different places.

On January 2 (under the now-known-to-me-erroneous assumption that porn was mainly unwelcome here given the two prior deletions) I submitted two porn topics for AfD. Brittney Skye, which was closed as a too-soon (but not before Rebecca ran another sock-puppet insinuation), and Naked Ambition, which was speedily kept after another editor (in response to the AfD) contributed superior sources and I withdrew it. I voted on four other topics that day.

On January 3, I participated in nine subjects, one of which was porn (my AfD; it was kept).

On January 4, I participated in thirteen subjects, four of which were porn AfDs (all bios) I submitted. Of them one was speedily kept and the other three remain unclosed. (It should be noted that there were several porn or GLBT-themed Afds that day that I did not participate in but easily could have, perhaps tipping the scales.)

On January 5, I participated in nine subjects, no porn.

On January 6, I participated in eight subjects, no porn.

On January 7, I participated in four subjects, no porn. The "Swedish college" (of Pakistan) saga continues (I should get around to G11'ing that again, as I did back on the 2nd to zorch the second iteration).

On January 8 (reminder that I'm going by current log dates, not original listing dates), I participate in twelve topics with one porn AfD (not currently closed).

On January 9, I participated in 17 topics, with two film AfDs (both speedily kept, with the same closer giving me a piece of his mind.).

On January 10, I participated in eight topics with two nominations (one porn, one not; both currently open).

It should be clear from this that not only am I not (despite some grouchy commentary in the Lars AfD) a SPA anti-porn crusader, but the subject doesn't command my attention more than peripherally. So, it's that's what you've heard, ...the empirical evidence suggests otherwise wherever one cares to look in my contributions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 January 2015‎

@Раціональне анархіст: It's not about porn and its not a personal vendetta by anyone. It is rather, about any topic you unintentionally misjudge. Notable to only China or Punjab is perfectly fine. Notable in non-English languages is perfectly fine. Even being a poorly sourced, weak stub article is fine, as Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and admits to being imperfect.

Care must be taken to make evaluations as thoroughly as possible to see if something poorly presented might be otherwise improvable through regular editing. Deletion is the last resort... not the first. Perceived issues with tone or style or sourcing are often addressable and simply being terse or poorly presented is not a valid deletion rationale.

No one slapped a warning notice on you talk pages, and the phrase "multiple cautions" is not limited to only what is said at AFDs, and can include any time someone has urged you on your talk page to use proper due diligence.

And sorry, but in looking over many of your more recent non-porn-related deletion nominations, I feel even stronger that your lack of WP:BEFORE even after those repeated cautions, and your unintentional repeated errors are indeed harmful to Wikipedia. Gaining CLUE could eliminate errors... and until you gain such, you could simply slow your roll.

Lastly, I believe most of your nominations could be be speedy closed, as such closes would be both defensible and for the good of the project. And while it may not seem "fair", openly discussing a temporary topic ban is far better than being blocked. You could even volunteer to willingly step back from nominating AFDs for a while, and so avoid a possible mandatory ban. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support both proposals. Worth noting is that the bad AfD nominations are not limited to porn topics. The editor needs to learn what to do before nominating articles for deletion. Poorly researched nominations are disruptive and clog the already backlogged AfD process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both Borderline WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both, and as he has already received multiple cautions, I urge that the editor seek or be given a mentorship. His apparent lack of understanding of WP:Deletion policy, the instructions of WP:BEFORE, and the meaning of WP:NRVE, has indeed created unnecessary work for others to the point of becoming disruptive. His personal opinion do not over-rule policy and guidelines, but I would hope that with a bit of temperance he could eventually become one of Wikipedia's finest contributors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both. I warned user Раціональне анархіст earlier, did not help. No improvement in behavior. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean this? - That did not appear to me to be a "warning", and I don't think anyone else would have reasonably determined it to be so either; rather it appeared to be an attempt at intimidation be an editor with poor grammar who, rather than using a standard warning template, had simply placed the scary word "Blocked" as a section-header on my TP. Of course it took me only moments to determine that I was not actually blocked. Pax 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My post is: "You mass reporting porn articles to AfD, such behavior is often taken for action against Wikipedia. Recently: 20 December 2014 - User:Redban has been indefinite blocked for the same behavior than you" - word "blocked" refers to User:Redban, who behaved like you and has been blocked. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PAX... please understand that editors do not have to use "official" talk page warning templates when offering a courteous caution or for their advice given in efforts to mitigate disruption. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support both These Afd nominations have been plainly bad ones and he has generally picked every page where he couldn't find very popular weblinks. Noteswork (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• It appears more that in his deletion nominations he simply did not try... and this behavior sadly continued even after he was cautioned and advised of applicable policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support the first, oppose the second (for now) - there is ongoing discussion about the relevance, application and scope of WP:PORNBIO and we have had editors both nominating articles due to particular interpretations of that guideline and opposing nominations for deletion due to particular interpretations of that guideline. It's an area where the editor in question has shown some interest but the list of problematic AFDs provided above demonstrates that the issue with AFDs isn't limited to pornography, nor are his interests in pornography singularly managed by way of AFD. They are not sufficiently connected (in my mind) so that a topic ban from one automatically justifies a topic ban from the other. For the record, he and I seem to strongly disagree on interpretations of PORNBIO but ongoing debate on that subject is important. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support first, neutral on second: I've witnessed the not here-type behavior at AFD. I haven't been involved with the porn stuff and have no interest in delving into it so I'm neutral on the second. Vrac (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has blatantly refused advice, refused to change their disruptive behavior, and evidently sees fit that they continue to be overt that he's nearly 'not here' to build an encylopedia. Tutelary (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support first, no comment on second. I'm not involved in and don't care about porn stuff, but such a bad nomination record at AfD suggests that he doesn't understand how the system works, so taking time off to participate in others' AfDs and learn the policies behind it would be beneficial. ansh666 20:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both Clear time-wasting disruption in AfD. Regarding the porn stuff, I fail to see how it would be a loss to the project if said user steered clear of those articles as well given prior history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support First Way to many bad nominations. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: A handful of the above AfD's have been predicated on good rational, some have even resulted in a consensus for deletion, and all of them seem to have been made in good faith. Further, there is no indication of incivility in Pax's responses to criticism. There is a certain indication of a gung-ho attitude at work here with some issues with due diligence in nomination, but I think the reaction might be a little severe given we are talking about a good-faith contributor with no history of community sanctions. I can see the consensus is to impose temporary TBANs along both proposed lines, but I suggest we mitigate the response to one or two weeks in both cases -- I suspect that will suffice to send the message, as this editor doesn't show signs of being particularly intractable. Snow talk 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to good faith we also require competency. These nominations are slowing down an already backlogged process. This is not meant to be punitive. Chillum 19:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on this yet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support first for the brief period proposed by the OP or less. Oppose second, since holding a different opinion as to what notability standards should be is not in any way grounds for a topic ban. Given the number and ferocity of users on the other side of related disputes whose disruptive behavior goes unsanctioned, this punitive topic ban would clearly be inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Continual abuse and harassment by John Carter

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

---

I am requesting that an interaction ban be imposed between John Carter and myself. John has been mounting a continuous campaign of Stalking , Harassment and unsupported allegations against me for the past two months on an almost daily basis.

There has been a certain amount of sniping in the past, but this started in earnest with John posting so-called “circumstantial evidence” on a talk page of a recent Arbitration case on 21st November, purporting to indicate that I have access to non-public information regarding Landmark Worldwide, and therefore that I have some sort of undeclared interest in that organisation. [167]

In fact I have no such interest, and the “evidence” does not remotely establish that I have. Presumably this was the conclusion that the Arbitrators came to as well. Despite that, John continues to repeat the allegations at frequent intervals. Sometimes it seems that almost every time I have posted on Wikipedia since then, John has chimed in with an offensive comment almost immediately. I have tried discussing matters politely, and made a direct request on his Talk page, but all to no avail. The following diffs are just a sample.

[168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183]

The whole style and tone of John's comments (not just towards me, but to numerous other users also) seems to me to be incompatible with the collaborative and collegiate nature that Wikipedia aspires to.

And recently Legacypac has joined in with the harassment and unsupported allegations. [184] [185]

Would an interaction ban be appropriate for this user also, or would a warning be more suitable given that this behaviour has only just started? DaveApter (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Only an idiot would say that noting that someone has pointedly and consistently refused to ever adequately respond to questions regarding COI is problematic. Despite the very limited nature of his responses to the question of his possible COI, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Proposed decision, he persists in misrepresentational overstatement of his very limited denial in an attempt to avoid dealing with the substantive matter of the nature of his allegiance with Landmark. This seems to me to be just a continuation of the dubiously defensible dishonest, incompetent, personal attacks which this editor has recently engaged in at WP:ARCA, and, frankly, seems to be very possibly grounds for sanctions against him. And, yes, the fact that I have suggested such sanctions against him at the ARCA page is to my eyes the very likely reason for him continuing to raise this issue, because as is evident from his comments there he seems to be possibly losing the fight to keep the puffery version of the relevant article extant, and I have raised concerns regarding the ongoing misconduct of DaveApter in recent days at WP:ARCA. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence of a COI and are willing to post it (bearing in mind the outing policy) implying/stating/inferring someone is editing with a COI constitutes a personal attack, so either put up or shut up about it. Although I think DaveApter is overstating the 'harrassment' somewhat as the majority of the diffs above are from an Arb case in which both he and John participated, and a request for clarification he started. Bit cheeky to complain someone isnt editing objectively then run to ANI when they respond to it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of Diffs produced by Dave are in the context of ArbCom related postings. As such, they were already directly evaluated by the committee and clerks. Since there was no sanction from them regarding them, I think it would be unwise for us to put them here. Further, using comments on an ArbCom case as the basis for an IBan seems completely inappropriate. As this larger issue is currently at WP:AE I suggest that this is a form of forum shopping, and trying to use ANI to win at a dispute. I would strongly suggest a boomerang, except that this conduct is already being evaluated at AE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Actually, it is not being handled at AE, but relates to an ongoing request for clarification/amendment. The ArbCom ruling in effect at the time of this writing, which seems to be at this time not changing, does not offer any discretionary sanctions for AE to apply. On that basis, I think that there may be cause to reopen this thread until and unless the ArbCom does decide to authorize discretionary sanctions in this topic area. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against User:DaveApter

The ArbCom has apparently declined imposition of discretionary sanctions. That however does not rule out the possibility of community imposed sanctions, and I believe DaveApter may well have at this point merited consideration of such. I also note that Gaijin42 has more or less supported boomerang consideration here himself. It is worth noting that DaveApter is a long-standing POV pusher on the subject of Landmark education, but that in his most recent rather ridiculous commentary, currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Landmark Worldwide/R6 Additional eyes invited his dishonest and incompetent personal attacks there on a comparatively new editor here in the English wikipedia, User:Theobald Tiger, have led to that editor indicating his early retirement from the project. I cannot see any reasonable basis for an editor who has so persistently engaged in such incompetent, irrational behavior to be allowed to cause further damage to the project with his unacceptable conduct, including his incompetent allegations against others. I propose sanctions against him, and, honestly, under the circumstances, considering his misconduct has gotten to the point of costing us a newish and potentially very valuable editor, I think stronger rather than weaker ones are probably worth considering. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss COI issues on talk pages, we are encouraged to do that before going to the COIN board. Community sanctions are definitely in order for his strong POV pushing and abuse of process. We need to put together a proper case. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Such a case would include his refusal to adequately address matters of possible COI, most recently at the WP:ARCA page already linked to, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Proposed decision in the "Possible late, admittedly circumstantial evidence" section and the following "final comment" on this subject by DaveApter in the "For the avoidance of doubt," which I believe any reasonable reader would realize does not in any way reasonably address all the possible variant forms of COI which might be involved. His refusal to address those concerns adequately, and his subsequent misrepresentations of such comments as indicating that they are sufficient, are in no way suggestive that the individual involved is acting in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Personally, in light of the recent, rather ridiculous, ARCA request, and the longstanding refusal to address matters of COI in a reasonable and adequate way regarding this topic, I myself think a topic ban might be reasonable, but I acknowledge that as one of the recent targets of his irrational vituperation I am probably less than objective in determining the strength of sanctions which might be called for. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that DaveApter has himself made unsupported suggestions on talk pages that others have some sort of COI (aimed at myself among others). It is thus very strange that he would characterize this as harassment. DaveApter is also aware that the apparent existence of a COI on his part has been repeatedly noted over the years, including by those called in to comment. John Carter is hardly the first to broach the subject,[186][187][188][189][190][191] and for this reason DaveApter's attempt to make this unresolved issue out to be harassment also seems strange at this point. • Astynax ^talk 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Especially considering the posts from the Dutch admins&beuros at WP:ARCA that confirm DA's complete misrepresentation of what happened at the Dutch wiki, I am inclined to support a 1 year topic ban for DA on Landmark Worldwide. I would also suggest an IBan to stop the accusations against Theobald and others, but as he has retired, that seems moot. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For dragging me to my first involvement at ArbComm complaining I have strong views on the Landmark article and implying I be stopped from editing it - the only solution is to impose DaveApter's own rules on DaveApter and topic ban him. He has VERY strong POV issues, while at that point I'd only discussed how bring some balance to the article. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support either an indefinite topic ban or a topic ban of one year. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Before we lose sight of the Wood for the Trees

So this thread is apparently not closed after all?

In case anyone coming freshly to this discussion is tempted to be deflected by the misdirection in the section above, I would like to recap that the focus of my request here is the harassment of myself by John Carter, for which I have provided a clear description above, and ample evidence in the form of sixteen diffs.

Contrary to what has been assumed or suggested above, this harassment was not the subject of the recent Arbcom case, nor was it the subject of the Request for clarification which I made in good faith. Neither is it an attempt to influence the discussion of that request.

All I want is for the hounding and personal attacks to cease.

The latest attack is on the Landmark Worldwide Talk Page, where John says

"You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization." [192]

None of this is true; there is not a shred of evidence to support it; and in fact I have already dealt with most of those points previously.

Every time I issue a statement to clarify the position, John or his collaborators demand a different form of words and I have lost patience with responding to them.

The essence of the situation was clearly stated by @Only in death: above when he said:

"implying/stating/inferring someone is editing with a COI constitutes a personal attack, so either put up or shut up about it."

By way of background, the following points are relevant:

1. The Arbcom case in question wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide was opened in October and closed on 29th December. The case was requested by Astynax, and no findings of fact were made against any of the three parties he named, nor were any sanctions imposed on any of them.
2. In my case specifically, no findings or sanctions were even drafted, and one of the Arbitrators even stated: "I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it." [193].
3. John Carter was not a party in the case, but he did comment extensively on talk pages of the case with a clear thrust of attempting to influence the Arbitrators in the direction of sanctioning the named parties. Clearly they did not find his arguments persuasive.

If any action is required of me, please indicate what it is. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of your rather obvious problem regarding COI is to be found in the multiple links from other people which seriously indicate that you have been told repeatedly by several people that you have a conflict of interest, and the evidence on the project talk page in the sections I linked to both indicates that you have had access to non-public information on the company, which is seriously problematic, and that you have at no point ever adequately responded to questions regarding the rather obvious COI problems you have repeatedly been advised of by several people. Also, I note that this seems to be an attempt at misdirection regarding the non-COI problems of your gross, dishonest slurs against a new editor to the topic which resulted in that editor retiring, which is the primary reason the section above was started, despite your rather obvious attempts at misdirection to avoid dealing with that issue in much the same way you have consistently sought to avoid dealing reasonably with the COI concerns which have been expressed editors. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand about the distinction between allegation and evidence? As I have stated on at least three occasions, I have no knowledge of Landmark affairs beyond what is in the public domain, and the diffs that you provided in your initial accusation do not remotely prove that I have. Yet you continue to assert this over and over again as though it were an established fact.

Furthermore, will you please stop filling this thread up with spurious counter-accusations against me, and confine the discussion here to the clear and unambiguous charges that I have brought here and the substantial evidence that I have provided to support them. If you do wish to make accusations of policy violations by me, please open up a new thread, state clearly and concisely what they are, and provide the evidence. I will respond in that thread as appropriate. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You have, as I linked to above, provided evidence that you have had access to information which is not publicly available, although, acknowledging your attempt at possible misdirection, I am unsure whether it is in the public domain. On that basis, I have to say that there is no reason to suspect you of perhaps even further dishonesty than can already be found in your fraudulent allegations which led to the retiremement of Theobald Tiger. You have also tendentiously and insistently thrown out counter-allegations while at the same time rather obnoxiously and obviously refusing to directly and adequately respond to questions regarding your COI. You were asked in the arbcom a direct question, and it is worth noticing that for all your comments above you have still refused to directly respond to that question. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Your first diff shows me saying that "About 90% of Landmark's customers never participate in any assisting activity at all". Their website states (or did, I haven't checked lately) that under 10% of their customers participate in their assisting programs, and that under 1% or them are actively involved at any given time. So that's public knowledge.
2. Your second diff was to my making a critique of some speculative calculations contributed by some previous editor. I took the numbers they had provided at face value and pointed out the logical flaws in their reasoning.
3. Your third diff was to my discussion on the talk page giving a speculative reality check calculation for a claim that Landmark programs had been "instrumental in raising millions of dollars for charities". It was based on published figures on Landmark's site and plausible assumptions.
4. The fourth diff was a debate with another editor over whether his assumed figures were more reasonable than my assumed figures in the previous calculation.
5. Your next sentence related to an exchange which was nothing to do with me, and you later admitted that you had misremembered a discussion with some completely different editor. DaveApter (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actions that might be required of you include comments which make some degree of obvious sense, which nothing you have said above does, because you offer no indication of what it is you are talking about. Also, addressing the matter of your incompetent and unfounded personal attacks on other editors, based on comments made in a language you have yourself said you do not understand, and drawing judgments from those incompetent and unfounded allegations about other editors, are serious violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIR, and the numerous statements made to you regarding your obvious overriding POV, to the point of WP:COI problems, have been raised multiple times by multiple editors. WP:IDHT applies to editors who refuse to actually make substantive replies to comments of others. In nothing you have done of late, including on the ARCA page, have you seemingly done much anything to even remotely address your own obvious problems of innate POV pushing, and that, coupled with your incompetent personal attacks against Theobald Tiger at the ARCA page, which have led to his resignation to the project, raise serious questions whether your input in this topic area is at all productive to the building of an encyclopedia and whether your rather obvious example of polite POV pushing is inherently problematic and counterproductive to the content you choose to edit. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• In case anyone else is following this thread, and finds that my remarks above "make no sense", they are a point by point refutation of John's so-called "circumstantial evidence" which he posted here: [194] (three weeks after the close of the evidence phase), and on which his entire smear campaign over the last two months rests.
• As I understand WP:IDHT, it relates to a refusal to abide by a consensus of the community, and does not impose any obligation for me to respond to incessant interrogation by a self-appointed kangaroo court of John and two or three of his chums. Especially since Arbcom did not find that his "evidence" merited any comment or action.
• It seems curious that John can't stop harping on about a single ill-judged comment of mine (which I've acknowledged and apologised for), yet he seems to think it fine to embark on a long campaign of deliberate violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. DaveApter (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it so completly clear that you are locked in a three-week old time warp and that you show no ability to move beyond that. And I would welcome anyone looking at the still-current WP:ARCA page at your request for clarification. In all honesty, as the arbitrators themselves have more or less said, the request as a whole could reasonably be considered ill-judgment, particularly considering that it offers no indication of what clarification or amendment is being sought, and it makes incompetent and unfounded conclusions about just about everybody. A review of your recent history, honestly, raises extremely serious questions whether you are so blinded by your obvious POV on this subject that you are not even remotely competent to discuss it whatsoever. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I recall an essay largely written by Keithbob that appears to be directly on point here, and may be useful reading. I suggest, as others have repeatedly suggested, that contributors stop focusing on editors. Making accusations without evidence is an attack, and needs to stop. As far as anyone's behaviour at Arbitration pages, Arbcom is perfectly capable of responding in any way needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the essay. It however does not deal with some of the matters raised here, specifically matters of competence as per WP:CIR and an ongoing refusal to really even be basically honest and straightforward, which is more or less implicit in WP:CIVILITY. Refusal to offer any sort of reasonable, straightforward response, particularly over time, to what are reasonable, straightforward questions cannot but make it more likely for others to question whether, in some way, any and all other comments from that person are similarly tortuously parsed, and, if they are, what information those matters are trying to avoid dealing with effectively. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User Bladesmulti

On 13 January, I deleted the sentence "Hinduism is the fast-growing religion in Ghana" from the Growth of religion article because the cited sources did not support it (diff). I immediately started a new discussion on the talk page explaining the rationale for my edit. The next day Bladesmulti (talk · contribs) undid my revision (diff). I have attempted to resolve the conflict with Bladesmulti on the talk page, but to no avail. On multiple occasions ([195][196][197]), Bladesmulti has deleted block quotations from my post, claiming they are "violating copyrights" even after I properly sourced them. I suspect Bladesmulti is trying to edit my posts because he cannot respond to them.

Bladesmulti has threatened to have me blocked and does not appear to want to resolve the dispute through discussion. For the record, Bladesmulti is well-known by other editors working on the "Growth of religion" article. Last year, he came into conflict with multiple editors for removing sourced content and replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones. (I would encourage all administrators replying to this incident to skim through that discussion to acquaint themselves with Bladesmulti's editing history.) Bladesmulti's modus operandi seems to be (1) insert questionable content that fits his/her agenda, replacing citations that don't support agenda with those that do; (2) undue any revisions of his/her edits by other editors; (3) stall discussion on the talk page with baseless accusations, garbled English, red herrings, and ad hominems; (4) threaten persistent critics with a comical air of authority. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

50.46.245.232 is a case of Wikipedia:CIR. He has a tendency of not hearing and considering every disagreement as an attack.

He don't even know what is BRD and he tries to base his argument on a crystalball table that was finally removed in a matter of 3-4 months by other user. He first posted about this article dispute on Wikipedia:RSN, hardly 4 hours ago, as he assumed one of the citation might not be reliable, and in fact that wasn't needed because he had not yet discussed the credibility of the author on talk page. After my response, he assumed that "he is a reliable scholar", thus contradicting the above boomerang. He cannot understand that ripping off long paragraphs from weblinks that are subject to copyright is also a violation of copyright. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is a CIR issue here, it seems to me to be with Bladesmulti, who apparently hasn't read WP:COPYQUOTE, and apparently confuses not being familiar with the workings of Wikipedia with a lack of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is no need of extended quotation if weblink/access is available. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it isn't needed - but that doesn't mean that fair use doesn't apply. Fair use quotations are never absolutely necessary - the original is always available. Nevertheless, they are permitted. I think the IP is reasonable in assuming that your summary blanking was motivated by you not wanting to actually address the underlying issue - of sources which contradicted material you wanted included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I had only reverted, not that I had inserted it first. Fair use doesn't apply here because the quote was extensive and the same amount of quotes have been removed before for violating copyrights on talk pages, it is nothing new. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to decide whether 59 words from a 436-page book (the second quotation - I can't access the source for the first) constitutes 'extensive' quotation, beyond the limits of fair use. And please explain why you didn't adress the underlying issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See [198], 96 words and 636 characters. I didn't had to discuss about them as they weren't good enough for including with these information, nor I had shown any support for the previous 2 citations. I had suggested 3 other citations where the pointed information can be found. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That word count is from the introduction, not the complete source - the words quoted don't even appear in the introduction. And no, you don't get to summarily dismiss sources because you don't like them. And as you are already aware, one of the 'other sources' you cited was a Wikipedia mirror. It is self-evident that you were using a bogus copyright claims and unusable sources to avoid discussing legitimate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For the pointed information, and not for extending the section, something that IP never talked about. Find me a diff where I am only talking about copyright violation and ignoring the rest of discussion? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The talk page thread is available for everyone to see: [199] You have done nothing but summarily dismiss the quoted sources (which had previously been used as citations for the disputed text, I note), and offer up new sources (including a Wikipedia mirror) which supported your preferred version. You entirely failed to address the issue that the previously cited sources 'had been cited for one thing, when they in fact said something else. All the while throwing threats about supposed 'copyright violations' around, in what I think any reasonable person will see as an attempt at intimidation. Fortunately, the IP has had the guts to face you down, and bring your abusive behaviour to the attention of the rest of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to formally express agreement for every word at least when the discussion is mostly about the pointed statement that is missing, instead I moved to other argument. I did not removed his argument, but only removed the ripped off content. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The removal of what appears to me to be a reasonable level of attributed direct quotation of sources for discussion looks questionable to say the least. WP:COPYQUOTE describes 'fair use' copying to talk pages, and I think that the edits in question would fall within such terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See also this thread at WP:RSN: [200] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If weblink is available, there is still any need to copy extended quotations to the talk page? It says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've won the cherry-picker of the week award - now read the rest, where it says "Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. However, just as with fair-use images, fair-use quotation has limitations: The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information" and so on... You don't get to use supposed copyright violations as an excuse to avoid actually addressing the underlying issue, which is self-evidently what was going on there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an essay, policy is Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT and Wikipedia:NFCCP, at first there was no need to rip off when he was only copying from the accessible weblinks. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to look incompetent, or just hoping to bluster your way out of this? Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT says not to copy the full text of primary sources to Wikipedia - it is utterly irrelevant. And Wikipedia:NFCCP (which relates more to non-textual media than text) likewise clearly explains when fair use is appropriate. And cut out the crap about a supposed 'rip off' - it is obvious that wasn't the intent behind the quotations, and your resort to an entirely unjustified personal attack isn't going to convince anyone otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are actually looking incompetent, you are claiming that my intention was to avoid argument by pointing copyright infringement, when I had actually replied and progressed with the discussion. He hadn't used short sentences nor he was attributing to actual author at first,[201] he had ripped off the paragraphs from the copyrighted content, at this situation a link was enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• More copyright violation:

• [202] clearly rips off http://theconversation.com/croc-attacks-a-new-website-with-bite-20671 Bladesmulti (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• [203] also rips off http://theconversation.com/croc-attacks-a-new-website-with-bite-20671 Bladesmulti (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• [204] has ripped off http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/dawkins_vs_armstrong025171.html Bladesmulti (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your refusal to address the point that the sources had previously been misused and actually said something else is visible in plain sight on the talk page. Trawling through posts from the same IP address 9 months ago isn't going to distract from that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that I wasn't the one to insert it and I had seen no recent change about it, when it was pointed once again, I just replaced the citation. Only more discussion could help and I am fine with that. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Who originally added the material is irrelevant. The point is that the sources cited actually said something else - and that you refused to discuss this. And yes, discussion is the way to go. As it was when the IP first pointed out the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a simplified guide to copyright: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. The actual policy page is Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It says that copying copyright text into Wikipedia articles or talk pages is not okay. It's a copyright violation. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria states that using properly attributed short quotations from sources is okay, if it meets all the non-free content criterion. Note that there must be no free equivalent; therefore, prose should not be pasted onto the article talk page if there is a live website that can be offered as a link. --Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If policy is actually that even brief quotations cannot be copied to talk pages for discussion if the material is available from a website (an interpretation that I've not seen before), it probably needs to be clarified. Though I'm not sure that from a copyright perspective, the 'live website' criteria is actually that relevant. 'Free use' relates to the legitimate degree to which text can be copied in attributed quotations when discussing the content, and accessibility of the source doesn't appear to come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not. Its a mis-interpretation of what 'no free equivalent' means and is supposed to be used for. In a talkpage discussion of what a source actually says there is no option with some stubborn editors other that quoting directly. There is no equivalent to the stated sources actual words, regardless of free or non-free. From actual experience just providing a link to the source would not suffice in any serious content discussion. You end up with editors endlessly going in circles "X says one thing, here is a link that supports my position" followed by "no it doesnt, here is another link". When actually X said something entirely different and a brief quotation would have cleared it up in 30 seconds. Or at least, moved the argument on to the stage where editors start arguiing that what the source says isnt what they mean etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. You think your speculations are going to help? Diannaa is correct about the no free usage and the first few points of the linked policy describes. It is a violation of copyright when you are copying very long quotations to talk page(s), it serves no purpose to encyclopedia and not even chance when whole text is available through a link, it will be likely visited by every editor for confirming the quotation, if it is correct or incorrect, that's why there is no need to even copy such long quotations. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• To me, it appears that Bladesmulti doesn't realize that IP's are people too. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mr. Guye, it appears to me that you don't know the context. 50.46.245.232 violate copyrights, just because he is an IP, it doesn't means that you can use some irrelevant essays (like Wikipedia:IPHUMAN that you pointed) to ignore it. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One problem is Bladesmulti's wideranging misunderstandings of our policies and processes; another problem is Bladesmulti's dismissive approach to editors who try to clear up the first problem. This is very wearing for other editors, and consumes time & goodwill that could otherwise be used to improve articles or resolve genuine disputes. bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence for those two? It is already cleared enough that my understanding of the noted policies are adequately correct,(see the comment of Diannaa) unless you have got something helpful to tell. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Unequal treatment of some brands articles and harassment

Hello, I'll try to respect the rules of ANI, so to read how to process. I open a new section to get the help (or not...) of some fair administrators. I am a PhD. I never have any dispute with anyone, only the facts and figures interest me. All my peers assess my analysis as fair and relevant. But I am harassed by some users : Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte. Yet all what I write is true, but on the contrary, they attack some brands articles like Renault, Citroen, removing some contents that are allowed in some others articles, like the Volkswagen one. So they have an arbitrary behaviour, they use bad faith arguments and it is an unequal treatment between some brands and some others. It is necessary to explain to some users that they must stop harassing me, and saying that I am uncivil whereas I am never uncivil. All the proofs that I present are some obvious acts of some unequal treatments between some brands of the automotive industry for example. They previously attacked me here, but suddenly their complain has disappeared. I ask that some administrators intervene to solve the problem. These people never accept any compromise. So they systematically remove some contents that are allowed in the other articles. They remove only the positive information, what is a proof of their arbitrary. They behave as a connected team, one begins to erase some contents and then the others continue. The question is : why do you tolerate this behaviour ? Why some astonishing denigrating contents are in some article with no reference, but they don't ask any proofs and they re-establish this inconsistent and denigrating content ? Why removing some contents in Renault and Citroen, but not exactly the same in VW, like some awards from exactly the same magazine ? Why saying that the official USA car of the year Motor Trend award is a minor 'one magazine award only', whereas a very little award from the 'Performance car UK' magazine is added by in an other article ? I will complete this request later, to show that there are many obvious evidences of some unequal treatments between some companies. I have already posted some proofs in the past, but the text has been removed, following their request not mine. And please, tell them to stop taking the excuse that I am uncivil. I never write to these people and I would like to be quiet, but as they attack some articles and not some others, and as they erase all my texts that are fair and true, I am obliged to denounce these behaviours. Their bad faith is obvious : if I had some awards in an article, they say that it is promotion (but I don't invent these awards voted by many journalists), but there are many awards in the "concurrence" articles and then they accuse no promotion in this case. Notice that these people harass me from a Wikipedia account. So implicitly they do that in the name of Wikipedia whatever the GCU are. One more reason to explain them to stop this behaviour. I am a PhD with high levels skills for the abstraction and the organisation, so I can make some propositions to define the structure, order of paragraphs and the information that are allowed in ALL the articles of the same domain. Then all these arbitrary attacks would not happen again, because the rules would be clear and not fuzzy and let to the arbitrary of a few belligerent people. Regards. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No admin deigned to get involved the last time this came up so I won't respond to this IP's comments other than to refer anyone who is interested to the previous ANI discussion referenced above. Vrac (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"I am a Ph.D." Best opening to an ANI ever. BlueSalix (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

83.157, the last discussion seemed to have several people stating that you're not exactly playing nice with others yourself. Please remember to assume good faith of others. It would also help if you did less with all the "bolding for emphasis" stuff - making your text annoying to read is just going to hinder your attempts of someone actually attempting to help you. Additionally, you're just talking in a lot of generalities here, which is difficult to address. It would help if you actually provided direct links to edits that you felt were out of line. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, looking further, I see many people telling you that you're not following policies correctly, and yet none of them appear to be attacks or harassment. They seem like civil notifications of your wrong-doings. Even if they were wrong, their actions would seem closer to "good-faith mistakes" than "bad-faith attacks and harassment". That's a big "if" though, because they at least appear to be citing policies correctly, from what I've seen. I'll reserve judgement until I see some specific links to issues though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Serge. I do assume good faith, till I have dozens of proofs that people are bad faith. And the problem is that they always assume that I am bad faith, but I am a PhD and the best brains has never accused me of that, so I am fed up with these people who do no respect the rules and the honest contributors. Urbanoc even accused EuroNCAP to be bad faith, read this : "rm promotional content sourced with EuroNCAP press releases" here [205]. Urbanoc is totally bad faith to accuse EuroNCAP. You can read several proofs here : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224. Do you want more proofs ? Easy :

• Urbanoc commanded me here [206], writing that there is a rule "Finally, The images you added were excessive, two images of relevant current products would be enough, Renault sells too many cars to include pictures from all". Strange statement : it is possible to put 3 dozens of the current car models in the VW article, but it is forbidden to put only 4 photos of the current car models in the Renault article...?? Where is written the "rule" about which Urbanoc talks, by the way ? And why Urbanoc does not ask that his "rule" to be respected in the VW article where there are 3 dozens of photos of the current models ?? BAD FAITH.
• Vrac erased here [207] "Until the late 1980s, the company had a reputation for approaching automobile design in a unique and innovative way.", what is true, you can see it yourself and thousands of articles mention that, it is easy to find some. But instead of searching one of the numerous references, what would do a good wikipedian, or to "tag" to ask a source, Vrac erased this obvious true statement, what does not respect the Wikipedia rules. BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc [208] removed a press source of 2014 proving that that sales are bigger outside Europe "Market share outside Europe remained stable at 50.5%, with 1,326,344 units sold" by an OLD source about the 2010 sales (!!), to lower the reality of the actual Renault sales. YET, if he had really read the old source, it proves that in 2010 Renault sold 1,416,743 vehicles outside Europe = 52.7% of its sales, and 1,273,649 in Europe ! So they were bigger outside Europe in 2010 too. The old source proves the opposite of what Urbanoc wrote and that what Urbanoc added is false ! BAD FAITH.
• Here Vrac [209] removed from the Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." Why ? It is a true information. Removing that without any discussion is to vandalize the article, isn't it ? Else what is the definition here of vandalize ? Louis Renault is known to have won the first GP of the History in 1908, Renault won the first FIA World Rally Championship, Renault introduced the turbo for the first time in F1, and won 12 engine manufacturer titles and 11 drivers titles and makes the Formula Renault 2 and 3.5 that produced several F1 drivers, won many other rally competitions and provides the new Formula E cars ! So it is normal to mention : Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." and Vrac should have not erased that. BAD FAITH. Notice that this sentence was in the article for a long time and that I did not add it.
• Here Urbanoc [210] removed that the Renault Laguna II was the first car-ever to get 5 stars at EuroNCAP proved by a source from EuroNCAP itself. Urbanoc states that EuroNCAP makes promotion of Renault whereas EuroNCAP is independent. Such a statement is an obvious case of public diffamation against EuroNCAP... As it was a too obvious violation of rule, he added it again after, at the end of the section. Why doing that ? It is a crafty way to decrease the probability that people will read that, because it is too far in the article. That is what shop do : if they don't want people to by some products, they put them lower. BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc [211] removed some sourced official figures from SMMT about Renault in Great Britain to put it at the end of the section AGAIN. Why doing that ? It is the same crafty bad faith way to decrease the probability that people will read that, because it is too far in the article. Notice that the rule is that a general view is given first and some details after, as explanations. So it was relevant to put this text at the beginning of the paragraph, not at the end. Why Urbanoc does the opposite of what all the professors teach ? BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc removes the photo of Renault Captur that is the most sold in Europe, but keeps the second SUV [212]]... Not logical... Yet there is enough space to put 2 photos.
• Here Urbanoc removes AGAIN a Renault model (that's why the word harassment is justified and proved) from a list, because he says that it is too long, but why 20 models can be cited and not Renault ? [[213]]. Why does he have the power to "decide" arbitrarily and alone when a list is "too long", and why removing Renault and not one of the others ? Notice that someone put Ford and Opel first in the list, but after these 2 brands the list is in alphabetical order... But Urbanoc did not correct that, he only removed Renault. BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc wrote the typical anti-Renault rhetoric : "proved unsuccessful" or "uncompetitive" and Renault is bad, because "100 years ago it built some tanks", exactly what he added here : [[214]]. Notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find) and on the contrary there are some historical facts that the Renault plane engine won some races and beat some speed records, so how could it be "proved unsuccessful" ? BAD FAITH.

If someone dares to deny all these evidences, then it is sure at 100% that he/she would be bad faith too ;-) These people must be banished and all their stars removed. They did hundreds of malevolent actions on Wikipedia during the last 10 years. And as an honest "newcomer", Urbanoc harassed me to kick away the honest contributor and to be able continue his malevolent actions. It is a scandal. And I can post dozens of other proofs if someone want to do "as if" they were not convinced of their bad faith. Have a nice evening. PS : sorry if I made some typing mistakes because I wrote all that very fast. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see you directly ignored my advice/request to not bold so much in your text. You only have yourself to blame if no one else besides me decides to read through all of this. Beyond that, to respond to each of your bullet points:

1. Urbanoc is correct in his statements. Due to Wikipedia's complicated image policy, they are generally kept to a minimum. Furthermore, his comment you linked to is quite civil. He even say "Please". And it is not his duty to regulate all the images on Wikipedia. If you feel there are too many images elsewhere, then do it yourself.
2. Vrac's action was correct as well. Please see WP:BURDEN. If you are the one adding information, then it is your responsibility to add sources if its challenged. That is not considered a bad faith action.
3. It seems Urbanoc challenged your change based on awkward wording and that the source you gave did not cite the information you gave. Its hard to tell what's true, but it looks like he had good-faith concerns about your change. (At the very least, yes, the sentence you had was somewhat awkward and meandering.) Beyond this, it doesn't appear that anyone went to the talk page to discuss the issue. This is a simple content issue; it should be discussed on the talk page.
4. The edit summary here says that it was removed due to a consensus from an WP:RFC, and that they wanted to focus less on awards. Sounds reasonable in theory, and and I see a consensus to do so from the discussion.

• I could keep going through these point by point, but I'm already seeing a recurring theme; every time someone disagrees with you, you claim "bad faith" right away, as if its inconceivable that someone could honestly disagree with you. You really need to try harder to believe that their concerns are in good faith. Their concerns, even if they're not right, seem like plausible concerns. They are not trying to slander these car related articles, they just don't seem to approve of your decisions on editing. I see no problem with their actions, you just need to keep talking on the talk page, and if you feel like you need more input, start your own WP:RFC or ask for outside input from related WikiProjects.
• I won't close this yet, in case any other Admin want to look through it, but my Admin opinion is that there's nothing actionable here and this doesn't belong at ANI. Just keep hashing out disagreements on talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your last comment in particular. You said "notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find)". Can you elaborate which book you are referring to since this sounds like a serious accusation. I could only see 2 books used in the diff you linked to. One is "The Emergence of Modern Business Enterprise in France, 1800–1930", ISBN 0-674-01939-3. The other is "French Tanks of World War II (1): Infantry and Battle Tanks" ISBN 1-782-00389-4. All of this including additional info like publisher details are visible in the version shown by the diff. The ISBNs are even wikilinked. A perusal of these ISBNs via our book sources page or a simple internet search shows both of these books at have at least previews in Google Books, are available from places like Amazon, and are in catalogs like Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog. So these books are obviously not ones nobody could find. But as said I can't find any other book sources used in part of the diff you linked to so I can't work out what you're referring to.

Since you're made such a long complaint, I assume you do understand basic policy. Like what a WP:reliable source is and that a book is a perfectly acceptable reliable source. (Whether these particular books are RS, I can't say not knowing much about the subject matter and only really confirming they exist and are easy to find. But you didn't seem to be disputing a certain book was an RS rather suggesting nobody could find it so I guess this isn't an issue.) As with any book source, you may need to visit a library, use a interloan service, or ask someone (like for example the editor your complaining about) to provide you either a copy of the book or a copy of the page used for sourcing the info if you have doubts and want to check out the source yourself. But I again assume that you understand that this doesn't in any way affect whether the source is acceptable or the info can be verified.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil, disruptive editing/edit warring

Meryl Streep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has recently had 3 editors insisting on the removal of a regular BLP "additional references needed" maintenance template (added December of 2014), claiming random reasons not supported by Wiki guidelines (such as an arbitrary ratio of referenced vs unreferenced), despite a plethora of unsourced (and tagged) statements present throughout the article. Relevant discussion was created on talk page of article (diff of creation).
Diffs of entire incident (in chronological order):

• First editor — Gloss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)): [215] + [216]

After his second revert of my edit, I placed a "maintenance template removal" template/note on his talk page: [217]. In response, he left an inappropriate "Misidentifying edits as vandalism" template on my page: [218], to which I replied with an "Improper use of warning or blocking template" note on his page ([219]). He responded on my page, telling me to "not template the regulars", it is "rude" to "template a veteran user": [220]. I responded on his page: [221]. He replied uncivilly in a revert edit summary: [222]

• Second editor — All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (After he added 3 Bare URLs, about I'd left a talk message): [223] → [224] → subsequent edit wherein they are referred to the talk page discussion: [225]
• Third editor — Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [226] → subsequent edit, wherin editor is referred to talk page discussion and reminded not to 'discuss' in edit summaries or edit war: [227] → subsequent and latest edit, wherein editor disregards what was stated in previous edit, does not bother with talk page, and condescends to me, leaving an edit warring template on my talk page ([228]), to which I replied on his talk page ([229]). Mind you, editor reverted multiples times in article disregarding advice to refer to and use talk page, and not even addressing the issue at hand but resorting to uncivil remarks. This revert of the last message left on his talk page I consider to be condescending again, given his edit behavior in the article: [230]

This is, by and large, disruptive editing, whereby the editors, specifically Gloss and Dr.K., disregarded Wiki guidelines, edit war against appropriate usage of a BLP maintenance template (a bias implied by Gloss here), and not assuming good-faith and uncivil remarks (which is also present in linked talk page discussion). I'd like to note, since the second editor, All Hallow's Wraith, did not engage in uncivil behavior or made any disruptive edits after being referred to talk page, I have no issue with them; they are included here as part of the full rundown on the incident.

I'm primarily interested in admin input on the root of the template issue. Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly.--Lapadite (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Executive summary: a single editor has been unable to overcome objections from three good editors, and is hoping ANI will sweep the opposition away. Sorry, but disagreements are the norm at Wikipedia—please calmly discuss the issue without trying to force a really ugly "This biographical article needs additional citations" tag at the top. I see there are several "citation needed" tags in the article, but frankly it is highly unlikely that the BLP for such a prominent person has significant problems. One snippet with a cn tag is "She starred on Broadway in the Brecht/Weill musical Happy End"—yes, there should a citation, but it is hardly something to fight over. Do you doubt the statement? How about finding some references and adding them to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Johnuniq's assessment. If three veteran editors disagree with your edits, your best recourse is to use the talk page to work out a compromise if possible and appropriate. AI is not the venue for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, Ohnoitsjamie, I am not the editor who initially added the template nor the one (or one of the ones) to add most of the citation needed tag. OhNo, I did link to the talk page discussion, and I did link to the edits from editor below disregarding it. Johnuniq, that is not the point of this, and it's fairly impudent of you to claim so. It strikes me that neither of you (particularly, OhNo, the admin, rather disappointedly) have anything to say regarding these two editors' incivility and the latter disregarding the talk page discussion in his edit warring, or I could deduce that you didn't actually bother see all the diffs provided, including the talk pages'. The purpose of ANI is to help settle incidents/disputes no? This is a multifaceted one. Dr.K below is misrepresenting some things; days-long and rapid-fire war is hyperbole at best, the latter hypocrisy (your reverting my edit multiple times, ignoring what they said, excludes you?). Claiming you're assuming good faith means nothing when your actions and subsequent words say otherwise; simple concept and easily deceptive. You yourself stated the template is "defacing, at the top of a popular article" (and Johnuniq called it "ugly"), clearly the reason against it rooted in partiality. And let's stop with this pompous "veteran editor" nonsense. We're all experience editors here, and, like I'd stated in one of the messages, no one is above any guideline or above any other editor merely because they may more edits attached to their account, nor do we have a prerogative to WP:OWN. OhNo, ("If three veteran editors disagree with your edits"), whether they're "veteran" or not (one professed to be, and another condescended as such), makes no difference; only that three editors (out of the numerous editors on that page) disagree might matter. Perhaps the ANI DR really is not the place. Johnuniq, it is the responsibility of the editor that adds or restores material to provide citations per WP:PROVEIT. You're going to tell a reader that notices unsourced statements that it's on them to cite it? Dr.K calling the appropriate templating of an article "defacing for which no good reason exists to be defaced thus", and editors responding here agreeing is telling; given that templates/tags and their guidelines exist for a reason, and it is entirely appropriate for this article that had over 20 unsourced statements (one a direct quote) to have an "additional citations needed" notice, clearly this is just an issue of bias, not wanting something "ugly" and "defacing" in an article on a high profile person. I'm glad Dr.K. has begun citing the statements rather than complaining about tags.--Lapadite (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • • I told you that before and I am saying it to you again. Instead of writing a long thesis defending your indefensible actions at the article and now spreading your AGF-defying accusations of condescension to more editors you could have learned the simple act of using Google to go and find something useful to do at some article, now that the problem at Meryl Streep has been solved by the addition of citations by the editors you were edit-warring against for no good reason. You should devote your energies to doing more constructive things than bicker on noticeboards defending your edit-warring and accusations of bad-faith toward good-faith editors. Accusing me of hypocrisy regarding the edit-warring, you show no signs of understanding the disruption you have caused. As far as your misrepresentations go, you came to my talkpage telling me: ...Third, don't template me for something you have engaged in and initiated yourself, .... Accusing me of initiating the edit-war is a falsehood. You were going for days at it long before I tried to stop your defacement of the article. As far as your statement: I'm glad Dr.K. has begun citing the statements rather than complaining about tags. It's easy to say that when you show no skill at using Google to add even a single reference to the article and you rely on other editors to do that for you. BTW, I have not begun anything. I finished. The citations tags are all gone. Using Google to find the references is not that hard. You should try it sometimes. I found twenty five references to clean up the article. How many did you find? Or is your "experience" confined to defacing articles for no good reason and to reporting at ANI and accusing good-faith editors of AGF-defying nonsense? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • And I rest my case. You have no understanding of WP:BURDEN do you? The only result here was an editor attached to the article overcoming an appropriate but "ugly" and "defacing" template by finally citing unsourced statements (good), so this can be 'closed'; OhNoitsJamie.--Lapadite (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I also rest mine. You show no understanding that this is an encyclopedia and your primary function here is to build it by adding content and that includes citations. You conveniently did not reply to my question why are you not able to use Google to perform simple searches to find the required citations, especially when I told you that the task is not difficult. But instead you prefer to throw slogans like BURDEN to me as an excuse for avoiding the simple task of locating sources. You show a great understanding of WP:WIKILAWYER. Now it is time to dedicate some time to learning how to Google to find sources. That's how you can become a well-rounded Wikipedian. Regarding your comment: The only result here was an editor attached to the article, despite your clumsy attempt to insinuate that somehow I am attached to the article, I am definitely not. I rarely edit the article and I am completely indifferent to Meryl Streep. But I am attached to improving Wikipedia by adding sources. And I am also attached to having fun with Google searches. That much is true. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you Johnuniq and Ohnoitsjamie. Some background is needed here. When I saw Lapadite77's days long edit-warring on Meryl Streep, against multiple editors and for such an issue, become rapid-fire edit-warring yesterday when s/he reverted at :48, :58 past the hour and :12 past the next hour I couldn't believe my eyes. I automatically assumed that the editor must be new and did not understand the 3RR rule and wrote so in my edit-summary. Guess what, Lapadite77 thought I was condescending and uncivil for thinking so and he left a message to that effect on my talkpage. So much for AGF'ing regarding my well-stated rationale for my actions. Going to the issue at hand, I agree with all the other editors, in that Lapadite77 has no grounds for adding that defacing template at the top of a popular article because that article is well-cited and wherever there are no citations there are cn tags. Resorting to longterm and rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors for an issue like defacing an article, for which no good reason exists to be defaced thus, is an overreaction to say the least. I think Lapadite should convert his edit-warring and ANI reporting/editor warning energies into something more positive such as adding references to the article, which btw I did and removed a copyvio in the process. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Following Johnuniq's suggestion about finding a reference for the Broadway play, I found a reference from the American Film Institute which covered the play as well as the rest of the sentence. I added it to the article and also removed yet another copyvio sentence, copied from the 2004 AFI reference. It didn't take me long to do that. Nowadays Google is a very convenient tool for finding references. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I added another twelve references since then. It wasn't that hard to find them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I added another eleven citations and removed two unsourced facts for which no Google results were found. The article is now fully referenced. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and disruptive tagging of Boko Haram

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

---

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

User:Legacypac placed neutrality and factual accuracy tags on Boko Haram 8 January. His justification, at Talk:Boko_Haram#POV_Issues, was that 4 facts were supposedly missing from the article. If they were in fact missing, this would not justify the tags, since he could simply have added any sourced facts. In the same article talk page section he accuses me, with no explanation, of having an (unspecified) agenda; this edit he made to ANI (with edit summary "not going to allow any more unsubstantiated personal attacks"), where he angrily deletes a comment by another user about him having an agenda, shows that he is fully aware that making an unsubstantiated accusation of having an agenda is a personal attack.

His other reason, on the same talk page section, is "I noticed that what at first glance looks like a chronologically of events is actually a jumble. Agree with just year by year (or range of years if obvious breaks exist)." The chronology of events is, in fact, in chronological order, as made obvious by the year-be-year subheadings that have recently been added. Saying "or range of years if obvious breaks exist" indicates that he doesn't actually have any idea if what he is claiming is true, since he hasn't bothered to read the article to find out.

I have been unable to ascertain any valid reason for the "multiple issues" tag (eg. a fact that is inaccurate). On 10 January I removed the tags again ("redundant tags"). User:Legacypac restored the tags stating "restore tags to get additional editor attention here. User was blocked, partly for taking these tags off again", referring to this edit-warring report (the third he had filed against me in less than a week), where he refuses when asked to give any example of POV or factual inaccuracy, answering instead "I could ask questions or for diffs, but he would just blather on with more nonsense allegations and never answer the questions or justify them." The reason "to get additional editor attention here" still has nothing to do with POV or accuracy.

Also on 10 January, User:Legacypac added 2 more tags to the factual accuracy and neutrality "multiple issues" tag: "Added cleanup and copy edit tags (within multiple issues) to article". The new tags stated "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: reorganization underway-see talk." and "This article may require copy editing for grammar and capitalization especially".

In a section on the article talk page asking for reasons for the tags [231]. User:Lipsquid replied that the article has "an anti-Muslim and anti-Nigerian government bias". He backs this claim by complaining about a few sourced facts in the article that supposedly are biased, although they are exactly as they appear in the sources. So, I am now accused of having a POV "agenda" which is anti-everything. He also blames me for the existence of a "Name" section (which has nothing to do with me). User:Legacypac added an incoherent comment about the timeline, and states "These tags have brought in many new editors" - still not a reason for tags - he then makes a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the page to be protected. So, while his reason for tagging the article is purportedly to bring in new editors (a totally inadequate reason), he also feels the need to protect the article from new editors.

User:Lipsquid is a SPA who makes disruptive and disingenuous arguments when deleting sections, such as "The word "Boko Haram" is not in the reference you cited" when referring to a source that contains "Boko Haram" in the title and repeated throughout (Revolt in the North: Interpreting Boko Haram’s war on western education).

(A) Since I disagreed with him about unsourced material on another article, User:Legacypac has had an obsession with filing reports against me to the edit-warring noticeboard, generally when no 3RR violation has occurred (about half a dozen in the last few weeks). He has recently stepped up his campaign with an AN/I thread, as well as with the unexplained "multiple issues" article tag. With this edit in an unrelated thread on the ANI noticeboard, he announced his intention to get rid of me as an editor on Wikipedia, (or, to "deal with" me, whatever that means).

Since adding the tags, User:Legacypac has added a new completely unsourced section, Boko_Haram#Symbols, near the top of the page. His other smaller additions, mainly to the infobox, have similarly introduced factual inaccuracies, which I have now corrected, and explained in Talk:Boko_Haram#Factual_inaccuracies_added_to_infobox. As yet, no factual inaccuracies have been pointed out that existed before the "factual inaccuracy" and other tags were added.

This article, which had been relatively stable since I completed the history section several weeks ago, is very high-traffic and should not be subject to User:Legacypac's childish whims. The multiple issues tags are pointlessly disruptive solely in order to advance a personal vendetta. They have now been there for over a week, with absolutely no valid justification. zzz (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea what this is even about and, honestly, didn't read the whole thing, but it seems there should be a separate noticeboard just for complaints about Legacypac by this point. It's always the same thing, too - someone is alleging he's threatened to get rid of them, or report them to death, or whatever. I withhold any further comment, though. Maybe there's a multi-tentacled conspiracy out to make him look bad. (Stranger things have happened.) BlueSalix (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I must be part of the conspiracy. Legacypac and I both are on the Trilateral Commission and go to Bilderburger meetings in Area 51 to plan out the demise of other Wikipedia users. Please leave me out of any nonsense that involves crazy people. ZZZ asked what was wrong with the article on the talk page, so I told him on the talk page. I didn't edit anything, I didn't make any personal comments about him. I discussed inconsistencies and bias in the article. [redacted] Lipsquid (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If terms like "crazy people" are being thrown around then obviously there is a problem of some type. I strike, and apologize for, my previous flippant comments. On further reading of Signedzzz's report this does seem to be a highly questionable sequence of edits delivered in a very charged fashion that is not WP:AGF and not WP:CIVIL. Further, the addition of the unsourced section "Symbols" is not consistent with WP:CS. These are not obvious facts, but expert assertions being made with no references, like "Two crossed Kalashnikov automatic rifles, model AK47. This is a common symbol with terrorist organizations and symbolizes armed struggle and the willingness to use violence." BlueSalix (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply I'm glad Signedzzz filed this report for context is everything. [232] [233] [234] [235] [236]

The following report (linked above by Signedzzz) was archived automatically without action or comment while Signedzzz was on a 4 day block. He did not accept the proposed topic ban, so it goes to the community or an Admin to decide. I will not waste everyone's time responding to the unsubstantiated allegations above except to say that:

1. Pending Changes Review was added by an Admin a few hours ago. That allows everyone to edit, but changes by editors who are brand new require review before going live. Reason was persistent vandalism by non-autoconfirmed editors.
2. At (A) is he getting close to breaching his ISIL topic ban?
3. A review of Boko Haram talk and changes log will show the rest of his complaints are nonsense and just part of his pattern of behavior that lead to User:EdJohnston proposing the topic ban.
4. At BlueSalix - it is because I edit some contentious areas and am willing to report the problematic editors that these topics attract.

(Revived from Archives) Boko Haram Proposed Topic Ban

Related 3RR reports: [237], [238] and others.

A single editor is guarding the Boko Haram article like a junkyard dog, making it impossible for any other editor to make meaningful contributions. Since all efforts to reason are met with insults, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and more edit warring, the only solution I can see it a community imposed topic ban for Boko Haram and all related topics.

Examples:

1. [239] wholesale revert of changes by User:Koyos
2. [240] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Lipsquid and adjusted by User:Charles Essie
3. [241] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Legacypac
4. [242] wholesale revert on changes to Names section by User:Legacypac
5. [243] makes large edit with summary "(many unexplained changes to text)"
6. [244] editwarring over Background section with same revert about 9 times. Results in 4 trips to 3RR board and a comment by User:EdJohnston that he believes Signedzzz will never stop.
7. [245] removed word "men" from types of people (men, women and children) kidnapped in the lead and good source added by User:105.184.160.62
8. [246] [247] [[248]]] reverted additions of ISIL under allies by User:Jurryaany, an IP, and User:Jackninja5. first time it is ref'd, second time he says it needs a ref, third time in breach of his ISIL topic ban, .
9. [249] even undoes minor spelling variation by User:LightandDark2000
10. [250] good addition by User:MelvinToast
11. [251] took out timeline section, left article with only a link under see also
12. [252] reverted the addition of "nearly" by User:Shii in front of an approximation of refugees.

And if you go back further there are more examples.

User contribution tool found an astonishing 2443 edits by User:Signedzzz on Boko Haram (54.75% of the total edits made to the page).

Just as I am finishing this report I see the post below on 3RR, which may solve the problem. However, since I did all the work to put the report together I'm putting this up anyway to call editors attention to the problem with the Boko Haram article and as a back-up of information to support a topic ban imposed by the community or an Admin.Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(Quoted here) Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (end Quote) (end of repost of ANi report of 10 January 2015 Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Discussion

That's fine, but I'm not sure how it excuses some of the language that was being thrown around or the insertion of a large quantity of uncited material. Also, having now read the diffs you've posted above, I - in some cases - question the accuracy of the summaries you've offered of these interactions, while - in others - fail to see the problem of the edits. This diff [253] for instance you've characterized as a "wholesale revert" of your edits, but it appears the only substantive edits were to remove those of your insertions that were sourced to non-RS sources like something called "gotdns.com" and a primary source reference to wikileaks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A (very) cursory can of Signedzzz's 54.75% total edits appears that a large percentage of them are minor copyediting that predate the emergence of Boko Haram as a topic of heavy media coverage. So, in my opinion, it doesn't seem that astonishing and, in fact, rather commendable. BlueSalix (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thank you for your action and comments. I would, however, like to place one note in the margin of the general discussion: OWNership is baaaad, of course, but that doesn't make zzz's work automatically invalid. Of course edit warring and removing valid tags and all that jazz are disruptive, but let's think about the baby before we throw it out with the bathwater: let's make sure that such an abortive move will not detract from article quality. (If it sounds like I'm breaking a lance for zzz, maybe--but I don't know them from Adam and have no involvement with the article.) I see that 1R was tried unsuccessfully at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but perhaps it's worth having another go at 1R, or even 0R, before we throw another topic ban at zzz. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• With respect of zzz's edits, having only glanced at this page, it appears he's been on it for a long time. And it appears his concerns are justifiably centered on the insertion of large amounts of uncited material, or material cited to non-RS. I don't know if he's a SME or not, but banning him from this subject in favor of this other editor doesn't seem like it will result in the best possible article WP can produce on this subject. I'm not very close to this question so there may be some nuances on which I'm not picking up, but this is my bird's eye view. BlueSalix (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: The OWNership continues as he just made several unconstructive edits that removed good additions made by a variety of editors while he was on the block, which appears to restores the lead and infobox to exactly how he had it before the block. [254] and [255]. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see now that I misunderstood--I thought Ed's commentary was on a current block. Here's the thing, though: I cannot immediately see from your diff that zzz is reverting (ie, edit warring), and I cannot right now look into it, since I gotta run. I urge another admin to look into the matter (Bbb23 are you up yet?). If it had been a clear revert or something like that I would have blocked for a week or more. Thanks for the note, Legacypac. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Your first diff shows he edited the contributions of an IP editor. Nothing against IP editors, but reverting or modifying edits contributed by an IP editor is usually not a smoking gun of ownership or disruptiveness, particularly on controversial topics as this one appears to be. A more careful look at this specific edit, as far as I'm concerned, also doesn't find any fault. Your second diff is to him editing his own edit. BlueSalix (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen any other article get tagged for factual inaccuracy when every fact is cited, and no fact is claimed to be inaccurate at all. And the POV tag has not been explained either (what is my POV?) And I don't know how it fails Wikipedia's quality standards (the chronology is in chronological order, so it can't be that). Legacypac's original explanation was "to alert other editors and readers that there are [unspecified] problems here." But WP:TC says "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article". Yesterday, 75,000 readers saw the tags, but only 165 looked at the talk page to see if there was a reason. If there is a reason, I'd just like to know what it is, so I can discuss it and help fix it. I can see how some of my actions might look a bit OWNery, so I'll be more careful. For a very long time, hardly any other editors contributed, and now, suddenly, after these tags which I don't understand, there's subheadings (some possibly non-neutral) over every paragraph or 2, and many photos of questionable value. And unsourced material, no discussion. zzz (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in owning this article (or any other). I got involved when I saw a content dispute and gave a 3rd opinion. This issue is less about any specific edit but that over many months Signedzzz has reverted every substantive edit by every other editor that comes along. This while excluding substantive info (like Boko Haram was designated a terrorist group by the UN Security Council under the AQ sanctions). The latest two deletions after the block reset multiple editors all at once. Finally I did not add the symbols section,, I presume Signedzzz added it but have not looked through his several thousand edits to confirm. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How does complaining about the factual accuracy and POV Tags in the article while also complaining about the factual accuracy and POV issues in the article work? And most of the stuff Signedzzz is complaining about is stuff he put there originally.

EdJohnston's Quoted post above was in a 3RR report that he closed as the previous ANi was being posted by me (as noted). It has now been detached from the quoted ANi by Blue's insertions. (fixed now) That ANi went stale as Incapped it off with Ed's quote and Signedzzz could not respond while blocked and choose not to accept the topic ban proposed by EdJohnston for his edit warring. So now we are back to the edit warring issue and the OWN issue that lead to the 4 day block and proposed topic ban by EdJohnston. Hope this is clear and I hope User:EdJohnston will weigh in. He was aware of my 4 day back ANi and thanked me for posting it. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologise, you merely [moved the unsourced "symbols" section up to the top of the article; I can't find where it was first added 3 hours before.

I can't think of any substantive edit, for months, reverted or otherwise. There was an edit that added a couple of subheadings to the end section, which I was grateful for, about a month ago. And a more recent edit at the end of the chronology, when I had n't edited for a while.

I certainly haven't "excluded" substantive info, or any other sort of info. I never got round to mentioning the UN, since there is nothing much substantive to say about them, apart from the mere fact of the terrorist designation. I did revert an edit in the lead about New Zealand designating them as terrorist, because I couldn't see how it was important enough, which I did explain to the editor.

"How does complaining about the factual accuracy and POV Tags in the article while also complaining about the factual accuracy and POV issues in the article work?" I've no idea what this means. My only complaint with the tags is that I haven't heard yet a justification. No inaccurate fact, for example. "And most of the stuff Signedzzz is complaining about is stuff he put there originally." What stuff that I put there are you saying I am complaining about? (Is that what you're saying?) zzz (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am commenting principally because Drmies asked me to. I'm not quite sure what the scope of the proposed topic ban is. Perhaps that should be clarified. However, most of zzz's latest comments above seem eerily similar to comments they've made before. I'm not going to dig up diffs for more recent problems because, athough I'm technically "up", my energy level is not. I do think that changing from 1RR to 0RR on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant would create more problems than it solves and would be time-consuming to enforce. I also think it would require a separate discussion as it's part of a broader set of community sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:ORR, 0RR is intended to be imposed on editors only, not articles. NE Ent 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I always forget that sentence. Maybe it's because I'm not crazy about 0RR generally. Personally, I've seen it used most often as a restriction agreed to by a user in exchange for avoiding more serious sanctions. Then, of course, there is the recurring problem - but heightened - as to what constitutes a "revert".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Brief History

1. In response to the two most recent 3RR reports [256] [257], EdJohnston offered Signedzzz a 1 month self imposed break from Boko Haram on his talk page instead of sanctions.
2. This offer was rejected by Signedzzz when he went back to edit warring.
3. So I drafted up the January 10 ANi (reposted above) where I proposed a "community imposed topic ban for Boko Haram and all related topics," but as I was about to post it
4. I found that EdJohnston had just issued a 4 day block and an offer "This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)"
5. Signedzzz did not agree to the topic ban, lived out the 4 day block, and went straight back to reverting other editors [258] [259], by restoring the infobox and lead basically to how he had them on January 6 before he was blocked and a bunch of other editors worked on the article without his OWNership getting in the way,
6. filing this ANi against me and when challenged in this ANi,
7. he posted combative stuff on the talk page [260] [261] and, after answers are provided there, comes back here and claims to one will explain the issues to him WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

So I leave this in the capable hands of an Admin to deal with or we can vote on the topic ban as defined by EdJohnston. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Everyone apparently seems to agree that the article has multiple issues. I still don't understand what they are. The talk page just has user lipsquid complaining that I repeated what sources say, and complaining there shouldn't be a "name" section (which I might agree with, but it doesn't explain why the article's so terrible), Talk:Boko_Haram#Article_tags, so that doesn't help. That's when I decided to come here in hopes of an explanation. I still haven't had one. But at least I know everyone agrees now. zzz (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Never ending WP:IDONTHEARTHAT I doubt he will ever stop. Lipsquid (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Ive stopped editing, dont worry. Like I said, I can see that everyone agrees the stuff i do has multiple issues which im not aware of. I just would have liked an explanation either on the talk page or the admins noticeboards where Ive asked for one, since the tags were added by someone who has made no secret of making it his mission to get rid of me. And someone else who calls me a "crazy person" and a "loon who thinks he owns the article" in his first reply here. Insults and catchphrases like IDONTHEARTHAT obviously trumps anything else, and I was idiotic to think I'd ever get an explanation. Which doesnt matter anyway since everyone else agrees. The stuff ive done just creates problems for other editors to sort out, so theres no point in me hanging around to get insulted any more. zzz (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just by the way, the journalist who links to my DYK article in this article doesnt seem to share the opinion of these editors about my mental faculties. There appears to be something else going on here, which i want no further part of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And, thanks so much for your "support", User:Drmies, in summoning BBB, who was of course the admin who gave me my first 48 hours block with talk page access removed, for "violating 1RR" after 1 revert (ie, not violating 1RR), at Legacypac's behest, where I was not even allowed to respond to the report. (And I had not been given the General Sanctions notification, since it was my first edit to the article). zzz (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't call on Bbb to support you or attack you. I called on him because he's a good reader of edit warring diffs, and because he has looked at your file before--there was a distinct possibility that Bbb could look at those edits that were signaled here and determine if this was continuing the edit war or not. Now, if you wish to rehash a block from two months ago, do it somewhere else please. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, except that (like my first block mentioned above) the edits signaled here just concern me disagreeing with Legacypac, which is plainly breaking a strictly enforced unwritten rule of Wikipedia. zzz (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The last post looks like a violation of his SCW/ISIL topic ban, and the behavior highlighted there is much like the behavior highlighted here.

Editing wikipedia requires some WP:COMPETENCE in understanding sources and correctly reflecting them in the article. It requires not dismissing a link [262] between two terrorist organizations because the last source he found (and misrepresnted) was June 2014 [263]. or because in another source he can't see any mention of al-Qaeda even though pages 23-25 are headed External Links and Networks where we can read all about the links to AQ. In my estimation WP:COMPETENCE is lacking here, with this thread being the latest example.

ALthough he posts here sarcastically he is not editing at Boko Haram, he is at the same time posting stuff on the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to reply to you, so I replied. No surprise really at this point that you find this worth complaining about. zzz (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of competence, the Congressional report of June 2014 summarises its own position regarding Boko Haram's affiliation with Al Qaida, and that of the US govt, at the end of the first paragraph of the report thus: "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda." Legacypac repies "Quoting the first summary page is fine, as long as you don't cherry pick one sentence to get to a novel conclusion." He is quite literally stating that the report's own summary of its own conclusions is "cherry picking to get to a novel conclusion," and he instead reaches a different conclusion. And he describes this as a matter of "competence". Since Legacypac reverted my edit which he complains about above, the Boko Haram infobox again states that al Qaeda are "allies" - because on Wikipedia, User:Legacypac's opinion trumps the US government's. zzz (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome any Admin or Editor to review the debate and make a ruling. The quote from the summary refers to AQ Core, but the report clearly suggests current links to AQIM and suggests other links. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that you know you're right already, though, since you edit-warred to include your opinion in the infobox, although "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda" (since June 2014). Note that User:Legacypac edit-warred for the infobox to state that "Al Qaeda" are allies, not "AQIM", although, given the present scrutiny, he has now decided unilaterally to change it to "Al Qaeda via AQIM", a novel formulation of his own invention, still clearly in disagreement with the very clear position of the US govt (as of June 2014), but presumably a tacit acceptance that his edit-warring been wrong all along. The link with AQIM is possible to draw from the report of a US officer in February 2014. However, the Congressional report was from June 2014 - and you editwarred to include "Al Qaeda", not "AQIM", because you think you can ignore Reliable Sources. Which is strange, since you also edit warred to include a "factual inaccuracy" tag among the "multiple issues", and have still not indicated a single factual inaccuracy - in the entire (long) article, whereas out of your few additions, you are already editwarring to introduce blatant, obvious factual inaccuracies. zzz (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Another obvious blatant example from the infobox: "Strength estimated at over 9000". The US govt Congressional report above gives the strength as "100s to 1000s", as stated and cited in the lead section. The Telegraph, which is cited in the infobox, says "up to 9000+"I read this source months ago and forgot the exact wording (for the record) "largest force 9000+". Which means "up to 9000, or perhaps more". Yet you edit warred for it to say "over 9000". Is this another factual inaccuracy, as I explained in the talk page, or am I WP:NOTHEARINGSOMETHING, again? It is another crystal clear example of User:Legacypac deliberately disregarding WP:RS and edit-warring to include his blatantly wrong opinions ("factual inaccuracies", as per the tag he added). And please note that he has only been WP:OWNing this article for a few days so far, and has hardly even got started yet. zzz (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Another example: see end of this report. After the clear explanation there (and in my edit summary) of why I removed his addition, he just simply added it back, claiming "restore unexplained mass revert of changes to Names section" (emphasis added). zzz (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This sort of behaviour by LP was ongoing on the 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa article and on its talkpage. "Curiously" even though that talkpage was started on Oct 23, 2014 but the oldest archive of that page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa/Archive_4begins at November 14....some discussions on the missing-from-the-archive talkpage were directly chronicling/document false/misleading edit comments and POVism by him on that article; some of my points about his behaviour are present in Archive 4, however. Post-striking out that previous bit, I had the numerical order of the archives wrong; I'll maybe come back with specific sections from Article 1, I've spent more time than I meant to today on this distasteful board; and I note he's trying to get a vote-call to block someone else who's pointing at his behaviour as a problem. Pot kettle black big-time.Skookum1 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note also his ongoing archiving of this page - very curious for someone who is the subject of an open ANI here - and also his AGF and NPA in his redactions and removal of my vote from the voting section he started to seek having me blocked, not for any reason to do with the articles and discussions that that ANI, the purpose of which was actually mediation not punishment. He accuses me of "harassment" but that's exactly what he's doing towards me; I'm staying away from this page mostly, but upon seeing this ANI and what you're talking about re him his past behaviour on other "terror theme" articles is more than relevant; also re Talk:2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack though to a lesser degree, but cheerleading there for another highly POV editor who fabricated what's not in sources and who, similarly, seems to be entirely agenda-driven on MidEast/terror articles. Look in his usercontributinos for yet more edit-warring and POV activity/ANIs about him in the past.Skookum1 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

All hogwash, but bonus points for coming up with an accusation as unique as blaming me for the work of lower case sigma bot III. Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did strike that out once my error was pointed out to me by a more friendly editor than you have any intentions of ever being. Bonus points for your supposed business in BC...you must make a lot of money at it to spend all day, for weeks and weeks and months, wiki-warring here in Wikipedia about "terror" and pushing a certain POV about same. Other than re-heeding Viriditas' advice to me about ignoring this pile of "hogwash" that goes on here (otherwise known as "horseshit") and just keep working on articles; you do not have consensus to block me, trying so hard as you are; I'll be back with specific items on those archives for the benefit of those here who are observing much the same about you as myself and others have noted about you re Ottawa.Skookum1 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTHERE issues continue

I just don't believe this. User:Legacypac has now deleted "membership estimated at 100s to 1000s", as per Congressional Research Service, saying "replace inaccurate and unsourced "few hundred to few thousand" members line with sourced statement for # of fighters", replacing it with "9000", cited to a source that says "unknown" and "lower estimate 500, higher estimate 9000". So he's replaced a correctly cited estimate with an incorrectly cited one. I don't understand why. And he's done the same in the infobox. He just has no idea about factual accuracy whatsoever. It's hopeless. It's surreal, he editwars to keep the factual inaccuracy warning, then insists on adding factual inaccuracies. I tried reasoning with him on article talk, Talk:Boko_Haram#Membership_number.2Ffighter_count, and he just told me to get stuffed. I don't know what else to do, except leave the article to collect enough factual inaccuracies to justify the warning tag. zzz (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Total hogwash. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Unknown, lower estimate 500, higher estimate 9000" = "9000", according to Legacypac. Either he actually believes this (WP:COMPETENCE), or he thinks it's close enough for Wikipedia purposes (WP:NOTHERE). His protracted WP:HOUNDING, and deliberate disruption of this article, adding his POV factual inaccuracies, presumably in a bizarre attempt to justify the multiple issues warning tags he added, needs to be stopped. zzz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Short Summary

There were no factual inaccuracies before he started editing, and no misrepresentations of sources - not a single one has been pointed out by anyone. But Legacypac wants to get rid of the editor, and finds the article doesn't do a good enough job of promoting his POV, so he sticks multiple issues warning tags on it, with a completely ridiculous and false explanation (4 missing facts, "These tags have brought in many new editors"), then gets stuck in making any POV inaccurate edits he likes, sticking sources next to "facts" that misrepresent the sources (diffs above), ignoring inconvenient sources that state the opposite of other "facts" (diffs above), adding massive POV sections, and edit warring whenever necessary. Reverting his edits is not allowed (no consensus). So at this point, as is now a fairly well-accepted fact, all of Wikipedia's terrorism-related articles are User:Legacypac's personal blog, bearing little resemblance to any reliable sources. zzz (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - because of connectivity problems I haven't been able to explore the archives/history of the talkpage for the Ottawa shootings article where LP's conduct was very similar; he had in fact deleted and re-deleted a section on that talkpage about his false edit comments and POV edits and SYNTH assertions; it appears to have been deleted again before that page was archived. I have other things to do today, but I'm pointing out that his editing of others posts in talkpage discussions is against guidelines; and similarly he's doing that here on the vote-call he launched against me on this ANI. And who is he again? And why is he allowed to redact and remove others' posts, incite hostility towards them, invoke vote-calls and then editorialize on them? Finger-pointing away from himself is his tactic, very notable on the Ottawa page, per that repeatedly deleted listing of his miscreant edits/synth/pov work there. Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor deliberately adding BLP violation (and unsourced claims) back to article

Scalhotrod, with whom I am often in conflict, has repeatedly added an obvious BLP violation back to the Juelz Ventura article after I removed it. The content in question identifies a notable professional basketball player as a porn actor who has "performed" with Ventura. The claim is all but certainly false, and the cited reference provides absolutely no support for the claim. I initially removed the violation here [264]; Scalhotrod restored it (and other claims without any RS) here [265] and here [266] and here [267], with inappropriate, bordering on insulting, edit summaries. (The supposed supporting reference is a promotional page for Penthouse, and is, at best, a primary source that does not reliably identify any individual beyond Ventura, and really is just advertising for a paid-membership website.) The disputed content, rather promotional, is so slipshod that it identifies a male performer as an "actress", and was initially added by . . . Scalhotrod. Scalhotrod refuses to engage in reasonable discussion on porn-related issues -- note, for example, this personal attack in an edit summary [268] restoring demonstrably false claims to another porn bio -- and has just come off a lengthy topic ban for for similarly inappropriate behavior in another area. Some sanction regarding BLP editing is in order. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that "TJ Cummings" is indeed a pornographic actor, however, is not the same TJ Cummings in our article of the same. In other words, there are two different people named TJ Cummings, one who is a pornographic actor and appears to be white, and the other who is a basketball player and appears to be black. I assume, in the case of the former, the surname "Cummings" is a novelty stage name. While giving Scalhotrod the benefit of the doubt that he was confused by the identical names, I agree with The Big Bad Wolfowitz that the wikilink should be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem appears to have rectified itself. I removed the wikilinks to TJ Cummings, after which Scalhotrod deleted the name altogether and replaced it with some other porn actor. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Talk page for Talk:Juelz Ventura is surprisingly absent of HW's efforts to communicate[269]. But if this is just about a Wikilink that's pointed at the wrong place, holy crap HW, why couldn't you just say that and leave out all the puffery and hyperbole? I've gone ahead and removed the link and added 2 other working links that point to the correct actors[270]. I have also started a discussion on the Talk page if you have other concerns that you would like to specifically articulate, rather than bury things an Edit summary when you are blanking a section or sections of an article[271].

For anyone else, this is just a content dispute, these are not the droids you are looking for. "Move along (click) Move along" please... :) (end of Star Wars reference) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Chris, this is not simply a content dispute. This is principally about your irresponsible, at best careless, at worst dishonest, approach to editing BLPs. It's evident you never bothered to check the accuracy of the pages you link to. Itcouldn't be more obvious from the "correction" you just made to the Juelz Ventura page, where you got one of the two links wrong. Only a week or so ago you accused me of BLP zealotry after I [error removed] deleted unsourced claims that an identified living person was involved in the making of human-animal porn, a position no reasonable, honest editor would make. You went out of your way to add the BLP violation back to the Ventura article, and you never checked the article you were intent on adding a link to. Just like you never checked to begin with. Instead, you used snarky, derisive, disruptive edit summaries to divert attention from your misbehaviour. Your carelessness isn't limited to porn BLPs, although that's where your most flagrant misbehaviour occurs. Just a dayor so ago, at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, you rejected an edit as unsourced even though it clearly wasn't -- and you pretty much admitted on my talk page you did so because you hadn't even bothered to check the relevant source. And, as usual, you wouldn't admit your error, you just posted snarky and derisive comments on my talk page, where you've long been unwelcome. You've mad it clear that you don't accept BLP policy calling for dubious content to be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. You plainly don't accept policy and guideline limits on promotional content (which isn't surprising given the amount of COI editing you've done, or the fact that you've dropped your own name into articles.) But that disagreement doesn't allow you to restore BLP violations, which you have done repeatedly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That sounds like exactly how Scalhotrod is behaving with a BLP conflict with me. I sympathize with you User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am having my own difficulties with Scalhotrods "irresponsible, at best careless, at worst dishonest, approach to editing BLPs." [272][273][274][275][276]

..."narky and derisive comments". Yep, that about sums it up.🐍 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)

Shark310, you forgot an important one... [277] and please learn to sign your comments, you're going to blowout the SineBot. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

yet another snarky and rude comment. No, I didnt forget it, I thought I'd let you bring it up. Because you seem to think that the result of an SPI allows you to violate BLP policy and consensus multiple times. When all else fails, bring up socking. scalhotrod seems to believe the best defense for violating policy is to attack. It really is a shame. I'm sorry Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, it sucks you have to deal with this ridiculousness. I'm having my own trouble with scalhotrod and his blatant disregard for BLP policy.Shark310(talk)🐍 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a "Snarky" comment... Anyone need a popcorn refill? I'm off to run errands... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are some long-term issues here. But this ANI only addresses an immediate issue of a wikilink that has been completely and totally solved. If there's some other issue it should be saved and brought-up in a separate ANI and this one let die. BlueSalix (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Animal porn, huh? What the heck are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On January 4, in a discussion of Squeakbox, you referred to my reversing edits you made with edit summaries (plural) referring to BLP. In the group of edits you referred to, there were only two with summaries referencing BLP. Since you took credit for the content I removed, I inferred you were responsible for it. If you now would say you were not, I'll accept that unless it's shown otherwise, although I don't understand why you would take creditfor it to begin with. The content at issue was in Pornography in Europe, and given the nature of it I'm not going to link to it directly. When I raised the same point in the January 4 discussion, in responseto your rather gratuitous and inaccurate comments about me, you didn't claim any inaccuracy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific with your allegation, cause I'm just not seeing it. The only edit I made to Pornography in Europe was this[278] on January 1 which involved Wikilinks to several other articles for directors. What does that have to do with animal porn? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're done here. Nothing worse than a mistake is proven, if that--then again, Scalhotrod, these are BLPs and the stuff should be taken seriously. Linking from porn to a non-porn person is a serious error, and can cause some real-world grief. I'm quite serious--this is not some baconated joke. The last charge, I can't quite follow it, and it seems like Hullabaloo is not pursuing it, at least not here.

  Anywayz, I was going to close this and say something like "ANI is for incidents, patterns of behavior are better addressed via a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct"--but that venue is "deprecated", which I think is a euphemism for "disappeared". In other words, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you are encouraged, if you indeed think there is a pattern here, to seek other means of dispute resolution: WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, one more thing, Scalhotrod--the kids are watching a movie in the other room so I checked on this reference of yours--I strongly encourage everyone to NOT use that kind of sourcing. I scratched it and it doesn't even smell reliable. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair point, I guess its WP:PRIMARY since its a directory of the pictorials for that person in that particular publication and its website. For the record, I was interested in the text as the source. My apologies for the mis-link in a BLP article to another BLP. I wasn't the one that originally added it, as I usually check links before hitting Save. But I'll be more diligent with my link checking. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Really? Then who used your account to make the edit that originally added it? [279] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I did indeed add that link and not check it properly. My apologies for the error. I'm not much of a sports person, so it never occurred to me that it might be someone else. Thanks for keeping me honest Wolfie... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being "much of a sportsperson". You've repeatedly trivialized BLP enforcement, particularly with regard to porn, and even when you "corrected" the Juelz Ventura article after the issue was made clear here you made exactly the same mistake by not checking the links -- fortunately this time linking to the "Eric Masterson" DAB page rather than another BLP, but that was purely by chance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And instead of dropping the WP:STICK since you have removed the section in question from the article[280], you keep moaning about it along with removing other content you WP:IDONTLIKEIT [281]. Although I find it interesting that you deleted the content mentioning that Ventura is a parent using the edit summary "spamref"[282] that cites an interview. And since the point you seem to be trying to make is about long term editing habits, that last edit is one example of how you like to remove content from adult film performer BLP articles that adds a human interest aspect to them. You're welcome to personally have as much disdain as you want for anyone, but you shouldn't be editing their articles while holding out that you're some kind of bastion of BLP integrity. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Found another one from today, same thing[283] for Nici Sterling. You deleted content about her being married, to whom, being a parent, and her sexual orientation. If you have a problem with the sources, so be it. But that is what RSN is for, not running to ANI. Have you been deleting this stuff for so long that its just a reflex and you do not consider the consequences? You've pointed me at a link that goes back over 4 years. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit, Chris, utter bullshit. The first removal you object to was a link to pornfidelity.com, a porn vendor site that is not used as a reference in any other article, and which has been removed as unreliable even by editors who routinely dispute my position on porn. The second removal you object to is a referenced to a self-published Weebly site, not the article subject's official site, which simply can't be used in a BLP. You can cast all the AGF-violating aspersions you want to, but all you're doing is placing your own good faith and/or competence under a pretty dark cloud. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

HW, I'm not claiming that ANY of those sources were stellar, but you appointed yourself "judge, jury, and executioner" of the source and the content associated with it. We're talking about simple things like being married or being a parent, not your typical "controversial, muck-raking" content that floods many mainstream celebrity or politician articles. You could simply remove the source and place a tag, but you don't, you delete and find something else to blank. Adding your crypticly short Edit summaries to the mix just makes the situation sad IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're just making stuff up now. There's no exception in BLP for "simple things". There's no exception in BLP for unsourced warm fuzzy claims. BLP is simply about getting things right, and demonstrating that Wikipedia gets things right. As Jimbo has said, and I paraphrase, saying nothing is better than saying something we can't be confident is accurate. And, Chris, your habits as a pending changes reviewer show that you don't practice what you're claiming to preach here. We all can see that you want relaxed BLP standards for porn. No reasonable editor agrees with you aboutcarving out such an exception. Harassing and haranguing editors enforcing simple, uncontroversial policy standards is disruptive misbehavior, and you're only days removed from a lengthy topic ban for similar misbehavior on another subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d disruptive editing

Refuses to follow WP:V even after being alerted to this policy and to how his image contributions violate it (this was originally a content dispute at Talk:MDMA#Image in header/User_talk:Lazord00d#Bad molecular models until his behavior got out of hand). He says he no longer takes WP seriously (or at least other WP editors seriously) and is tired of arguing but has plenty of time and interest to continue trying to re-insert his preferred images that others dispute (WP:IDHT/WP:CIR/etc). Refuses to recognize WP:CONSENSUS, or at best continuing to edit-war while simultaneously discussing something that has strong dissent ([284], [285], [286] are the same issues of style-choice and disputed-content (unreliability of jmol) raised at the MDMA and user-talk pages). Responds with insults/abuse/personal comments when responding to policy/guideline-based criticism of his ideas and approaches (see User talk:DMacks#Poopy farts, which includes my warning to him about WP:CIVIL). He has asked me not to leave him any further talk messages, so I will let the WP:ECHO of this comment ping him and others can notify explicitly to complete the letter of the process-policy here. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As a married father with a job and a life, I don't have time for whatever is going on here even if i did care enough to be a part of it. It's clear to me that an interlinked subset of Wikipedia editors and their friends dictate what happens on Wikipedia, regardless of the supposed fact that this editing is open to the public. I've already defended my images and position numerous times, the strategy here is to wear me down, but only if I let it. You guys have fun with whatever it is that you do.. It's not like defending ones position will matter we've tried that remember? Please feel free to delete me or my images or both. Wikipedia should include a section on itself in any article regarding exercises in futility. Lazord00d (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We have many such pages internally, at least (e.g. WP:CGTW) for good reason.

This is fairly ridiculous. For of all, obviously these chemicals are not two dimensional, so insisting that two dimensional images are "better" for the reader than three dimensional models is backwards. Secondly, only chemists think of atoms having a location to be put into a diagram, any right thinking Heisenberg understanding physicist knows location is just a conceptualization of a much messier quantum reality. NE Ent 11:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this the content discussion is about what kind of schematic best communicates information about the molecule, not whether those schematics are perfect representations of the underlying physics. The issue at hand, though, is behavioral - selection of the images for an article is subject to consensus, and rather than working collaboratively Lazord00d continues to attack other editors and edit war. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Example of editwarring against consensus. --Leyo 06:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO the personal attacks (linked above) alone would support a block of Lazord00d. Such an uncivil behavior may not be tolerated. --Leyo 12:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

User:Lachlan Foley is out of control.

In just the last five days, LF has tagged about 400 album and song articles with music notability tags without any apparent research or examination of the articles themselves, many of which actually show they were hit songs or records, like with Blur's #5 UK charting Charmless Man and On Your Own (Blur song) song articles. [287][288]. He seems to have a particular dislike of live albums - 17 out of 22 Gary Numan's live albums articles has been tagged by him as well two Roxy Music albums.[289][290]

Many of the other album articles he threw notability tags on are of those by iconic artists such as Radiohead and Brian Eno.[291][292]

Looking just previous to this latest round of mass tagging, I see he tagged Roxy Music #5 charting Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article with a notability tag.[293]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And for Jebediah I see on the #6 charting Kosciuszko (album) article, LF removed all the professional review sources [294] and then tagged it for notability on the next edit. [295] Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

CIVIL -- Requesting redaction of offensive edit summary comments

Hello. I had an edit reverted (see here) by an IPv6 user 2604:2000:E8A4:7600:256C:FBEC:42CF:A5B8. I actually agree with the edit itself but the problem is the edit summary comments left by that user which clearly violate wp:agf and wp:npa. I have posted a polite but firm admonition on his/her Talk Page and also left the required ANI-notice tag.

I do not feel Admin needs to act towards the user as this appears to be a first incident but I would appreciate if the offensive comments could be redacted/edited to simply read: Urban Dictionary is not a WP reliable source, which I have come to learn is true.

I am sorry to bother Admin with this but I believe that ordinary users do not have the ability to change edit summaries and that this requires an Admin to complete?

Thank you. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for bringing this here. The tone of the edit summary is unnecessarily aggressive and assumes bad faith. However I regret to say it doesn't reach the standards required to be revision-deleted. These standards are outlined at WP:REVDEL, and make clear that the permanent removal of revision content is done very sparingly.

That's not to suggest the comment is condoned - if this or any editor shows a pattern of incivility, they risk at least temporary removal of their editing privileges. But in this case, revdel is not justifiable, and the best thing seems to be ignoring the summary and resuming normal editing.

Happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

item 5

Thanks for the information Euryalus and I am okay with just ignoring the comment. Consider the incident closed.

I would however like to further discuss this briefly on a more general/conceptual/policy level. Consider if you will the following... When I opened this AN/I it was primarily to get an Admin to change the edit summary because I was looking at this incident in the context of WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility, specifically item 5 which encourages getting uncivil users to correct their mistake. However, since a common user is technically incapable of "strike[ing] out an uncivil comment, or re-word[ing] [a comment]" that is located within an edit summary, how then can a user be permitted to implement item 5 for edit summaries if they wish to do so? Is REVDEL permitted if a user asks (or agrees) to have their own words corrected, or is there another tool/policy that would allow item 5 in such cases? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You're correct, there's no effective way to remove an edit summary short of revdel or suppression. A user might ask for (and receive) a revision delete when they have accidentally revealed personal information, but the threshold for revdeleting uncivil comments or vandalism doesn't change even if the person who made the original edit summary asks for it to be done.

If the original poster wishes to withdraw a comment made in an edit summary, their best bet is to do so via a comment on (say) a talkpage, with a link to the edit where the summary was made. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Block review: TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD)

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

---

I've just blocked TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for edit-warring on Draft:Gamergate controversy (on a draft page! Over the use of the word "movement"!) and creating a hostile editing environment there and on the talk page with an extremely acerbic tone and a series of unhelpful and provocative comments in edit summaries and on the talk page. My rationale as explained to TRPoD is here. This block is made in accordance with the GamerGate general sanctions and may not be reversed except with my consent or as a result of consensus at this board. I believe the block to be a justified and necessary response to disruption, but Hell in a Bucket asked me to bring it here for review, and he asked nicely so here we are. Comments please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell is a very good admin and honest, I think TheRedPenOfDoom should be unblocked because he gives a lot of time to this website and so many of his changes are actually helpful. Yes this all good work becomes unhelpful when you are blocked for violating some terms. I think he will take this block seriously. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  I disagree. There is no get out of jail free card just because you other edits were good.TRPoD was creating a inflammatory atmosphere which cannot be excused by the editors previous behaviour . Avono (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I had suggested the same, if you had seen my third sentence. As this was his first block, I think that he deserves a chance. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: How long has Pen of Doom been here on Wikipedia though? I feel that this editor should know this by now when it comes not to edit war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent block and long overdue. TRPOD has a vast track record of pushing his own opinion onto any article he encounters, without the slightest space for the views of other GF editors. He's a bully. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconded. If I can make any complaint, it's that it maybe should have been longer considering how overdue it was. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I would say if you can find an easier solution with the rampant spamming and promotion in Bollywood article by all means step in. My main experiences with him in these areas have been very positive because he cuts through the bullshit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Maybe he's great at the Bollywood article, but he's been a net negative in the Gamergate space, arguably one of the worst offenders. I'll watchlist Bollywood, though, and help where I can. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • He certainly has a lot of edits in Bollywood space, but he also edits there with summaries like "rem idiotic mines bigger than your fanboy pissing match" [296], "more embarassing fanboy comparisons" [297], "what utter nonsense" [298], and "more terrible writing" [299]. All of this was on one article, in one day, with no participation on the talk page as far as I could tell (though I admit I didn't spend a lot of time looking). I offer no opinion on whether the foregoing qualifies as "cutt[ing] through the bullshit." Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Echo what Bladesmulti has said and this was the primary reason I engaged HJmitchell because I had confidence we would end up here. I'm not seeing a discretionary sanction notice or warning before the sanctions were applied. I did look at the talkpage when originally looking and that's where I didn't see the edits, I know a warning isn't always nec but I don't even see a warning on his page. Sometimes, especially with contributors in controversial areas need to be given a warning before pulling the trigger. If the behavior doesn't stop after that then yeah blocks and such should ensue I just think this is a little harsh. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: No warning, TRPoD was "sternly reminded" by Gamaliel to be civil just yesterday. [300] Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Using adult language is not grounds for being blocked though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Er, okay, but that's not what you said in the comment that I was responding to. What you said was: "I'm not seeing a discretionary sanctions notice" (it's here [301]) "or warning" (that's here [302]). Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• TRPOD has been dragged to ANI many times in the past, but this is the first time I've seen that the complaint has any merit at all. He's one of the good guys generally, but this time he's in the wrong. The dispute is about whether GamerGate can be described as a "movement". TRPOD thinks not, as it is a leaderless collection of people with no set goal. What he should have done, instead of slapping passive-agressive "undue weight" tags everywhere and screaming at people, is to think of a word he considers more fitting (not "clusterfuck", obviously). Personally, I think "movement" is just fine. Reyk _YO! 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• But we don't block based on language, we've been through that through and through with the Cunt Chronicles we just recently exp. If he was cursing at a person that is problematic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Edit warring and screaming at people can be grounds for a block, with or without swear words. I agree that we often take the "civility police" thing way too far, but this is not one of those times. Reyk _YO! 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think we are talking about the same thing...the warning you are showing me is for being civil. The usage of the word clusterfuck isn't uncivil if it's describing a situation and not a person. The block was for edit warring and this could have easily been resolved by a warning and or full protection of the page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Read my post again, ignoring everything inside the parentheses, and see if it makes more sense. I only intended that as an aside anyway. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok I can understand what you mean, honestly it's an issue that I probably have myself. I don't do inline tags but I do use article tags for those and my view has always been that it alerts people that specialize in that area or do well to come in and fix it since I don't nec. excel in that sort of thing. I think of tags as a way of saying help make this article better and unless it's excessive it's a good compromise that the information is included but also acknowledging there is a dispute as to it's sourcing. I'm speaking in generalities though, I just believe that had an admin quietly left a note on his page warning the block would ensue or protect the talkpage as a more fair alternatives all around for everyone involved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved. (I don't even know what "Gamergate" is.) I see that Doom once said Perhaps you should take a Lit 101 class, which sounds sarcastic, and that he twice used the word "clusterfuck" (though apparently about some aspect of the subject, not about editing by others, etc). I confess not only that I haven't read through the whole text but also that I don't intend to do so; however, I think I have quickly looked at every comment by Doom, and within these I don't notice anything much else. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hoary, if you spend some time in the archives and at the evidence phase of the ongoing ArbCom, you'll see that this is a long-term disruption and not some flash in the pan issue. We could also use some fresh eyes at the article in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I always hate to see a long-term contributor get a clean blocklog tarnished. While on one hand the edits were not revert style edit warring, there is a concerted effort to remove the mention of "movement" from the draft. NPOV appears to be a problem with this topic (on both sides), as seen by the current Arb case. While a warning may have been nice, as a named party to the case, RPoD surely was aware of dangers of this type of editing. Gamergate (the video game issue, not the ant) has been a hot topic lately, as have any gender issues in general have been for some time. While RPoD has ruffled feathers at times in a curmudgeonly sense, that alone is not blockable, so I'm interested in what RPoD has to say when he returns, and would be in favor of lifting the block provided they acknowledge the issues and provide assurance to be more careful. — Ched :  ?  15:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see more blocks. The blocked party was not even the worst offender. We've got a whole heap of editors on the talk page who think they have a Jimbo-given right to conduct dispute resolution business right on that page, shouting in section headings and restoring personal attacks. That's not the blocked user's doing, and if the situation stands as it is it will be impossible to control.

  I hope the few administrators acting in this area will take action. --TS 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• TS, I don't think you have much room to call anyone out on their sense of entitlement to "conduct dispute resolution business right on that [talk] page" after having edited other users' comments on that page--without leaving any indication that you had done so! [303] Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  More editors should be doing what I do. The topic cannot be discussed while the talk page is cluttered with off-topic nonsense and feuding. --TS 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's hard to find fault with the block: there was edit warring, the conversation on the talk page is unproductive. The Red Pen is actively impeding progress there over a minor point--not good. In general they don't beat around the bush, of course, and say what's on their mind (but let's note that this was not a "civility block" to begin with, so that's material only to the extent that the "work environment" is an issue). Then again, they are a net asset to the project and it is in our best interest to see them unblocked, following a judiciously formulated unblock request of course. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Good block and a good start. If nothing else, it serves as a warning. Warnings and notices have been given and there is no excuse or reason to unblock. An alternative is a broad topic ban for multiple violations but a block stops the immediate abuse without a much longer topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Commute to time served - I believe that you've gotten the mule's attention, and that the edit war will not recur. We need his good side here on a daily basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) has commented on a barnstar reward related to TRPoD's topic ban [304]. Did he violate his topic ban considering this is gamergate related? Avono (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No. If anybody blocks Mark Bernstein for this, I will lift the topic ban I imposed on him. The point of my topic ban was to prevent him from posting disparaging comments about other editors, not to prevent him from posting mild, non-specific words of encouragement. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good block, of appropriate length. Miniapolis 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The block seems reasonable. Even good editors are not allowed to edit war and this particular area is sensitive. The duration is short enough that I see no reason to shorten it or remove it at this time. Chillum 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Im uninvolved and after seeing the edit summary do see edit warring and do think the block is reasonable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what discretionary sanctions mean, but edit warring is edit warring, good block. ansh666 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazing how all these admins crawl out of the woodwork for a mutual backslapping session of "good block, jolly good work dear fellow, etc, etc" but can't be found when there's some real work to be done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block's only for 48 hours, not forever. I don't see why we need to cut it short. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Long overdue. User can be a bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nundahl24 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. I'm surprised that it took this long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk page vandalism by static IP User:212.11.218.10

This single-purpose account was used to vandalize David Levy's talk page and change my thanks to him to reference to a sex act. Please block the IP. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No account is involved. Given that this is the only edit associated with the IP address (not counting any performed by a logged-in user), talk of a block seems premature. —David Levy 18:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to take David's opinion on this, as it's his talk page. But I brought it here myself because it's a static IP and the vandalism is very out-of-its-way deliberate. I don't see the harm in an indef, since I don't expect a single-purpose poster who geolocates from the UAE and vandalizes the comment of a queer (me) contributer with remarks about anal sex on the talk page of someone named Levy to be motivated by a desire to improve the project. Should any actual contributor find this block on him, he could appeal it--that's what happened to me the first time I tried to edit. My moral code requires me to state my objection to malicious acts, which I have done. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Such vandalism obviously isn't indicative of a desire to improve the project. But I see no reason to assume that additional disruptive edits from the IP address are likely to occur. We lack evidence that the individual involved has exclusive (or even regular) access to the computer network.

And we certainly shouldn't jump to conclusions (regarding possible anti-Semitism or any other motivation) based on the person's apparent location. —David Levy 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I trump David with the homophobic aspect of the IP's post? Truly, I think the IP should be indeffed, but I am not about to start arguing w/Mr. Levy over it. It's ma birthday...μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing "homophobic" in the text. Even if the vandal perceived you as male and intended to write in your voice, the resultant mention of a sex act contained no statement of bigotry. —David Levy 01:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have given a 4 day block to the IP and placed the talk page on my watchlist. If future edits occur that indicate it is the same person I will give a longer block. I will not do an indef block as even static IPs get reassigned. Chillum 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

They also get assigned to multi-person dwellings, public computer terminals and wireless hotspots. I intended to monitor contributions from the IP address for a few days (and take further action if necessary).

Since when do we block an IP address on the basis of a single piece of run-of-the-mill vandalism that occurred eleven hours earlier? When I rolled back the edit, I didn't even feel comfortable posting a talk page warning (given the absence of other edits beforehand and in the 27-minute interim), let alone blocking. But even after expressing my assessment above, I've been overruled. I'm curious as to what ongoing disruption you believe justified this. —David Levy 01:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum. The first time I ever tried to edit I ran up against an indef block of various IP addresses from Fordham University. The block was quite clear in explaining that if I wanted to edit I could register with a username and appeal to an admin if I needed to. I am fairly certain that any reasonable human being who tries to edit from this IP address in the next day or so will understand the block, given the language that was used and how and where it was used.

I understand David's concerns, and would want him on my side in a fight. But, frankly, if I were an innocent wayfarer who tried to edit WP from this address and came upon this discussion, I'd be more assured of WP's integrity than annoyed to find they had locked their door for a day because some random twit had been throwing bags of feces in the doorway. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to halt persistent/ongoing disruption. This was a single instance of vandalism that occurred about eleven hours before the block was put in place. Collateral damage of the sort that you described is defensible only when the block is needed to prevent further harm. I see no evidence of that in this instance, but Chillum apparently knows better. —David Levy 08:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In cases of homophobic or otherwise bigoted remarks we commonly block IPs for a single comment. I would not have made the block if I did not expect the IP to come back.

While I understand you are not looking for a block David this is not about you but rather the next user this IP may attack. As I said the page is on my watch list and I intend to respond in case of further activity, this of course includes the possibility of collateral damage. Chillum 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, I see nothing "homophobic or otherwise bigoted" about the edit. I also see no indication of long-term disruption or reason to expect the vandal's return.

But again, I intended to monitor contributions from the IP address for a few days and take further action if necessary. I realize that you're watching the talk page, but a different editor with the same IP address might simply leave instead of posting a message there. (Given that this was the first edit associated with the IP address, I don't consider any of this particularly likely.)

To be clear, I'm well aware that this is not about me. (In fact, I wrote a relevant essay.) Our goal is to protect the project, and this requires administrators to make judgement calls (with which others won't necessarily agree).

When I reverted the vandalism in question, I analyzed the situation and found that no block was called for. When one was requested above, I responded with an explanation of why I regarded this as premature (with the understanding, of course, that the discussion could result in consensus to the contrary). Then you overruled my determination and blocked the IP address "for persistent vandalism" (about eleven hours after its one and only edit). —David Levy 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A request to ban User:Kiel457 from the reference desks

Kiel457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to formally propose that User:Kiel457 be topic-banned from all Wikipedia reference desks. As was previously noted at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk,[305] this contributor has, over the course of some years, repeatedly started threads asking very specific [306] questions relating to the importation of vehicles from one country to another, on very specific questions regarding modifications of vehicles, and more recently very specific questions relating to the import of consumer goods, - such questions amounting to a significant proportion (around 50%) of the contributors entire editing history.[307] At no point has anything the contributor said explained why he/she wishes to know such specific details, and suggestions that the contributor would be better advised to ask such questions at more specialist forums have been entirely ignored. As has previously been pointed out, [308] many of these questions (i.e. regarding details concerning importation) amount to a request for legal advice, and accordingly would not be an appropriate question even if asked in good faith. And frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why we should assume good faith - or competence - from someone who has ignored repeated requests to stop posting such questions. Since it seems apparent that the contributor will not voluntarily stop abusing the reference desks, and since I see no reason why a specific topic ban won't merely result in this obsessive and irrational behaviour being shifted to another topic, I have to suggest that a topic ban covering all reference desk posts is the best course of action. The reference desks are intended as a means to answer encyclopaedic questions. They are not there as a means to enable obsessives to gratify their bizarre urges to ask ridiculously detailed questions on similar topics over and over again, or to satisfy their craving for attention - which I have to suggest is actually at the root of this irrational behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, the user should be blocked. Any perusal of his edit history shows he's not here to improve the project. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (of sorts). A WP:NOTHERE block is a later option if needed. Miniapolis 23:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not obvious to me that the contributor is asking these questions to satisfy a "craving for attention"; the behaviour pattern is consistent with someone who is trying to learn about business conditions, particularly the import and export of cars, but doesn't have a more appropriate forum than Wikipedia. The suggestion that a specific topic ban might simply result in the editor shifting to another topic seems to me to be speculative: there is a sort of pattern to the questions that are being asked, so it's not obvious that such a shift would take place. I certainly suggest that, if there is to be a ban, it be for a limited time only. RomanSpa (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any action. This editor is different from you. This editor has specialized interests, presumably commercial. Nowhere do we prohibit questions from people with a commercial motivation or people who do not speak English well enough to hold prolonged conversations defending their interest when our desk is open to everyone. Most of these questions are not requests for advice on importing but more specific information. On a handful of occasions he may have bent rules on advice but those are not rules with any established penalty for the person asking, apart from not being answered. Few are within the power of our usual regulars to answer but that is not this editor's fault. A total of 40 edits on the refdesks over two years is not a plague of Biblical proportions. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a commercial interest in importing cars into Poland from the UK, [309] Italy to the U.S., [310] Sweden to Iraqi Kurdistan, [311] and the U.S. to Russia, [312] would be relying on Wikipedia for information - and if they are, we probably shouldn't be providing it anyway, given the disclaimers against legal advice. And in this thread on importing cars into Kazakhstan, Kiel457 writes that "I want to know about how to import and register a vehicle in Kazakhstan for information purposes only. I'm not a Kazakh citizen." AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's annoying when one user seems to misuse RD, seeking an education about the world rather than an answer to a single question. Especially when they keep coming back for more and more, using far more than their fair share of a finite resource. On the other hand, no one is required to reply to them, so where is the cost? If the community agrees with ATG, the problem should naturally solve itself; but we've seen that RD is whatever the group currently present wants it to be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no harm in allowing him to continue as the refdesk has for a long time been a free-for-all where much more ridiculous questions are tolerated and even encouraged. If nobody wants to answer his questions, nobody will and he'll stop asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds that the editor is not a net negative. There are other editors who ask questions at the Reference Desk who are tolerated even though they are more disruptive than this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The nature of the questions is odd. It's as if he's writing a book on the subject, one question at a time. The generic answer to all of his questions is to ask the appropriate agencies. If he's not going to be blocked, maybe the best solution is to either box up or delete such questions when they appear, and then the guy might start to get the hint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Baseball Bugs - If the questions are in no way related to this place then Box or remove them as soon as he posts ... then he may get the hint, If he continues just block him for a few days (or indef of he carries on). –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the box or delete solution is that almost every such action ends up in a minor edit war, the problematic question drawing in debate, along with an endless discussion on the talk page of how our policies really aren't policies, and suggestions as to what the OP should have said to make his question acceptable. Of course that is a general problem, not just limited to this case. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If he edit wars he'll no-doubt be taken to EWNB where he'll end up with either being warned or blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's the case that "almost every such action ends up in a minor edit war [...] along with an endless discussion on the talk page" (and indeed this sort of progression often is the case), this suggests at least as much of a problem with the editors furthering the edit war and the endless discussion, for which it seems unfair to punish the original poster. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This user has been persisting in this activity for a very long time now, and has been (IMO) adequately informed that his questions are not appropriate. I agree that the time has come for an official sanction. Tevildo (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, agree with RomanSpa and Wnt. This user causes no real problems, and does not post that frequently. A ban would not especially help the mission or tone of the ref desks, in my opinion. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Beeblebrox. There have been many cases in the past just like this one. The advice has always been: 1. ignore them, and if they don't go away, give them enough rope to swing themseves to 3rr and get blocked, and 2) Refdesk regulars, get yourselves better organised. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rpo.castro

User is ignoring the rules for minor edits. User changes content and marks the edits as minor, always. I have warned the user about minor edits, about WP:CIVILITY, about personal attacks but user ignored it all. User is also engaged in edit warring in different articles, marking the reverts as minor edits. User refuses to discuss content. I have reported the user in WP:AIV but nothing was done. SLBedit (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User called my previous warnings "spam". SLBedit (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence of personal attacks. Your report at AIV was absurd on its face.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Proof of personal attacks: "Stop being an complete idiot", "but don't favour your red glasses I suppose", called me a "cowboy" SLBedit (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The first diff is from months ago. The second is not particularly civil but not a personal attack. The last is not much of anything. These are not the sort of comments that generate sanctions, at least not at Wikipedia. Now you can disagree with the culture that permits editors to be unprofessional, but it is what it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The uncivilized user gets aways with it. SLBedit (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I really dislike guns, so I choose not to shop at WalMart and Academy and other places that sell them. There are unfortunate truths that one cannot easily change. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: What should I do if user continues to behave like this? SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUD on a AfD

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

---

A 10 days old registered account(Xharm) continues to badger a AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian century (3rd nomination)) that is certainly going to be closed as "Keep". He is attempting to bludgeon the process by copy pasting my comments as an answer to me, and further alleges that I am making personal attacks, and trolling, only because I had referred him to those policies[313] as he continued to make same kind of copy paste discussion before.[314] His attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER is just as disruptive. Even his current argument that "Agian, sources such as "Basketball superpower", "great power", or "superpower" have nothing to do with the unlikely Indian Century at all," when it was already clarified in my previous comment that "External links are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article," he still don't seem to be getting it and he is still repeating the same argument. I have discussed with him,[315] but he just don't want to hear. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the first source cited in the article - supposedly referring to "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India" actually turns out to be referring to the period 1914-2014, [316] I'm inclined to think that maybe, regardless of whether Xharm's behaviour is appropriate or not, a few more critical eyes on the article before the AfD closes might be worthwhile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Seen that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• His messages are similar each time,(Talk:Chinese Century#Chinese Century) he would never forget to include the line "Stop making personal attacks". He cannot show a single diff where I have actually made a personal attack. I have lost count that how many times I have asked him to prove these allegations. He continues to make these allegations without any substance behind them and copy paste my comments as an answer to me. He also believes that if you are not responding to him, then he is allowed to edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

• How you consider it to be a personal attack? I had only asked you to provide a diff "rather than just trolling",[317] because you were copying my messages as an answer to me, including the conviction that you were misrepresenting the source, when it could be found only in your edits, not mine. After that, every message of your claims that I am the one trolling and making personal attacks. It is considered actually as WP:TROLLING when you are making baseless accusations. Now you are also spamming this discussion by copy pasting the same messages that you have already added below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So you have reformatted your message[318], None of them constitutes "WP:NPA", none of them are directed on you but on your actions that are indeed disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

[Redacted sock comments]

• You cannot repeat the same boring argument through copy pasting especially when it is already over. So you admit that you are actually copying my comments by wrongly referring them as a "personal attack". You are still making false allegations of personal attacks, refactoring, canvassing, pov pushing, etc. I still don't see even a single diff. And you are asking me to "tone it down" so that you can continue to make these false allegations and I should say nothing? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• We have already argued about this, and nothing has been established yet. Not even a single diff contains a personal attack. It is not personal attack if your tendentious argument is being discussed. Neither inviting regular editors of the same subject for discussion is canvassing. How this is[319] is POV pushing when you are hoaxing that China was the biggest economy of last 2300 years, contrary to majorly accepted tally? Also you have misrepresented much of the diffs, [320] is not canvassing or anywhere near to it. And why we should keep a discussion about your disruptive conduct and some other page on Talk:Chinese Century anyway? Why all you do is copy-paste and never forgets to include baseless accusations in just every message? I am asking again that how any of these misrepresented diffs proves that I have made a personal attack, canvassed, or any other accusation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

I had started the thread on your UTP because your edits concerned two different pages.[321] This is another false theory that you are making now. Now it is not needed because it has been removed after discussion. This is not an AfD like you are badgering it with your clueless discussions about the deletion of the article. This is ANI. Subjects are inherently related to each other, that's how there is no violation of canvassing. You just want to edit war so that either can be blocked and you can use the incident as scapegoat for promoting your original ideas. None of those sources support your incorrect theory that China was biggest economy for 2300 years, they only claim that it was a large economy for a "long period", and that is equivalent to the tally that I have mentioned because 3 centuries are indeed "long period". None of my or your sources indicate China being ahead for a longer period. Where I have used other en.wiki articles as a source? Have I added something like <ref>http://en.wiki...</ref> And if you are seriously talking about the "diffs", I am actually losing count. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Even this new misrepresentation is contrary to what you had claimed in your previous message where you are saying that I had started a discussion on ATP of Chinese Century. I have not made a single unfounded accusation, it is only you who is doing it. You have claimed at least 2 times that [322] [323] that China was the biggest economy for 2,100 years which is not supported by either quotations. You can always find the citation on that article or you can look your at your talk page more clearly.[324] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Not on the talk page of Chinese Century, the way you have claimed above. I never restored a spurious claim like you did more than 2 times. It has been already proven a lot of times that you have made false allegations while I haven't made even a made even a single false allegation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

• I had removed that discussion because you had copied the whole discussion from your talk page to the article' talk page in order to divert from your conduct that was being mostly discussed and clearly much of the discussion was about your conduct and a different article. Archiving is not refactoring, and when you are told that you can open a new discussion. And for millionth time, where I have made a personal attack? How any of the above explanation rationalizes your copy-pasted discussions? Your belief that making comment on a editor = Personal attack, is not even correct, and certainly not when you claiming since your first message that I have an "agenda".[325] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

It was a content dispute that you responded with an attack[326] by claiming that I have an "agenda", yet I have never made such attack on you. You are still copying and pasting same messages over and over and failing to prove these baseless accusations. Your edits to these articles have been disruptive, I should ask that why you had added {{Failed verification}} tag to a source,[327] only because it was "not in English", and it was not even live, yet you claimed that "source doesn't mention anything about India century", although it was added as a backup where "emerging superpower" was stated. You are basically claiming that you are going to copy-paste messages and not going to hear. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

You don't find a "legitimate rebuttal" because you cannot understand it. Can you find a single reason that why we have to copy some non-productive discussion from your UTP and paste it on ATP when it is mostly about your conduct? You are just trying to deflect the criticism because discussion about your conduct is more attractive when it is made on your UTP and it sounds unnecessary when it is made on an article talk page. It was told to you that a WP:RS has to do nothing with the nationality of a source, you don't seem to be getting it, and you continue making the same point. Same with your claim that "Basket superpower" is used a source, when I had already told you that External links are not sources, you continue to repeat it. [328] clearly mentions both India and China, now you can stop WP:GAMING. I had reverted to the former version first because the new edition that China had biggest economy in last 2,100/2,300 years is certainly a WP:HOAX that you were promoting. I had already redirected you to the actual List of countries by past and projected GDP (PPP), that you were trying to refute with this source that is only saying that for "a long part of history", none of your hoax. You don't even have access to [329], thus at the time you were WP:GAMING and it wasn't even used for supporting the term "Indian Century", but "an emerging superpower". I am not doubting that "inability to read" is the best reaction you can expect for this kind of tendentious discussion, because I have already mentioned above that "although it was added as a backup where "emerging superpower" was stated ". I am sure that you are still failing to conceive it, but why you are bringing the content dispute here? Can you mention that where I have copy pasted the same argument or even 5 unquoted words of my previous message would match with the current one? I had asked you to provide diffs where you can find a single personal attack from me, because you are still spamming the unfounded accusations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• Am I reading the same thing over and over? Basically I am, because you have actually copied and pasted this above as well. Anyone who has eyes can actually see that you are doing nothing more than copying and pasting. You are copy-pasting your own argument without even reading what I had said before, you 'don't even have access to this [330] source and it was added by some other editor not in front of "Indian Century", this is 3rd time that I have to tell you that "although it was added as a backup where "emerging superpower" was stated " but as usual, you cannot read or understand it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• [Redacted sock comments]

• I have not copy pasted, press CTRL+F and confirm it. That source was applied accordingly, it is not a real matter if sources are about the main title or not, what matters is if they are supporting the provided statement. You can read my previous message again or ask someone else to read it for you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• Stop pretending that you cannot read, you are still copying and pasting so many comments of mine.. Are you spamming these policy links only because they fits on you? "Cannot read or understand", that is something I have said above,[331] not you. Can you even spell? "Agian", "agianst" these fully loaded errors are speaking louder than you would, about your incompetence. By deflecting criticism, being incompetent and trying to be a "wannabe me", you are only making yourself look worse. Again, where I have made a personal attack? You don't even know what it means or you have promised yourself to keep trolling. I am also amazed that you wouldn't forget to include anything like "stop making personal attacks" in just every message. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion - the two of you stop the bickering and wait for an admin to take a look? Squinge (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Fire department articles

User:FDNY18 has been adding unsourced articles about fire departments. Some of them, I believe, are using copyrighted material. Others are sourced to non-reliable websites, like firefighters unions. The contributions are replete with WP:Original research. You can check out these articles for some examples. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had some dealings with this editor also. He has over the course of a couple years inserted copious, overly detailed sections to numerous settlement articles on the fire departments and their equipment most all featuring the wonderful catchphrase "provides 24/7,365 protection....". He never responds to his talk page. Articles include but are certainly not limited to Gary, Indiana. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also had similar issues in the past and I have also not received any response to any of my talk page messages asking for sources. I've deleted some of his material, but I've also tried to add sources where they exist and can support content that's been added. In this edit to the article for Cherry Hill, New Jersey, User:GeorgeLouis removed material backed up by about a dozen references. Some of the material that he has added over the years, such as details about specific items of fire equipment at specific stations, may well be unencyclopedic. But many of his edits cover the kinds of neutral details that can properly be backed up using sources from the municipalities themselves, their fire departments or fire unions per WP:SELFPUB as the material is factual, noncontroversial material about themselves that is neither unduly self-serving nor making any exceptional claims. There is a case to be made regarding issues with FDNY18's edits, but we ought to be more circumspect in deleting material that is in fact sourced to Wikipedia standards. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a lengthy discussion about this, but the citations to which the user above referred were, I believe, ALL from Cherry Hill Township, hardly the kind of balanced, neutral source that we normally use. FDNY18 was doing some WP:Original research by going to primary documents, rather than secondary. I see now that the original material has again been removed by User:NeilN on the basis of WP:Undue. One could also use Wikipedia:Not. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted a message on the editor's talk page a while ago but based on FDNY18's responses today, I think we should be okay here. [332], [333] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alan here. There'd be no problem with using the township's website for facts that we decide should be included in the articles. For example, if it was standard in an article on an incorporated place to state how many fire stations serve it, it would be reasonable to get that information from the official site of that place. The problem is that the material is not necessarily encyclopedic. --NE2 10:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts Personal Attacks

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

---

User:Lugnuts has called me a 'dick' and his 'son'. And has acted incredibly immature and arrogant. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence: [334] [335]

-- Archived from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Calling me 'son' and a dick. Please do something about this immature and conceited editor. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. I invited other editors to find a consensus, they did. And I said to him NOT to be a dick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Far from it and you know it. You've been on Wikipedia long enough (sine '07) and please stop these unprovoked insults and personal attacks... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend closure. No evidence of personal attacks by Lugnuts in the above diffs provided by JustPlaneEditing. I have to say, JustPlaneEditing, you are wound up pretty tight. Please figure out a way to relax. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure.... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think being called "son" is condescending, perhaps you should not have started out by calling Lugnuts kid. I hear a WP:BOOMERANG whooshing through the air. Reyk _YO! 12:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate this is now closed, and I've only just discovered it, as I was never notified of it by the OP. He did post this on my talkpage. It's good, but it's not quite right, son. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment on request for a culture of kindness

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

---

There's a serious bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the discussion above with regards to the WMF's call for a Culture of Kindness. Using the "you're too sensitive" tactic to exert social pressure against male editors who dislike a vulgar, sexualized atmosphere is sexist. Many men with the talent and skills to write an encyclopedia come from an academic or business environment, and they don't necessarily want to spend their free time dealing with the communication styles of military boot camp, prisoners, longshoremen or gangster rappers.

Even if you come from a rough and tumble environment, it's not all that tough to tip your hat to the editor in question, say, "oh excuse me sir/maam, I'll stop using that language with you if it bothers you. Let me try that one again." And it's really not too much to ask for a website that claims to have a policy of WP:CIVIL.

Admins and vandal patrollers suffering combat-induced stress from keeping the barbarian from the wiki gates, stop a moment and take a breath! We appreciate your service, and we want you to clean up, put on your civvies, and enjoy your friendly evenings out editing in the world of the Wiki-civilians. --Djembayz (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is, that's not what happened. And further, your allegation that people from the academic and business world are more polite couldn't be farther from the truth. From direct experience, I actually find those people to be the most uncivil of them all. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments about which class of people are more uncivil are besides the point. I agree with Djembayz's point, and I too feel that the above hatted section is almost like it is condoning incivility / patronizing behavior. Even if no admin action is needed, some chiding, and pointers to the importance of WP:CIVIL for this project should have been given. Otherwise, people get the impression that it is OK to indulge in patronizing comments, which is what seems to have happened in the above hatted section.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that both you and Djembayz failed to read beyond the thread itself and examine the diffs, because the accusations were baseless. As a result, demanding that some kind of chiding was required is illogical. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This [336], followed by [337] happens when you give the impression that patronizing characterizations like "kid" and "son" are fine. The conversation degrades further. And why not, if that level of patronizing if fine, why not try it again, and some more too ? See something now ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Blanking out page

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

---

An editor blanked out The Weight of Chains 2 page, citing a decision made for a redirect to The Weight of Chains article. Since the vote in late September 2014, the film sequel has been released worldwide, with premieres at the Montecasino Film Festial in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Swedish Film Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and the National Museum of Culture in Mexico City (also shown in Vancouver, Toronto, Innsbruck, Stuttgart, Berlin, etc.). I added notable references for the article and would like to check if blanking out this page constitutes vandalism, or are votes on whether a page should be deleted/redirected indefinite decisions? Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Weight of Chains 2 was closed as a redirect to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2. UrbanVillager has editwarred to recreate the article. I invited Urbanvillager to open a deletion review if they really think it should be overturned; they haven't done that and they haven't even bothered commenting on the talkpage. UrbanVillager's endless Malagurskispam is tiresome, but our policies are clear. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You could've noted that you're the user who blanked out the page. The page was never deleted, but redirected and the text in the article that was moved to The Weight of Chains article has now been greatly expanded with very reliable sources. How to open a deletion review if the article was never deleted and the new article contains majority information that didn't exist in the previous version? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop it. I recognise that you really, really want to write lots of positive things about Malagurski on every possible page, but the result of the AfD was clear. Until consensus changes - perhaps at DRV - there shouldn't be an article. "Consensus" involves other people, not just you. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• UrbanVillager, you should not simply re-create an article that has been redirected at AfD. If you think there is new evidence, contact the closing administrator, RoySmith; if he does not agree, you can raise it at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Breaking of topic ban

User:Raquel Baranow was unblocked in 2012 on condition to avoid editing on subjects such as 9/11 and the Holocaust, due to repeat soapboxing and pushing of fringe views, as seen on her website. http://666ismoney.com/

She has been editing the Charlie Hebdo article in relation to Holocaust denial, rather than to the subject at hand. Even if it can be perceived that it is accurate to mention Holocaust denial in that article (I strongly disagree, Charlie Hebdo did not write the law saying that it is illegal in France), the user is breaking a topic ban. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really true, here's the diff, I mention Hate Speech Laws, which is more relevant than Laws against holocaust denial also note the Talk page discussion I started, a Google search of "Charlie Hebdo" + Holocaust brings better results (see also the Google images) than "Charlie Hebdo + "Hate Crime". Also note in the Talk Page (linked above), the suggestion I posed was adopted dif. Here's a couple of very popular cartoons showing how popular the double-standard is with the application of hate crime laws in France. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry case going after Featured Article writer Neelix

1. There's a serious case of Meatpuppetry going after Featured Article writer, editor Neelix, and unfortunately they've successfully driven him off Wikipedia entirely.
2. Sockpuppetry investigation case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang didn't show technical relations, and admin HJ Mitchell recommended DIFF that I bring this case here to ANI for something concrete to be done about this meatpuppetry.
3. An IP user commented at the SPI case page, in support and acknowledgement that it is meatpuppetry: "Hi guys there actually was like 12 different people doing these edits, not one person lol.......".
4. Admins, please, I implore you to do something about this meatpuppetry that has driven a valued Featured Article writer off this website.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly at a loss as to what the best thing to do is, which is why I suggested to Cirt that he bring it here for more eyes. This is the list from the SPI:

• Yaktaur (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• The The Fool on the Hill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Johnnydowns (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BucketPI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• Dicklickerish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• Vegetablelasagna1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• Jdh9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 23.251.66.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.33.78.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.228.220.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 67.164.189.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (briefly blocked for disrupting the SPI)
• 69.158.90.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.72.190.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.101.26.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 96.29.171.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.231.153.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 204.187.101.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:c:5f00:8fc:80c3:5277:80bc:b8a9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

They're technically  Unrelated according to CU data, so I wonder if anyone knows where they've come from... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Check the contributions of each. If you see evidence of harassment in light of the contributions of the others, then block. It is easy enough to evade checkuser if you know how the Internet address system works, and if there is a group working together to harass somebody, the sanction is the same as if it were one editor. I've blocked a few but decided not to block Johnnydowns. We should probably warn him, and then see what he does. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means, but I know enough to know that it's not that difficult to obfuscate your identity to the extend that a CU won't reveal anything useful, but the IPs are bouncing all over the place—various US cities, Toronto, London ... and they all look like home broadband ISPs. I suspect this is being coordinated from somewhere else on the Internet. I've blocked all the remaining accounts bar Jdh9 (I hadn't seen your comment wrt Jonnydowns when I did so). The pattern is clear: brand-new or long-dormant accounts have come out of nowhere, created a one-line userpage, and then immediately proceeded to remove chunks of content/participate in AfDs or otherwise cause disruption to articles, all of which were written by the same person. Call me a cynic, but that's too much of a coincidence for me. Jdh9 appears to have other interests and their response to Cirt on their talk page seems to suggest that they're as confused as we are, so I'm inclined to AGF. None of the IPs have edited recently (except the one I blocked yesterday) so I'm not going to block them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that there might be some legitimate concerns regarding how to apply notability specifically in terms of theatrical performances, and have started discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Notability of theatrical performances?. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Johnnydowns and blocked user Vegetablelasagna1

1. Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) did not edit Wikipedia for three (3) years DIFF DIFF
2. Among first edits back in three (3) years is to create one-line-long-userpage DIFF.
3. First edit back in three (3) years is about "vegetable lasagna" at article Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant DIFF.
4. Compare that edit to blocked account Vegetablelasagna1.
5. Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) has also commented at two (2) AFDs related to Neelix DIFF, DIFF.

— Cirt (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody should double check, and if they agree, warn him. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman do you think comparing DIFF with account username Vegetablelasagna1 (talk · contribs) is a pretty obvious connection of meatpuppetry? — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

feel free to run a CheckUser. John Bailey Owen (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This above comment by Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) seems like baiting and evidence supporting comment by Jehochman above that the meatpuppets know how to game the Checkuser system. — Cirt (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would be pointless. We already know that these are either different people, or one person with enough brains not to reuse the same IP address. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

also, look at the text of my comments on those AFDs - I've been accused of sock puppetry from the moment I started editing. John Bailey Owen (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want editors to look at something, please provide diffs. For the moment, please just leave Neelix alone. Don't do anything to stress them out and you can go edit in peace. How's that? Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Absurd. Johnnydowns edits were actual edits, reverted by Neelix [338] with a false accusation of vandalism. Vegetablelasagna1 is one edit throwaway account that failed to CU to Johnnydowns. Neelix also had serious ownership issues with this WP:INVOLVED full protection of "their" article. (Quickly reverted by another admin, fortunately). Given they're retired, no need to pursue that further. "Featured Article" writers as just as "valued" as any other editor, and they are not entitled to special "ownership" rights to content they agreed can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone NE Ent 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure I see the point of this; it's already been run through SPI, and deletion discussions and everything else. The community's already decided what to do with these articles, more or less. I don't understand why it's necessary that someone, anyone, be punished because an experienced editor's work was seriously criticized. Risker (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• It's good to see at least some questioning of this lunacy from Risker and NE Ent. The "harassment" supposedly perpetrated against Neelix seems to be mostly that people edited and condensed articles that Neelix seems to think he owned. The real problem is that Neelix reverted good faith edits without explanation, then tried to protect "his" pages and block users who made edits he didn't like. Then he got called on it and retired. Now the users who edited the Neelix-owned pages are being blocked and run through multiple investigations. At this point it looks like Cirt is hounding people because they made edits to the pages of someone s/he's friendly with. There's no conspiracy here - multiple people just thought Neelix's owned articles needed some work. And now that the changes have been reverted, those pages still need some work, but now it seems to be impossible to do it.Wobzrem (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ludicrous. What about "vegetable lasagna" compared with DIFF made by an account that chose to name itself by username vegetablelasagna1 ? — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So just so we all have this straight, you're trying to get an editor banned (and have seemingly succeeded) because he made a minor spelling change, and one of the phrases he edited (among many legitimate edits) was also the name of what seems to be a oneoff joke account? I guess you can spell the word either "lasagna" or "lasagne" and be more or less correct, but changing it from one to the other certainly isn't a malicious edit or hounding.Wobzrem (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • "vegetable lasagna" shows the account has an interest in the subject matter, and compared with DIFF made by an account that chose to name itself by username vegetablelasagna1 it shows a stark commonality between the two accounts. — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Hello. I am one of the people who keeps being accused of being involved in this. I have been attempting to largely stay out of it because it doesn't concern me, but basically every time I log in I'm getting notifications that Cirt keeps tagging me in these investigations. I've basically given this summary 5 times now but here's what has happened from my side: I'm a polisci grad student who joined Wikipedia because I noticed that a lot of articles about notable political scientists are stubs that could use more info for students who are using Wiki as a first stop in writing research papers. I also got curious about how the admin/editing side worked, and started reading some AfD and wanted to participate in some to see how it works. I picked what I thought were relatively simple, noncontroversial articles so I wouldn't be stepping on too many toes while learning, and ironically I ended up posting on two that happened to be part of a massive shitstorm, but did not edit or touch the articles in question outside of participating in those discussions (as I was under the assumption this is not allowed...I am still unclear of whether or not I am correct in this). I become mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation, during which I explain this and ask if anyone can clarify what exactly I am being included in, and am given no answers whatsoever, despite clarifying that I am new. I assume it will take care of itself and return to editing, doing a few touchups on pop-culture related pages to practice editing before moving into stuff that requires more sourcing and work. One of these was the page for the comedy podcast Comedy Bang Bang, and which Cirt then flags because one of the sockpuppets has "bangbang" in their name. I explain, and am again ignored. Finally, I decide to just stop posting on any of this at all and start working on some of the stuff I had registered to do, and then I get flagged in this after already being cleared once and intentionally staying away from this whole situation because clearly I had no idea what was going on. I agree something fishy is happening, but I am in a "wrong place/wrong time" situation and am getting slightly sick of being steamrolled by Cirt every other day when I am largely minding my own business and only jumping in to defend myself. With all due respect, if you're worried about people being driven away from Wikipedia, assuming anyone new who steps up to participate is a troll and steamrolling them is just as big of a problem as whatever the hell was going on with the senior editor who left. I have gotten incredibly hesitant to even work on the kinds of pages I had intended to because I am worried I will be flagged or blocked if I make a mistake or I edit an article that is seemingly related to this whole thing, especially given that, as noted, any reasonable request I have made for explanations has been ignored or responded to with another notification. Not to get on a high horse, but the point of Wikipedia is mass participation from people who care and want to pitch in. This is highly discouraging. I am sorry for the length, but as you can see, I am getting very frustrated and confused.Jdh9 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Jdh9 (talk · contribs) = creates one-line-long-userpage DIFF.
2. Finds himself at AFD related to article contributed by Neelix on his fourth (4th) edit, ever DIFF.
3. On his sixth (6th) edit ever, finds himself at another AFD of article contributed by Neelix, at DIFF.

— Cirt (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to delete Jdh9 from this whole mess. Looking through his edits he sure seems legit. Don't forget he may have edited as an IP before. Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see my above evidence about Jdh9 (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked, I see well reasoned arguments on a delete discussion, constructive edits on PoliSc and a really well written defense above. I smell witch hunt for this poor new editor, and I'm quick to seek bans for troublemakers. Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I brought this issue to ANI, at the recommendation of admin HJ Mitchell. The diffs are quite striking. Even Hawkeye7 said: "It is very hard to believe that a new user would start editing by creating an AfD.". It is similarly hard to believe a new user would start editing by commenting at two (2) AFDs involving the same WP:FA writer Neelix. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, I recommend that you just walk away from this issue and let Neelix pursue it when they have had a break and hopefully choose to return. Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Jehochman, I'll follow your recommendation. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Based on the review of this discussion, I'm going to unblock Johnny. I think it is quite possible his involvement was purely innocent, but that some other bad users decided to pile on (without Johnny's knowledge or encouragement), and used this as an opportunity to troll poor Neelix. I'm assuming HJMitchell won't mind because he noted that he hadn't seen my "no block" comment before executing the block, and the subsequent comments after the block have been unanimously against it. Please let me know if this is a problem. Seems like it isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I just wanted to make sure everyone commenting in this thread knows what's actually going on here. This all started when some members of a web forum called "Hipinion" started a thread about Neelix and his various articles. The thread seems to require registration to view now. One of their members started tweeting to Jimbo about Neelix, and the whole thing turned into a coordinated campaign for Hipinion members to either activate sleeper accounts or create new accounts to start "fixing" Neelix articles. The story has been pretty well documented on a Wikipediocracy blog post now, so it takes a whole 2 seconds of Googling to find all this information. I'm not commenting at all on the merits of their edits or on the merits of blocks that have been placed—just getting the background out there. It would probably be helpful if those of you with strong personal feelings about Neelix or Cirt would leave this to neutral parties. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral party here, as I've not edited any of the articles (nor voted to delete or merge any of them), and only found out about their existence via a post at a WikiProject. I do agree that there is a concerted and apparently coordinated effort against Neelix's articles right now. On the other hand, Neelix is unnecessarily prolix in the stand-alone articles he creates. He also created a large number of unnecessary and over-lengthy WP:CONTENTFORK articles, and they need to be trimmed of their bloat and duplication and merged into their subject articles. It would have been nice had that been able to be done in good faith rather than in bad faith. I don't know what to do about the bad-faith AfDs except to mark any suspected cabalists with the {{subst:spa|username}} or and/or {{subst:canvassed|username}} tag(s). For his stand-alone articles that are being gutted but not AfDed, if experienced and good-faith editors could put all of them on their Watch lists, that would help. I hope Neelix comes back, but I also hope someone takes him under their wing and makes sure he creates no further content forks and that he learns how to keep his writing concise and to the point, eliminating unnecessary detail and/or repetition. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt's track record

Yeah, no. Blackmane (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Personal attacks should immediately stop. This discussion is just breeding bad blood between editors. Please stop. Jehochman Talk 03:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Before anyone attempts to take Cirt's claims above too seriously, they should be aware that he has a tendency to contribute to witchhunts and make false connections where none exist. The best example I know of is one that occurred on Wikinews back in 2012. Pi zero made a number of false claims about several news articles I created and in response, he had several of his friends block me. Because the blocks were so incredibly bad as to be untenable, he had to find a way to make them stick, so he began to invent false sockpuppet claims. Cirt was directly responsible for helping Pi zero substantiate these claims by falsely linking my user name with numerous other accounts in an attempt to smear my name.[339][340] I think it's important that the Wikipedia community is aware of Cirt's past track record in this regard. For the record, I have never used sock puppets on Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Let's please examine the evidence at face value, thanks. Clearly admin HJ Mitchell saw the writing on the wall and realized there was an organized offsite campaign of harassment against Neelix that drove Featured Article writer Neelix off this website. — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I'm more concerned about the innocent editors who will get smeared and blocked due to the wide dragnet you usually employ. Sorry, but based on past experience, I don't trust your judgment. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Comments above by Viriditas (talk · contribs) are ad hominem in nature, please see https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee#Members where Pi zero (talk · contribs) is a most respected member of our Wikinews community, and a sitting member of its Arbitration Committee. — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I strongly disagree. The fact that you have helped Pi zero support false allegations about editors on Wikinews using CU evidence is the problem. Therefore, your judgment on this matter, which is directly related to your claims about who is and who isn't a sock puppet, is relevant to this discussion, and is not ad hominem at all. I think you're attempting to change the subject. I'm saying that people should be very skeptical about your claims here because you've worked in this area before, only to make patently false allegations about sockpuppetry in the past. As for Pi zero, he is directly responsible for the loss of dozens, perhaps hundreds even thousands of editors to Wikinews. This has been discussed in many forums already, so there's no need to go into it here. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but the links by Viriditas (talk · contribs), above are from over two (2) years ago. This seems like ad hominem to take advantage of an opportunity here to try to drag Wikinews Arbitration Committee member Pi zero through a personal vendetta by Viriditas (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) There's no statute of limitations on bad judgement, and I've already refuted your claim that this was an ad hominem by showing the direct relationship. Please don't continue to repeat the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Viriditas (talk · contribs), please don't use this as your personal forum to re-litigate things involving a Wikinews Arbitration Committee member Pi zero, here on English Wikipedia, expecting different results. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) As I predicted, you attempted to change the subject. This section is only about your past performance making sockpuppet claims agains other users, and working to spread false allegations against them. I have shown that you've done this in the past, therefore the community should be very skeptical about your judgment here. Please do not attempt to change the subject again. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Viriditas (talk · contribs), I know you still seem to be quite personally upset about being indef blocked and community sitebanned at Wikinews, but please do keep in mind that your indef block was carried out by former Arbitration Committee member Blood Red Sandman after a community ban there. — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Cirt, please stop ping bombing me with your replies. And, please stop speculating about the emotions of other editors. Finally, please stop changing the subject. This subsection isn't about Pi zero, how I feel, or who blocked me. This subsection is about your poor judgment in matters related to sockpuppetry claims. I've provided diffs up above showing that you tried to connect me to dozens of different users based on no evidence, and you did so to help Pi zero create a false rationale for keeping me blocked and banned on Wikinews. Therefore, based on your past actions related to sockpuppetry allegations, the community should be aware of your role in making and perpetuating false accusations in this matter. It follows that given your past record, your present claims here deserve extra scrutiny from disinterested parties. Frankly, you should not be even allowed to comment on such matters given your record on this subject. We simply don't need you going after more innocent users in your continued witch hunts. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I have been alerted cross-wiki to this. If you wish a review of your community ban two years ago, please request in on enwn. I am quite purposefully not commenting on (or even looking into) the matter at hand; it is a separate issue on a wiki I am not presently active on. My advice to both parties, however, would be to drop this pointless side-quest. I am so inactive here I don't feel I have anything else useful to offer to the discussion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) You have been erroneously alerted. I have not requested a review of either your bogus block or bogus ban; this thread is solely about Cirt's poor judgment on issues related to sockpuppetry. If this thread were related to administrative matters, then it would be focused on how the community does not trust Cirt with the admin tools, hence their removal in 2011. But it's not. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Exactly Cirt is no Crito. When Socrates was handed the hemlock it was Cirt out back brewing up a fresh batch. John lilburne (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review needed

OK, that's quite enough of that. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So, having not gotten the answer desired at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cactusjackbangbang, HJ suggests opening an ANI thread, and after getting support from no one (myself, Risker, and Wobzrem, at least) responding, decides to indef Johnnydowns anyway? Obviously there's evidence someone or someones have been a jerk towards Neelix, but it does not follow from that that anyone who's edited a Neelix created article is part of that group, and no credible evidence has been produced that Johnnydowns is part of that group. Someone please unblock Johnnydowns. (See also my request to HJ at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#ANI_notice). NE Ent 23:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC) It was so kind of you to notify me of his subthread, NE Ent. One day, your trolling of admin noticeboards and arbitration pages will get you banned. This community is far too tolerant of people who have no interest in writing an encyclopaedia. I suggested brining the matter here as SPI is not well-suited to investigating things that aren't sock-puppetry (there's a big clue in the "S" and the "P" of the "SPI"), and because it's clear to non-trolls that something is going on here. As it turns out, there is off-site coordination involved, apparently coming from a members-only thread on a forum somewhere. I'm not going to unblock obvious trolls who have come here from off-site to engage in a harassment campaign, and your statement disingenuously implies that there was some sort of vote and opposition to blocking these accounts and that I need the permission of you and your fellow peanut gallery members to block obvious trolls. To quote myself from my talk page: This is clearly being coordinated from somewhere, and it is damaging to the encyclopaedia. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters: this isn't a court; we don't need to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, nobody has a legal right to edit, so the only question that matters is "is this in the encyclopaedia's best interests?". And my judgement is that allowing this nonsense, whatever its origins, to continue is absolutely not in the encyclopaedia's best interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC) This kind of personal attack is unacceptable, more so coming from an admin. NE Ent and I rarely agree on anything, but I have never seen him troll this or any other page. Your rude treatment of him for questioning your action is uncalled for here. Most editors would be blocked for such behavior. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Statements of fact are not personal attacks, much less grounds for a block. Perhaps you've seen a side of NE Ent that I'm unfamiliar with, but I've never seen him do anything but troll admin noticeboards and arbitration pages, and I'm absolutely sick of editors who spend all their time in the project space and not only contribute noting to the encyclopaedia, but actually get in the way of, slow down, or disrupt the administrative apparatus. Sadly that apparatus is a necessary part of running a large wiki, but it is a supporting apparatus—the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopaedia, and editors who have no interest in that should not be tolerated and indulged as they are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) You said that NE Ent was a member of a "peanut gallery", which disregarded his opinion and attacked his credibility rather than his argument. You also accused him of trolling. So, by my count, two personal attacks sans facts. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC) This is the second time in a week he has personally attacked Ent. It is not a 'statement of fact' that Ent is trolling. That would require an assumption of bad faith about Ent's motives so large that questions about HJ Mitchell's fitness to be an admin now need to be asked per WP:ADMINACCT Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Wow, I criticise one editor who spend their whole time rolling admin noticeboards and arbitration pages and another one pops up! If anyone who is here to build an encyclopaedia has any questions about any of my (38,437 and counting) admin actions, my talk page is always open. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC) No you personally attacked Ent. You did not 'criticise' them. Do you feel you dont have to abide by wikipedia's basic conduct policies as per WP:ADMINACCT? Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I'm sure if the community or ArbCom believed that I felt that way I wouldn't be an admin. And I'm sure if you or NE Ent genuinely believed there was a problem with my adminning, you'd have taken me to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC) User:HJ Mitchell, please remove the word "trolling" and replace it with something else. It's kind of not so nice to Ent, who doesn't just peruses admin boards but also trolls my user page and is welcome to do so. If you take out that PA, then I can just magically hat all the stuff that followed and we can focus on the topic at hand. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I want either a retraction of the blatant personal attacks or some form of admin action before this is closed thanks. And I have still yet to get an answer from HJ Mitchell as to why he feels the rules against personal attacks do not apply to him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) How about we do this is a somewhat different way: What if HJM holds in abeyance any retraction until your Mainspace edits (currently 13.6% of your total) equal or surpass your Wikipedia space edits (currently 40.4% of your total); and the same for NE Ent (8.2% vs. 43.5%). Then you'll both be actual contributing editors of the encyclopedia -- you know, the thing we're supposed to be here to help create, maintain and expand? -- and not just a couple of free riders. There will then be absolutely no question of your intended function here. BMK (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC) As for admin action against HJM - in American law, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. I'm of the opinion that the same should be true on Wikipedia when evaluating whether remarks should be met with sanctions or not. BMK (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) So you also dont feel calling someone a troll is a personal attack and by your comments about truth being a defense, endorse HJ Mitchells personal attack on Ent that he is a troll? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I said precisely what I wanted to say, if I wanted to say more, I would have, so you needn't attempt to put words into my mouth. (BTW, your last article edit was on June 12, 2014 -- that's over 7 months ago. You have no Category edits, no File edits, and only 2 Template edits from 2012. Just what the hell are you here for, anyway?) Perhaps it's time for the community to start interpreting WP:NOTHERE a bit more broadly. BMK (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I had not intended to comment here as I don't see continuing this thread benefits the encyclopedia in any manner. As it has failed to do so, I'll address some of the points made: It's not reasonable to expect an editor in an unclosed ANI thread would need to be notified about its continuance. Current policy is, per Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_noticeboards, "any user may post or take part in discussions there." If the community chooses to change that policy, obviously I will abide by whatever consensus is. While I don't wish to appear to condone attacking any other editor in general, as I don't take Wikipedia personally -- it's not about me, it's about the project -- in this case I'd prefer folks just let it go. NE Ent 03:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, it's about the project. and the project is building an encyclopedia, not whatever it is that you do. BMK (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Block review (reversal actually) still needed

Unblock request made through UTRS. No need to keep this open. BMK (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
}} The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I concur the most important thing is mainspace, which is why an editor who was trying to improve it (e.g. [341]), should not be blocked for essentially being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would someone who can please unblock them now? NE Ent 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC) There should actually be a review of ALL these blocks, I'd say. I haven't looked at all the blocked users but many of them seemed to be doing constructive edits (concision, cleaning up language, trimming POV material) to articles that were overseen by a very possessive editor. User:Cactusjackbangbang and User:Johnnydowns are just the most obvious ones who seem to have been constructive editors. No one can quite seem to explain what is actually wrong about any of these edits, other than resorting to these constant accusations of puppetry of one kind or another. There seem to have been some harassing posts by IP users but most of the named users here look like they were just doing good faith edits to make the articles better. I'm not familiar enough with Wiki policy but it seems odd that these investigations keep getting closed with no evidence and yet the users being accused are being blocked anyway.Wobzrem (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Also I note that the blocked users' pages all state the reason for the blocks as suspicion of sockpuppetry. Since this has now been proven untrue (the last investigation was closed with the finding that there was no technical relation between any of the accounts) all these blocks should now be undone.Wobzrem (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Wrong. The two editors I blocked were blocked for harassment, not for sock puppetry. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Johnny should post an unblock request. I had previously decided not to block them, and said so here. [342][343] That decision should have been respected. I don't see that they did anything new that would have warranted a block. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) It's my understanding they've done so via UTRS; pleas see [344] NE Ent 03:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you. I will try to help process that. I see Johnny as perhaps an unlucky person who got in the middle of some sort of trollfest. It's easy enough to unblock them and say, "Don't stress Neelix," and see if they take that advice, or not. Jehochman Talk 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow the precedent

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 is so perfect, there's no need for reply. Jehochman ^Talk 09:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

It's good to see another witch hunt occurring here involving block-happy admins who like to bite newbies, a long and storied WP tradition. I suggest the easiest way to proceed here is to find out the geographic area that these IPs and accounts are editing from, then block the entire IP range of their ISP, as was done to that town in Utah in order to block User:WordBomb and Overstock.com from editing WP. User:David Gerard should have some good advice on how to do this as he was the one who made that helpful block during that epic witch hunt which helped establish WP's standards for witch hunts that you all are ably following. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Block needed

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

---

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

This user is perhaps a sock, made all of his three edits to an article: 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Doing disruptive changes to which all other users in the article disagree. Faizan 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Warned him before at his talk too, but so far he has just produced the edit-summaries like: "Specific info given", "More ingo produced", "Indificiant info on page". Faizan 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to ask, who's sock it is? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a CU's job, I have insufficient evidence to attribute him to a specific editor. Made his first edits in an unconstructive way on a hot topic and has got the basic knowledge of Wikipedia's MOS and policies, anyway. Faizan 18:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A checkuser is not a fishing expedition and it is not their job to look for socks for you. If you have suspicions that someone is employing policy violating socks, you must provide evidence that this is so and who you think it is. Just saying that you think an editor is a sock but you don't know whose sock it is, is a personal attack. Be warned. Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

He is back again. I had requested semi protection. WP:RFPP has a backlog. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

10 socks in, 4 joined the farm.

On behalf once again by User:Alexhead8835, it seems to me that there are four accounts operated by User:Hum1969 who evaded this block. They are consisted of:

• User:OrionVIIHybrid1980
• User:76.68.126.10
• User:76.65.227.161
• User:207.164.79.0

This user edit wars article as seen on the history page. 135.23.145.164 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (c/o - Alexhead8835 (talk))

The SPÖ in Mein Kampf

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

---

Apparently User:Autospark said it was irrelevant for me to post a section in the Social Democratic Party of Austria article on what Hitler said about them in Mein Kampf. The reason I thought it was relevant, was that there is a section in the Social Democratic Party of Austria article titled "Confronting the past of 1938–1945." Nothing in the Social Democratic Party of Austria article tells us anything about how much Hitler loathed them, and I think that is relevant. In other words, they are being portrayed as having been for Hitler, when Hitler really perceived them as being against him. What I'm concluding is that it is very likely some individuals in the SPÖ helped Hitler, but that is a different story from what Hitler thought of the whole party, so I think my edit was necessary to give more details on the background of events leading up to World War II. I'm requesting that an administrator reverse Autospark's edit when he undid my edit at 19:29, on 14 January 2015‎. Autospark doesn't want people to know the truth about what Hilter said about the SPÖ in Mein Kampf, but some people might want to know. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The header on this page very clearly says to use {{subst:ANI-notice}} regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to inform such users of involving them an ANI, which you have not done an hour after this has been posted. In general it is also recommended that you discuss the issue on their userpage, but I may be missing where you've done this. It is also probably unfair to accuse Autospark of trying to stop people from knowing something. Finally, as this is a content dispute, WP:DR may have been a better place to go for. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:John Smith the Gamer, we could think of the opposite scenario from your recommendation to notify Autospark: Since he wanted to take out my edit, he could have notified me to see if I would say something reasonable to him. No one would edit something with the wish that their edit would be removed entirely without any reason. Now you've made me aware of WP:DR as being another place people post, which I wasn't aware of earlier. About User:Autospark trying to stop people from knowing something, the proof is in the pudding. There's no reason why I would add a section unless I thought it was clarifying something, so there's no reason to try to explain that to Autospark, as he would be aware of what I thought was appropriate and necessary the moment he took out my edit. The issue, to my mind, is that the SPÖ is being portrayed as a party that is supposedly making up for its decision of helping Hitler, when really Hitler and the SPÖ were at opposite ends of the political spectrum. So I wanted to resolve this by simply offering to the reader information about what Hitler really thought of the SPÖ, without taking out anyone else's edits. In other words, it might be that someone doesn't want those on the far right to know about that, lest the SPÖ would lose votes from them. It seems I'm the one playing fair by offering more information, and someone else is not being fair by not allowing both sides of the coin to be seen, so to speak. Autospark started this by accusing me of being odd and irrelevant, as you can see by his comment when he took out my edit. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Timothycrice, what I mean is that his motivation is probably not perpetuating ignorance, rather he may not believe the information is important enough or have other valid reasons for believing it shouldn't be included, which should have been discussed before involving administrators. If you have tried to before, please can you provide links/diffs of doing so? As for not knowing about WP:DR, I guessed you didn't and was trying to inform you of it, though in retrospect I probably could have done it in a slightly clearer and friendlier way. My apologies for not doing so.

As for the change to the comment I replying to that gave me an edit conflict, he should provide a reason for removal of any content you add, in most cases discussing it first. However, informing people of ANIs is a completely different issue, ANIs can lead to severe blocks/bans and as such you should always inform users immediately. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Per your request User:John Smith the Gamer, here is Autospark's edit and my recent post on his talk page. I do understand what you're saying, it might not be that Autospark is motivated by a desire to perpetuate ignorance. There's a chance that a lot of us have had the idea in the back of our minds at some point in our lives that, in case it has an effect on us, it would be preferable to not study Mein Kampf. The counterargument is that we can learn from the past to make the decisions that are necessary in the future. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, disruption, incivility and harassment by user:Bryce Carmony

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

---

This user has embarked on a crusade to clean up "unnecessary" words in articles and generally improve the way they read. Excellent idea, except that he only consults his own opinion and adopts a slash and burn approach, deleting any words that look at first glance to be superfluous and shortening, eliding or otherwise altering phrases whenever he doesn't like them. As a result many of his edits result in ungrammatical and sometimes nonsensical text and he has even edited direct quotes to "Improve" them. The only thing that distinguishes some of his edits from vandalism is his motivation and I'm no longer sure about even that.

Examples:

Altering quotations here and here

Altering the meaning of text here (was about importance claimed in guides, becomes unsupported statement of general importance), here (a set of goals becomes goals that have been set) and here (historical changes in meaning become meanings that have persisted throughout history)

I've reverted his errors and pointed them out to him. I've explained WP guidelines. When that's failed I've warned him, reaching level 4 before I tried to cool things down. Unfortunately his response is uncivil and aggressive, accusing me of vandalism, both on my talk page and in edit summaries, and he has now begun to harass me.

Can someone fire a shot across his bows? andy (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

the examples provided are misleading. both of those direct quotes I did change but then changed right back after thinking what would be best. Andy may be upset since every article I alter doesn't get reverted by anyone but himself. the Wikipedia community agrees with me. Business Plan, Executive Summary, etc, they all look great after I'm done. I don't have any problem admitting that every now and then I make a mistake, I used an American dating system for a British article, a nice individual corrected me and I thanked them for their service, the way wikipedia should be. What you call "edit warring" I simply call peer review. Andy would rather say " Academics people" instead of "Academic people" but I don't make my goal in life to annoy him. I compliment him on his ability to puff things and even requested his assistance, I reach out to work together in the spirit of improving the wealth of human knowledge for future generations. and he calls that aggressive. No other editor has ever had a problem with my work, people appreciate my affinity for brevity and my dedication to not using peacock phrases. my work on the Dota 2 page received commendations, if only 1 wikipedian has an issue with me I suggest occams razor would point out. its more likely the 1 wikipedian is the problem and not me, the person who no one else is bothered by. Wikipedia states that editors should " be bold" no in my boldness I have made a small blunder but, those blunders lead to further review and improvement. If someone could have andy stop harassing me for following wikipedian guidelines I'd appreciate it.Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense - it wasn't you who reverted those quotes, it was me! andy (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith and User:Bryce Carmony: Both of you - When posting to a talk page, including a noticeboard, sign your post with four tildes. When the bot is not working, it is hard to be sure who is complaining about whom. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith - NEVER, ever alter or "improve" the wording of a direct quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - It seems the editor changing direct quotes cited by Andyjsmith in the linkage above is Bryce Carmony. Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh? Which direct quote did I alter? I think you mean the other guy. andy (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(Bryce Carmony ) Will do Robert, I still sometimes forget to sign my posts ( I got a visit from SineBot so I've been doing better on it but still don't bat 1000 ) I'll make sure in the future to sign them. I feel like the concept of peer review is that there is some back and for. Something is written too long, so we trim it back, maybe ( and only maybe ) we trimmed too far so we add a bit back but what the final outcome is something much more polished and refined than the original. honestly I think Andy's challanges on some of my edits has made me review them and go back and make even better edits. and likewise I think some of my edits have made andy go back and improve his edits. I don't have a problem with him, if he has a problem with me trying to help out I apologize. due to historic reasons andy has been rude and due to historic reasons I may have not been as understanding as I should have been. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but that doesn't clear things up. This user has been consistently aggressive and I don't see any sign in this contrite statement that he understands how to behave properly on wikipedia both in editing and in behaviour to other editors. He seems to be unaware of some of the fundamental guidelines. andy (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy lets look at where we've gotten, if we are here <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_plan&diff=642833867&oldid=642754566 we see that the article looks a lot better. the opening paragraph has the same meaning from the source material, but it's improved. if you think that the current version is worse. and you want to go back and add what was lost. by all means you have my blessing. I've never insulted you and you've called me an idiot. I respect you and I wouldn't dream of removing you from the community. If you really believe that the current state of "business plan" is worse off. just edit it back. go back to your version. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In truth I did - on my talk page in response to your claim that my adding a wiki ink to an article was original research! I came here because I had failed to make you understand how clumsy your editing can be and how harmful that is to wikipedia. It truly does not help to simply carry on mudslinging in this forum - it simply demonstrates my point that you are a pedantic and clumsy editor who cannot be trusted to edit without close supervision. Something I'm getting tired of doing. Enough, I'll wait for a third party to participate. andy (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

you cited a source that said Isaac Asimov is a prolific writer, but the source wasn't good enough for you so you chose to create research from your mind and you wrote in wikipedia that "Isaac Asimov is "one of the most" prolific writers in the history of the world ( or something along those hyperbolic lines ) all I did was change that. If you go to the article it isn't spouting that nonsense anymore. and no one will revert it becuase we agree that your vandalism needs to stop. where in your source does it say "one of the most" it says Prolific Prolific =/= one of the most prolific of all time. I could say "George Washington Was tall" but I wouldn't say "George Washington was one of the tallest presidents" unless I could tell you exactly which one he was. you didn't even read the source you cited. the source said 10/10 Dewey cats when its only 9/10 dewey cats. not that you would bother to actually read the source material, why bother? you can just make it up. Just answer this question. why did you write " one of the most " when it doesn't say that in the source. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Darn, I had intended not to rise to any more of these hysterical comments but I can't let this one go - any sensible person reading this page would wonder what on Earth has been going on. What you're saying is a fantasy and that article's edit history shows it. You removed an unsourced claim that Asimov was prolific without attempting to either check it or tag it. I pointed out to you that it's good practice to fix rather than delete, then I reverted your edit and added a wikilink. Your response then was as over the top as it is now. Please be civil and do not chuck accusations of vandalism around wildly. I won't warn you over this because it would only fuel the flames, but I sure wish someone else would. andy (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You wrote. and this is an exact quote from your edit "Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time" so. I'm simply asking you, what source do you have from the future that shows that at the end of the omniverse Isaac Asimov will be one of the most prolific authors from the big bang to the big fizzle. this is what you wrote. that millenia into the future when computers write millions of novels in microseconds using advance AI you know. that Isaac Asimov will still be "one of the most prolific writers of all time" Andy, you wrote original research. I fixed it for you, you're welcome. I'm not sexist so I won't use "hysteria" as a pejorative, I feel bad for you. I wish you all the best. I'm glad that I was there to fix your work. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop being rude! Somebody else wrote that a long time ago (in fact user:Usnerd on 22 November 2007), you deleted it without trying to fix it, I fixed it. You've said similar things previously and it makes me wonder if you actually understand how wikipedia functions at all? andy (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find my respect for women rude, I'm sorry if you find my dedication to Wikipedia rude, I am sorry if you find my sentiments that Isaac Asimov deserves a good article, and that my children and your children and their children deserve a neutral encyclopedia rude. If you find those things rude than I apologize sincerely. on November 2007 someone wrote something that was a flattering platitude towards the late Asimov, in 2014 I came along and fixed that. I took out that hyperbole, you saw fit to put it back in there. You added the link, I added the accuracy, together we improved the article, that's what Wikipedia is about. I understand it must be hard when you go to school for a lot of years and still the raw natural talent of a college freshman is your superior when it comes to Wikipedian prudence. but you have to take your ego out of this Andy. My edit improved it. then you wrote an edit that improved more. then I wrote an edit that improved even still more. We took the jounrey together, I boldly dove in, you came along kicking and screaming. but we've made it. I appreciate you finding that link that was good work. You dropped the ball with the hyperbole but we're a team and we're in this together. Every edit is flawed in the sense that no edit will be the last. But that doesn't make your edits evil our failed or flawed. The journey of 10,000 leagues starts with a single step. So I thank you for your link, and if you do not appreciate my wisdom then that's ok, I don't need your respect your attitude speaks volumes about you not me. Happy Martin Luther King Jr day. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor not here to civilly build a neutral encyclopedia

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

---

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

2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP has been mostly railing against NPOV, trying to accuse us of bias for not giving equal validity to conspiracy theories and fringe topics. Other editors explained guidelines

First post as UnifiedBalance was to remove someone else's post. When asked not to do that, he responded with "Why don't you go away, you rabid Wiki-nazi? I'm only looking for constructive criticism from editors that understand etiquette. Not sarcastic assholes who are editing pages because they're a troll." When I left him a warning about personal attacks, his response was "Blow me."

He continued to refuse to listen to editors' explanations of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc, and accused an editor (Mandruss) who disagreed with him and asked him not to remove other's posts of "starting" the personal attacks. He's convinced that we're just full of "liberal lies," and thinks that the fairly settled topics of "JFK, MLK, 9/11" are controversial and not fairly represented by our articles (before anyone mistakenly tries to turn this into an unnecessary content discussion, those articles present the mainstream historical perspective, per WP:NPOV; and does not give conspiracy theories WP:UNDUE weight or create Harrison-Bergeron-style artificial equality between history and conspiracy theories). When another user (Andy The Grump) politely and calmly tried to explain WP:NPA, he responded by calling Andy a hypocrite for not warning Mandruss (ultimately for just strongly disagreeing with him) and said "Can I please get a user that is less egotistical and immature?"

UnifiedBalance is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia, be civil, assume good faith, or hear others out on how to try any of those things. At a minimum, he needs some admins to put the fear of Policy into him. I'm certainly not going to object to something beyond that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You're so full of it. If you never posted your sarcastic rhetoric, I wouldn't have said that. Stop trying to act all innocent. You're just as guilty, snitch. UnifiedBalance (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note, my first interaction with UnifiedBalance was to warn him. His response to our template warning was "blow me." That's the first thing he said to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. That is all that needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andy said it. Account indeffed, IP blocked one month. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Well, that was probably the quickest descent into Godwin's I've seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by an anon IP

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

---

An anon has been editing Michael Carbonaro to give an uncited, younger birth year than that given in both The New York Times and Newsday. He has bee edit-warring and now he has made legal threats here and in his edit summar here. I had requested page protection before this, but there is a backlog. Given his continued edit-warring and his escalation via threat, I've brought it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no edit warring or legal threats on my behalf. This user is just upset that I provided a source for Michael Carbonaro's birthdate and pointed out this his source did not mention a birthdate. I don't know what his problem is. If you want to ban me, that's fine. I just corrected a little error, so this really speaks more to Wikipedia's mentality than anything else. I have no problem being banned by an organisation like you, and I know I've done nothing wrong.50.168.176.243 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: The New York Times and Newsday quotes included in the footnote establish the "c. 1976" birth year given in the article. And he was edit-warring, as the article history will show. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Surrey Eagles deletion on dec 29

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

---

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how it works. I am affiliated with the Surrey Eagles and work with them. The current coach, Blaine Neufeld, noticed someone posted very mean things about us. He tried to remove it. It got out back on because he did not know how to remove it. I was told That happened, so I went in to try to straighten it out. I removed it and made a note. I then replaced the lies with truth and backed up the truth with references - newspaper articles and links to websites showing the Truth. I just came on again and see all my notes were removed. I am involved and living in this situation. I referenced newspaper articles and the league website. How can someone take it off? It was truth. Please put my changes back on. Thank you. December 2014 Resolute

rm some vandalism and a lot of promotion

20:46

-1,326

24 December 2014 Yobot

WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (10538)

m 07:30

+25

23 December 2014 Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey

06:16

+1

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: Adding award won by Darius Davidson

06:16

+73

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: had the wrong year - changed 13/14 to 14/15 for when LOCAL kids where added

m 06:07

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: added statistics from bchl.ca showing surrey placed 4th out of 5 teams

m 06:06

+123

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey

05:59

-1

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey

05:57

+39

Surrey Eagles

no edit summary

m 05:49

-1

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: There was an attack on our website. We tried to remove the offensive comments, but your editors reinstated the lies. We have removed them again and replaced them with the truth and references.

05:47

+1,065

Surrey Eagles

The Eagles faced an ownership haul following their championship season. Locally owned Pro 4 Sports took over co-ownership and subsequently ran the team into the ground. Pro 4 founder Bill Davidson became the face of a franchise with no character, and prou

05:20

-462

21 December 2014 Frosty

Reverted edits by 70.70.156.117 (talk): unexplained content removal (HG)

22:14

+464

70.70.156.117

→‎Surrey

22:12

-464

12 November 2014 Mindmatrix

+Category:Sports clubs established in 1962; +Category:1962 establishments in British Columbia using HotCat; formatting: 7x whitespace (using Advisor.js)

15:38

+92

Danyallstar15

Added history after 2013 season

m 04:30

+493

6 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surrey Eagles (talk • contribs) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please kindly mention the name of your article in full ? So that we might take your issue out A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Surrey Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, it appears that this [346] is the edit in question - carried out by User:Resolute, with an edit summary "rm some vandalism and a lot of promotion". And looking at it, I can't see anything obviously objectionable with Resolute's edit - the content removed was unencyclopaedic and promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the objection is to this edit, which gives no sources for its claims that a new owner "ran the team into the ground" and that the result was a "franchise with no character". Yes, the promotional content was problematic and should have been removed, but this removal is proper, and Resolute correctly didn't put it back. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The bad thing that this editor noticed was an unsourced claim that ownership had "run the team into the ground". Removing that was, of course, perfectly fine and I ensured that it was not re-inserted when I cleared up the promotional additions that were subsequently made. I noticed these edits about a week after they were made, and I assumed it was a one-off series of edits so didn't think too much of it when I removed the promotion. Mr. Eagles - I wish you would have contacted me on my talk page (or the article talk) first. I would have been, and still am, happy to help you add content in a fashion that does maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Cheers! Resolute 14:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There might be a COI/SPA situation here. PS: A tad odd, that the editor's named after the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor is completely upfront about that, saying in the first sentences he posted here, " I am affiliated with the Surrey Eagles and work with them". So this person is clearly acting in good faith and with full transparency. Deli nk (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Appeal for my ban

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

---

Recently, I was banned from creating BLPs on the basis of disruptive editing. I realize my mistake, and I am extremely sorry for my behaviour. So I would like to appeal the ban and would be pleased if it would be lifted. If it happens, I promise to use my rights effectively and correctly, without creating any nuisance. Thanks ! RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - your topic ban was implemented 10 days ago (this one, right?). I'm not sure a 10-day topic ban was what all these people had in mind, especially given the complaints you were still creating problematic articles right up until the point you were notified of your ban. Probably best to leave BLP creation alone for a little while. The determination was indefinite and while not "infinite", the fall-back position seemed to be "at least 6 months". So oppose as not reflecting very recent community consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - When your topic ban was placed you were given this advice: "I would suggest that going back and improving your past creations would be a good way to show a commitment to improving the quality of your BLP work and would strengthen your case at any future appeal of this topic ban.". Do you have any evidence of having done that? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Coming back and asking in six months sounds about right. There's plenty of useful work you can do without creating BLPs. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose:. Six months will pass quickly if you take all the advice above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose per Kudpung and Stalwart111. While the previous discussion did not put a time limit on how long until you are allowed to appeal, generally you need to show that you have a track record of being able to edit productively and unproblematically within the terms of the topic ban. Ten days and under 200 edits between topic ban and appeal probably is not enough for users to verify this. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as Ravenswing points out there are 100s if not 1000s of other areas that one can edit. In fact I have found that branching out or editing out of ones comfort zone tends to make one a better and well rounded asset to the community. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above your topic ban has lasted only 10 days, all we have to go by is your word that you are very sorry and you will never do it again. Prove to the community that you are effective in other areas of Wikipedia first and then come back here in a few months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the advice to fix the articles you started is good advice. The ban is only against starting new BLP articles, which is not a big deal, a lot of editors have never started a BLP article. If someone really needs a BLP some other editor will start it. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor violating copyright

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

---

Absolution provider 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Absolution_provider_1999_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_.29V but Absolution provider 1999 continues to copy-paste text from other websites into Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant while the report is open. The editor has had numerous warnings [347], [348] and seems to not understand or is unwilling to abide by our copyright policy. Either way, it's a problem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user until such time as he can demonstrate he understands copyright law. Edit summaries like this one show that currently he does not. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As soon as that block was placed we have Phantom_gamer_1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I believe that Absolution provider 1999 was a sock related to User:Update stormtrooper and others. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please file at WP:SPI if you think these accounts are related. There's no obvious connection. I have posted the required ANI notice on Phantom Gamer's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what's going on one minute I'm editing Wikipedia articles and the next I get blocked for no reason.The internet is truly a strange place.Phantom gamer 1993 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's definitely an admission to sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am a sockpupetere, can you prove it.Ian.thomson....Phantom gamer 1993 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to NeilN's accusation that you were Absolution provider 1999, you said "what's going on one minute I'm editing Wikipedia articles and the next I get blocked for no reason." The only way that confession would not be proof is if you're a lying troll.

Either Phantom gamer 1993 is a sock account of a user who just doesn't understand copyright, or, as the above "prove my own confession" post and this post shows, is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Either way, we don't need an SPI for this one. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked Phantom gamer 1993 for block evasion, as he is a self-confessed sock of Absolution provider 1999. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Clarification: Although I did file an SPI a few hours ago, I did not make the socking accusation here. That was Legacypac. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a sock allegation as part of a 3RR report on Absolution first, along with edit warring and copyvio. It was closed as an indef for the copyright violations. Obviously multiple issues going on here. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the 3RR was closed, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999 is still open. If any further socks appear they should be reported at that venue. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Pardo

• Xuxo (talk · contribs)
• BEARtruth89 (talk · contribs)
• NBAkid (talk · contribs)

Please verify what is happening to the article Pardo and take the proper measures. I prefer to abstain from meta discussions and reporting users, but I'm tired of seeing their row on my Watchlist. -- Marawe (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for ten days to give these truthseekers (I templated them for edit warring) time to work it out on the talk page. The version I locked is without the cute pictures. I imagine a population group of 82 million deserves a couple of pictures, but there are WP:BLP issues here, and only one of the warriors has sought the talk page. Good luck to them. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• The history tells me this is actually older, and also involved are Khalel122 and Coltsfan. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page, with consensus to include for each and every individual picture based on ironclad references in the articles of those individuals. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wizardman

I have had it with this Wizardman character. i have been an editer for almost 6 years now and all he has done is delete my edits. I ask him why and he says "if I catch you making disruptive edits one more time you're gone from here." --Elijahadmire (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You missed off the first part of Wizardman's explanation. The full statement is "They were deleted because you were illegally copypasting content to make articles, a blatant copyright violation. Given that this is not the first time I've had problems with you, if I catch you making disruptive edits one more time you're gone from here." Squinge (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Dropped a notification on Wizardman's talk page, which you should have done @Elijahadmire:. Blackmane (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly violated the copyright policy for at least the past 1.5 years [349], disregarding multiple warnings pretty much everything on their talk page. There are no excuses.

[I]f I catch you making disruptive edits one more time you're gone from here.

I disagree. He should have indeffed you on the spot. MER-C 01:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Elijahadmire: Copyright infringement is not a joke. You've had multiple warnings to refrain from copy-pasting, you will not receive another one. —Dark 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You should be thanking Wizardman for being lenient and not banning you on the spot. Copyright infringement is not OK here, not ever. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Views, please, on whether his most recent article creation – Burrantown, Texas – is a copyvio of this - the odd word has been changed but the structure is identical. I'm tempted to delete and indef, but as we're here anyway, some additional comments wouldn't go amiss. Bencherlite^Talk 10:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a look earlier today after MER-C's comment but didn't have time for a detailed look. On a closer inspection, the phrasing is way too close despite the change of words into numbers. Might have a browse through some of his more recent edits. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Following up. Brumberg, Texas, Ashby, Texas, Robbin's Ferry all have issues. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Go with your instinct, Bencherlite. The user apparently has trouble hearing copyvio and other warnings. Also, there's a competence problem in the way they have copied text from the internet and changed good words in the source to bad words for Wikipedia (as the change established —> the nonsensical situated in both Burrantown, Texas and Brumberg, Texas), apparently purely to "avoid" copyright violation. Bishonen | talk 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

• I checked a bunch of user's new creations and without fail tagged every one to delete as copyvio. There's many more I haven't looked at; it seems a reasonable assumption all substantial contributions are likely to require checked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese)

I want to report 85.247.82.66 (talk · contribs) (now 85.247.74.165 (talk · contribs), and probably 2001:8A0:7D00:1F01:B148:F0B1:8616:1905 (talk · contribs)), a Portuguese anonymous user that enjoys disrupting Wikipedia. The user has been doing it for a long time now. User is known for refusing to sign posts and edit warring in association football related articles, specially the ones about Portuguese football or related. User has been blocked many times before and locked many articles. Blocked account is CoUser1 (talk · contribs).

If you compare the behaviour of these long list of IPs it is obvious that is the same anonymous user: 81.193.33.116 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.2.151 (talk · contribs) - 85.243.159.93 (talk · contribs) - 85.242.88.88 (talk · contribs) - 85.245.58.1 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.84.149 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.1.124 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.38.238 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.0.186 (talk · contribs) - 85.242.88.77 (talk · contribs) - 85.245.80.80 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.3.27 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.75.207 (talk · contribs) - 85.241.163.234 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.87.43 (talk · contribs) - 85.243.159.85 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.68.19 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.71.74 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.39.162 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.33.39 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.33.11 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.2.15 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.90.217 (talk · contribs) - and others. SLBedit (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat by ‎ User:Fondazione Fortezza dell'Immacolata

Made by the following user Fondazione Fortezza dell'Immacolata (talk · contribs) towards Widr (talk · contribs) [350] which is a violation of WP:NLT Avono (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Account blocked. Mike V • Talk 20:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes on the article concerned (Tomislav Vlašić) might be wise - there seems to be WP:OR involved regarding some content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Five Guys

First: I am in violation of 3RR at Five Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am self-reverting my most recent revert solely for this reason, not because I agree with the user involved.

Normally I would next take this to the article talk page, to work through normal dispute resolution channels (and I plan to take it to that forum next). However, I am reporting myself here for community review of my actions.

Due to an apparent dynamic IP that was repeatedly adding poorly sourced criticism (Google search results initially, then to tripadvisor and blog reviews) I had semi-protected the article. A named user which had then been inactive then made the same revert. I initially blocked the user, then lifted that block myself - as I realized that as an involved party, I should instead be using WP:DR. Initial discussions of the content can be found at user talk:Barek#Five Guys' music and warnings at User talk:95.150.189.151. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it may not be obvious, I want to point out that there is a relationship between this page and the Gamergate controversy that is currently at ArbCom. Due to WP:BEANS and WP:BLP, I'm not going to explain what the relationship is, but I'll point it out, in case it is drawing any disruptive accounts to the Five Guys page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support semi-protection to prevent the problem under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't help with the autoconfirmed user whom Barek blocked/unblocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, 3RR: presumably Barek isn't planning on continuing, so sanctions for 3RR would be out of place; I would say this with a non-admin just as readily, because sanctions should be preventive, not punitive. Semiprotection looks right, and if anyone complains on WP:INVOLVED grounds about Barek doing it, I'll satisfy them by lifting and restoring the semiprotection. I don't understand why User:Ivanruss was blocked (he made the same type of edits as the IPs, but I don't see anything by Barek saying that he was blocking Ivanruss on socking-related grounds), but since he's been unblocked, there's nothing to do. We just need to watch and continue reverting problems if they get added. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that the removal of poorly-sourced material was justified, although I do caution Barek on the slightly... overzealous use of admin tools in the future. But there's no sense of crying over spilled milk and the right outcome resulted in the end. Like Nyttend said, we'll just need to monitor the article better in the future to prevent questionable material from being inserted. —Dark 07:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RHB100 and Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some days now, User:RHB100 has been disputing the content of our Religious views of Adolf Hitler article -

Using the article to editorialise about the supposed 'bias' of the historians we cite. [351]

Edit-warring to include more editorialising statements disparaging our sources and to include cherry-picked quotes. [352][353][354]

Inserting his own personal analysis into the article, together with further cherry-picked quotes, and editorialising about "an excellent article which refutes the Hitler Atheist myth" (actually a blog by a partisan atheist with no apparent qualifications as a historian) [355]

And in his latest edit to the article again editorialising to include his own personal opinion as to the credibility of sources. [356]

Likewise, on the talk page, we have had to put up with

claims of "Roman Catholic bigotry". [357][358]

Odd claims to expertise (RHB100's qualifications appear to be in engineering.)[359]

Accusations that contributors are using ""specious arguments".[360]

Insistence that the unqualified atheist's blog should be cited in the article [361][362]

Accusations of disruptive editing, [363]

Assertions that "historians are incapable of second guessing Hitler's inner thoughts" (a valid point perhaps, except that RHB100 seems insistent on doing the same thing)

A point-blank refusal to accept that historians are more valid as sources for Wikipedia than his own personal analysis of Hitler's words, combined with what actually amounts to a refusal to actually look at the sources cited: "I do not want to read any books that are not short and to the point. I have begun reading some of the Wikiquotes...". [364]

And finally, in response to me yet again explaining Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing [365], a stream of vitriol in which I am described as "an outright liar" and "a thick headed jackass", with a "narrow minded, bigoted point of view" (as I pointed out early in the discussions, I am myself an atheist - which leaves me wondering what sort of 'bigot' I'm supposed to be here). [366]

Now personal attacks on their own don't particularly bother me, but this last outburst seems to me to be symptomatic of something that is quite evident throughout RHB100's involvement with the article - that he is convinced that his own personal analysis trumps that of historians with the credentials of Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock, and that he is entirely unwilling to accept Wikipedia policy in that regard. Given his continued refusal to accept policy and his frequent resort to ad-hominems and vitriol, I have to suggest that a topic ban would seem appropriate - if not a block, since a refusal to accept Wikipedia policy here may presumably also be possible elsewhere. This is a sensitive article, on a complex topic, and requires more from contributors than the stubborn refusal to comply with Wikipedia norms and rejection of core policy regarding sourcing and original research that we see here. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, Recommend a block, and Concern - This is largely but not entirely a content dispute. In my opinion, the subject editor is wrong on the content dispute, but that doesn't matter. The real problems are that he is insisting on editing to his own purpose, that is, without collaboration, and never mind consensus because he knows the WP:TRUTH, and the personal attack. A block is in order for the personal attack. However, in looking over the author's history, I have a deeper concern. I don't think this is RHB100. I think that this is a compromised account. The subject matter is inconsistent with previous postings, and the English is not as good as I would expect. In view of the concerns about a compromised account, a block is in order based both on the personal attack and until it can be verified that the account is secure. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Curiously enough, there was an ANI thread back in 2009 also suggesting that RBH100's account had been compromised. [367] The conclusion reached seems to be that it wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 40 hours (it will expire around 3AM Wednesday his time) for WP:NPA. Looking at "recent" contributions from a couple of years ago (they're still among his fifty most recent edits), I quickly found [368], [369], and [370]; these look to me like the same guy, also engaging in some original research as well as a healthy dose of personal attacks, so I'm doubtful that it's a compromised account and doubtful that a short block will have a huge effect. Still, WP:AGF; aside from the apparently incorrect block for being compromised, it's his first block, so we ought to give him the chance to shape up. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GLPeterson still disruptively pushing his own original research

GLPeterson (talk · contribs) ANI here ANI/3RRArchive with block here is still following the same behavior noted in those reports of pushing his own original research (consisting of reworked material from two websites he owns) at Wireless power without any edit summary explaining his edits and zero participation on the article talk page, despite numerous requests that he explain his edits and stop replacing sourced material with what seems to be his own opinion diff.

Diffs of GLPeterson's disruptive editing on Wireless power since getting blocked on December 14, 2014. Not all of these are reverts, some are unsourced additions

• 16:55, January 18, 2015 Another complete rewrite adding new section "Terrestrial transmission line" for his unsourced surface wave material and reinserting disturbed ground and air method into Tesla section, Hertz transmitting wireless power, many other errors
• 20:07, January 15, 2015 Reinsertion of unsourced claim that Hertz's 1888 transmission of radio waves "experimentally confirmed Maxwell's prediction of wireless energy transfer".
• 05:42, January 15, 2015 Revert or rewrite of Gil Dawsons correction of his errors in "Capacitive coupling" section.
• 18:15, January 8, 2015 Reinserted same old Tesla stuff, only non-Tesla source is Corum.
• 21:59, January 7, 2015 Restored unsourced rewrite after revert by Fountains
• 09:56, January 7, 2015 Complete rewrite of article, adding new "Bound-mode EM surface wave" section for the unsourced surface wave material from his old "Electrical conduction" section, and inserting same old "Disturbed charge of ground and air" material into Tesla section, unsourced dB figures in table, many other bad edits.
• 10:50, January 6, 2015‎ Reinserted unsourced dB figures after revert
• 09:25, January 6, 2015‎ Replaced sourced material in table with cryptic unsourced dB figures
• 07:31, January 6, 2015 Unsourced WP:SYNTH addition that Hertz's 1888 transmission of radio waves "experimentally confirmed Maxwell's prediction of wireless energy transfer". No one calls Hertz's reception of microwatt signals "wireless energy transfer"

We are near the bottom of the WP:DDE flow chart with this editor. What was true at this ANI is still true, this editor does not communicate. The tactic he has been following for the last 8 years of adding material he seems to think has to be added to Wikipedia, via rewriting the articles Wireless energy transfer, Wireless energy transmission, Wireless power, and creating the article World Wireless System now includes inventing subsection topic names for it re: "Bound-mode electromagnetic surface wave", "Terrestrial transmission line technique". GLPeterson's has added a new tactic of maintaining his own copy of the article Wireless power at User:GLPeterson/Revised Draft which he keeps copying/pasting wholesale into Wireless power. This all seems to show a desire to PUSH his own WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and non-standard terminology instead of showing a good-faith desire to improve content. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear from GLPeterson, but having worked some on the World Wireless System article and having just read this talk page thread, I'm convinced that it's time to consider a topic ban. His obtuse communication style and repeated insertion of original research into various articles is indeed disruptive. - MrX 03:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree with both the above editors. For years ([371], [372], [373]) GLPeterson has WP:OWNed the Wireless power article, tenaciously WP:PUSHing his unsourced WP:OR, WP:FRINGE theories about wireless power transmission based on 110 year old ideas from Nikola Tesla, and reverting efforts to correct it. Although he does cite sources, the sources are not reliable; mainly primary sources consisting of Tesla's erroneous 19th century writings or modern pseudoscientific authors. He is the only editor supporting this material, against the consensus of at least 5 editors: Chetvorno, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Wtshymanski, Roches, MrX and occasionally GliderMaven ([374]). He pushes the same material on World Wireless System, Wardenclyffe tower, and several other articles, as detailed in an earlier ANI. There is also a Fringe Theories Noticeboard complaint about his material. In general he seldom gives edit comments or discusses his edits on the Talk page unless he is facing administrative sanctions.--Chetvorno^TALK 12:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Below is the chronology of the Wireless power dispute, with a list of his reverts prior to being blocked 13 December 2014. The disputed material was originally a section called "Electrical conduction", and some material in "Timeline of wireless power". Beginning September 2014, Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I with help from Wtshymanski rewrote this into a properly sourced "History" section. GLPeterson continually reverted our edits, either without explanation or calling them "damage":

• 19:49, January 16, 2011
• 09:38, January 17, 2011
• 05:06, July 29, 2012
• 08:45, January 15, 2013
• 11:21, January 15, 2013
• 15:02, September 8, 2014
• 08:23, September 20, 2014
• 09:46, September 22, 2014
• 14:35, September 22, 2014
• 06:58, September 23, 2014
• 13:31, October 9, 2014
• 20:13, October 9, 2014
• 06:41, October 11, 2014
• 06:15, October 20, 2014
• 07:49, October 20, 2014
• 16:27, October 30, 2014
• 20:21, October 30, 2014
• 20:21, October 30, 2014
• 20:09, November 17, 2014
• 22:52, December 9, 2014
• 06:12, December 11, 2014
• 15:59, December 11, 2014
• 06:19, December 12, 2014

He is shrewd enough not to technically violate the 3RR, but has twice "run the clock out" by performing his 3rd revert just after 24 hrs has elapsed (diffdiffdiffdiff) and (diff, 18:59 Dec 11 is followed by four reverts, the last at diff, 19:05 Dec 12).

These problems were thoroughly discussed on the Talk page (Talk:Wireless power#Way too much Tesla, Talk:Wireless power#Timeline of Wireless Power, 2008 Entry No. 3, Talk:Wireless power#Electrical Conduction) and GLPeterson was invited to participate [375]. [376] He did, but only to repeat unsourced material from the article. Three editors reached out to him on his personal Talk page to try to discuss his edits [377], [378], [379], but he either did not respond or answered with a cryptic quote from Neil Armstrong. I brought a ANI/3RR complaint against him 13 December 2014 and he received a 48hr block. Although his discussions with the administrator on his Talk page were polite (User_talk:GLPeterson#Request_for_assistance), he mentioned legal action [380] and did not indicate any understanding of WP consensus or an intention to drop the issue [381].

Since the block he has resumed the same disruptive editing. He vandalized the article Talk page [382], [383] inserting his comments and unsourced material in boldface between other editors comments. He then resumed reinserting his same unsourced material in the article, along with new dubious material as detailed by the diff list in Fountains of Bryn Mawr's complaint at top. In two wholesale rewrites he has added sections called "Terrestrial transmission line" 16:55, January 18, 2015 and "Bound-mode EM surface wave" 09:56, January 7, 2015 containing expanded versions of his unsourced "surface wave" content from his old section, in both edits also reinserting his old unsourced Tesla material into "Tesla's experiments" section along with much other unsourced material. Again these concerns were discussed on the Talk page (Talk:Wireless power#Recent changes to summary table and Talk:Wireless power#Reintroduction of unsourced pseudoscientific content), [384], [385], and GLPeterson was personally invited to respond [386]. I asked him again 7 January 2015 on his personal Talk page to discuss his changes at the article Talk page, with no response [387].

Gary Peterson (GLPeterson) appears to own several websites [388], [389] and a bookstore [390] specializing in Tesla information and uses material on his websites as sources in the article. As mentioned by Fountains of Bryn Mawr above, he maintains a complete alternate Wireless power article User:GLPeterson/Revised Draft diff in his personal pages, containing his unsourced WP:FRINGE material, indicating an intention to continue his edit-warring. Over the years this single editor's obstructive actions have wasted, and continue to waste, huge amounts of other editor's time and effort.--Chetvorno^TALK 12:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Pre-planned tag-team edit war and AfD on Aro gTér page

Users User:CFynn, User:Ogress, User:VictoriaGrayson and User:Montanabw discussed bringing an AfD against this version [391] of the Aro gTér page prior to any editing involvement or talk page discussion. Their desire for the AfD was based on personal hostility and religious prejudice:

[392]

"The Aro gTér people are a fringe cult; not exactly one but plastic shaman-y"

“the facial hair alone is enough to make me want to prod-tag the article.”

“I'm certain they won't be able to come up with a single with a single reliable source to substantiate any of their claims.” (The article was extensively footnoted to reliable sources before they removed nearly all of them.)[393]

[394]

“Question: are you up for the Sh--storm if I were to AfD the article?”

[395]

"They are a very tiny cult"

After their content edit war and series of repeated mass deletions which ignored extensive on-going improvements to the article by several editors, ignored attempts to seek consensus or compromise, and refused to work with incremental change, I withdrew from the discussion: [396] [397]

Lily W (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Discussing your tagteaming is not itself tagteaming.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Forum shopping. This is an attempt to do a runaround of the consensus reached on the article talk page, as well as the discussion on the AfD page. Recommend possible boomerang if the forum shopping and unsubstantiated allegations against good faith editors continues. I should point out that there may be possible COI and agenda-based editing at work here, per the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I asked editors with whom I have confidence to help edit the page. You will clearly see from our histories that VictoriaGrayson (talk · contribs) and I have had conflicts - we are certainly not allies - and Montanabw (talk · contribs) has been a reliable editor on many pages but doesn't know me from anyone. On the other hand, I have seen the editors on the page engage in apparent meatpuppetry and COI. And the "shitstorm" in question is currently occurring, is it not? This is forum shopping: there's a pending AfD and, in fact, the editor who brought this claim constantly states there was consensus when there was nothing of the sort. Ogress _smash! 04:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Viriditas and Ogress.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Certain editors should be particularly mindful that facial hair is not an adequate reason for prodding an article and that referring to the article subject as a "cult" may appear to others as prejudice. Controversial removals/additions of sources and such should be discussed on the talk page. —Dark 07:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lily W (talk · contribs) has an edit history revolving around this sole web page. Arthur chos (talk · contribs) has been editing this page since 2008 and his edits are focussed on Aro and practices like kum nye they specialise in. Asking other, demonstrably uninvolved, editors to edit the page seemed logical. After I did so, JosephYon (talk · contribs) showed up: he comments above. His edit history is limited solely to Aro and this page. And plastic shaman is a technical term with its own Wikipedia page; the Aro have been accused of this behavior as they are entirely white. Ogress _smash! 10:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:173.50.161.119 disruptive edits

173.50.161.119 did a little bit of disruptive edits in 2010 and has now returned and done a bit more disruptive edits. Recent vandalism is shown here, here, and here. Perhaps a block is needed to stop this IP from further vandalizing articles. Andise1 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, but this is not place to report any vandal, you should report it at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Please read instructions when you start discussion. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)