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

Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is obviously very passionate about LGBT issues, but I'm afraid has suffered some sort of meltdown, judging by their recent edit history. The main area of contention relates to Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce, for those under a rock), and which name should be used on articles before her transition. Skyerise was warned yesterday for violating 3RR, and things settled down a little bit, with a discussion opening at WP:VPP. This discussion has drawn large numbers of editors; both Skyerise and I have contributed there and in other fora. And yet, today…wow. Skyerise has:

1. resumed edit-warring;
2. attempted to bully new IP editors by warning them for "vandalism" for perfectly legitimate edits Special:PermanentLink/665345041 Special:PermanentLink/665345537;
3. reported me for "vandalism", when they know full well that good-faith edits are not vandalism (and have been warned for false accusations of vandalism beforehand);
4. and left four separate warning templates on my talkpage over four separate edits within a period of less than 20 minutes, despite my repeated warning for them to stop harassing me

I think a cooling-off block is in order, as passions are obviously high, but the project mustn't continue to be disrupted. If the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP thrashes out a new consensus that aligns with Skyerise's views, then Caitlyn Jenner and related articles can be changed accordingly. ¡Bozzio! 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And now they've opened up a copy-cat ANI report. How very mature. ¡Bozzio! 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a spurious report. Bozzio is describing as "perfectly legitimate edits" edits to modify wikipedia articles around transgender individuals to refer to them by their previous name, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY. That is something to warn about. I don't see any warnings from you to Skyerise except edit summaries, and we don't notify people with edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has made 6 reverts to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon in the last 24 hours. BLP Violations are an exception to the 3rr rule, but I'm not really convinced the edits being reverted here are BLP violations. Just because a policy deals with living people, does not make it's violation a BLP violation under the 3rr rule. 3rr BLP exceptions should be clear violations of the primary WP:BLP policy. But its not clear enough so I don't think think a block without consensus would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: usually I'd agree with you, but I don't think the BLP policy was written with this in mind – in other words, to cover situations where something can genuinely be tremendously hurtful, but not defamatory or libellous, which is the standard we apply. The result is a policy that says "we should respect our subjects" but then provides a specific legal test for whether we respect them enough to enforce that respect with no holds barred. And this is fine, if the law keeps up to date. But: it doesn't. Deadnaming is a tremendously hurtful thing to do to any transgender individual, unless they've said they're okay with it, and the presumption we apply is that they haven't. It's just as hurtful, just as offensive, as what we'd class as "defamation" or "vandalism". It's totally within the spirit of the 3RR exceptions to prohibit it, and to give users some leeway in enforcing that prohibiton. That it isn't in the text is a deficiency in the text as a result of the environment it was created in. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what you say is logical enough to justify not blocking for 3RR right now, but given how obviously controversial the changes are, I think any resumption of edit warring should be met with a quick block. That said, Skyerise appears focused on talk page discussion at the moment, I believe that may prove unnecessary. Resolute 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think your position may be a bridge too far. I certainly strive to respect transgendered individuals, as well as all subjects of BLPs, and I think as a community we have come to accept your position at least in so far as it applies to an individual's Biography. But when it comes to historical events that the individual participated in, recorded on other pages, I think your position may be going substantially further then the community is willing to support, at least judging by the current state of the RFCs. More to the point, I think we need to be really careful about allowing 3rr exemption creep. There is a lot of good logic behind not trying to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to 3rr violations, and the carve outs should be as small as possible to protect particularly important concerns, such as actual slanderous falsehoods, and where they can be applied with minimal ambiguity. I just don't see the core concerns of BLP policy compelling us here, and again I think the 3rr exemption should be limited to that core purpose. Certainly other policies should, can, and do provide broader protection to BLP subjects, but again, we need to be really careful about when we authorize edit warring. Just waving BLP policy around can't be allowed to give you carte-blanche. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I just had a run-in with Skyerise, who I didn't know from a pile of sand an hour ago, and found their approach to defending an edit very aggressive. In the space of about 10-15 minutes, I had two warnings and an advisory on my talk page, with neither warning needed or particularly applicable. Any comment on their editing, including the spraying of talk page templates, is interpreted as a personal attack, yet I found this heavy-handed approach to be both aggressive, as I noted, and an attempt to intimidate me into backing down. There seems to be a lot of frantic energy expended in an effort to skirt the discussion at WP:VPP and to force name changes in articles listing or describing Caitlyn Jenner's achievements while identifying as the male athlete Bruce Jenner. Skyerise needs to take a deep breath, step away and calm down, and gain a little proportion that appears to be lacking at the moment. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, please refrain from repeatedly offering advice in multiple venues. You are coming off as extremely condescending and your advice is unwanted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeat violations of MOS:IDENTITY by User:Bozzio

Bozzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly engaging in WP:BLP vandalism by editing against MOS:IDENTITY on article related to Caitlyn Jenner. They have already received a discretionary santions warning from User:Ironholds yesterday but has chosen to ignore it. They have also engaged in user talk page vandalism by removing valid warnings because they disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. The warnings were valid under that policy. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please provide diffs of where they have removed warnings from other users' talk pages so that we can evaluate that part of your concern. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. [1] and [2]. Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I've never said I disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. I think it's a perfectly sensible guideline, but you've misunderstood and misapplied it completely. You've tried to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobic nutjob, I think you need to settle down a bit and actually take in a little of what other people are saying. I know you're pretty passionate about this, but try and work within the Wikipedia guidelines rather than fighting. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is really on the same subject of the above, I have now made it into a subsection. Epic Genius (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bozzio is well aware of the discretionary sanctions these articles are under – sanctions that mandate users "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". It's impossible to look their most recent edits and conclude they're doing anything of the sort. My suggestion would be that an admin block to prevent this situation being perpetuated, although if that doesn't work I suspect a topic ban will be pretty much the only way to de-fang this situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both users arent really acting their best today, so I slapped them both. If both users know what they both did wrong, we can be done with this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess Skyerise isn't really a fan of fish. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian. :-) Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is awkward. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for a bright line WP:3rr violation, with 5 reverts to the same article in the last 24 hours. If someone wants to implement a separate discretionary sanction, I have no objection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of them

Isn't there a big RFC with heavy participation going on about this right now at WP:VPP? Why is anyone on either "side" changing it in one direction or the other before that RFC is concluded? Is there any reason not to topic ban both Bozzio and Skyerise under the discretionary sanctions? Both are clearly treating this as a battleground, making it less likely that cooler heads will prevail, and both have been warned about the discretionary sanctions. I'm probably going to do this sometime today unless someone can convince me not to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen Skyerise engage productively on the talkpage; they're a consistent voice of reason in discussions. I suspect that banning them will make things less cool and reasoned because it will result in a vast imbalance in the voices. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have participated in the discussion and am thus involved, however my opinion would be that page protection would be better suited than blocking editors. There are just so many people involved that it would likely not stop with 2 blocks. Chillum 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need full protection on Caitlyn Jenner's main page because there are numerous editing disputes there right now. Then, there will only be a need to block people who edit war across multiple pages. Just my two cents. Epic Genius (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the area is under discretionary sanctions, so a 1 revert rule might be a good thing to try. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, Monty845. A 1 revert rule has to be well publicized on the talk page as there has been a lot of reverting this week (including two by me on Monday). I hope we have learned some lessons since the Chelsea Manning case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has had a few run ins with skyrise over the Caitlyn Jenner article recently, I do not think that they have done anything which would warrent sanctions at this point. I appreiciate the subject knowledgeable editors who are willing to watch busy artcles even if they do tend to be passionate about it and make some mistakes probably out of frustration with editors who are still on a learning curve with WP policy as it applies to BLP who profess a pronoun change request. ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)—

We still have 1RR sanctions imposed on the article. This should be made prominent at the article's edit notice. Epic Genius (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't find Skyerise's well-intended but ideology-inspired effort to sweep historical facts under the rug[3] on Wendy Carlos constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

..by listing it in the infobox? Yes, that's certainly sweeping it under the rug. Perhaps you could approach Skyerise with the same good intentions you read into their actions, hmn? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise just plastered a huge "discretionary sanctions" on my talk page concerning my alleged edits to Hebephobia, a page I never edited. These are tantamount to a vague threat, are very ugly, rude, and since I have never, ever edited the page, false. Skyrise then said no, it was my edits to decathlon, where I changed one reference to Jenner to list Bruce, then Caitlin. I did this (with the caption "consistency") in good faith because there were three references on the page, two of which listed Bruce first. Skyrise needs to be more careful when templating the regulars and stop this antagonistic behavior. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, but nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people and that is the basis of their edit. They are not open to discussion and intentionally misinterpret or ignore MOS:IDENTITY. The template is appropriate as how a transgender person is treated in other articles falls under its umbrella. I apologize since it is now clear that your edit was not negatively motivated, but honestly, more editors need to be aware of how we currently are expecting to treat transgender subjects under WP:BLP. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, then tried to get me to self-revert with a veiled threat, and an implication of authority that did not exist, as the information you provided about referring to them by their current identity is still being debated. How could you possibly think that is reasonable behavior? Jacona (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "it is currently being debated" does not invalidate the current guidelines. It's endlessly debated every time a notable transgender individual comes out. Those past debates have not yet resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed. Until it is changed, it's proper to observe it. Skyerise (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"...nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people..." Skyerise, you need to dial it back about five notches. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise, what you were doing on my talk page appears to be an attempt to intimidate. I suspect you wanted someone other than yourself to revert because you have a topic ban or some such. That may also be the reason you posted the false article name. Is that it? Jacona (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the damn template, dude. It's worded the way it's worded by ArbCom, I believe. It also clearly states that it does not imply that you did something wrong. Again, ArbCom wording, not mine. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I was not talking about the exact wording of the templates, but your acccompanying verbage. Your behavior was very aggressive, rude, devious, and misdirected. Jacona (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Merged from seperate section Mdann52 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This ANI report follows on from my earlier report, and concerns Skyerise (talk · contribs), in their interactions both with me and with other editors, and their editing behavior as a whole. As a result of the earlier ANI report, I was banned for edit-warring. I have no quibble with that, but it did deprive me of the chance to carry on the discussion there. Quite a bit of what I'm posting here has already been detailed on my talkpage (the only place I could post, obviously), but not in any structure. To sum up, I think Skyerise's editing behavior has been detrimental to the project, and something needs to be done.

Interactions on my talkpage and requested interaction ban

I believe Skyerise's continued insistence on posting on my talkpage, despite repeated requests not to do so, constitutes harassment. This is detailed below:

1. Skyerise's first post to my talkpage was a level-three (?) warning for adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" – obviously false, and an example of warning template use and a violation of Don't template the regulars.
2. This was followed by a "final warning" for violating the BLP guidelines – see above.
3. I reverted both of these edits, and my edit summary for the second reversion would to most editors be an indication to "back off". I do acknowledge that I lost my temper there (and that foul language should be avoided), but I'm sure other editors can understand that being templated without any attempt at an explanation is extremely frustrating.
4. Skyerise then almost immediately posted two more ([4], [5]) warnings for "user talk page vandalism". The edits in question were of course not vandalism by Wikipedia standards. I do understand many editors have only a faint idea of what actually is vandalism, as opposed to, say, disruptive editing, so I am willing to assume good faith there. The warnings were posted in bad faith, however, again with no attempt to discuss the issue at hand.
5. My next edit summary was again profane (apologies), but I was quite frustrated at that point. Again, a reasonable editor would take that edit summary and the continued reversions as an indication not to continue posting on another editor's talkpage, and to pursue other venues.
6. However, after those edit summaries, Skyerise posted one, two, three, four more times, all of which I reverted. This included one comment gloating over the fact that I had been banned for edit-warring.
7. I issued a further warning to Skyerise to stop posting on my talkpage, and finally a formal note where I stated that I felt harassed and would be requesting an interaction ban.
8. Skyerise's response was that they had chosen to ignore my earlier requests because "edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors", and "I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries". I would take this to mean that Skyerise read my edit summaries, but chose to ignore them and continue harassing me.

For all of the above, I am requesting a formal interaction ban between me and Skyerise, with all the attributes laid out at WP:IBAN.

Editing behavior

1. Ever since Caitlyn Jenner announced her name, Skyerise has been edit-warring constantly. I really can't be bothered going into it, but I think their recent contributions speaks for itself.
2. This behavior is what led to the run-in with me, and various other run-ins with IP editors and especially Drmargi (talk · contribs) (pinging @Drmargi separately, they may wish to chip in).
3. Skyerise is a very aggressive and rude editor, using templates that threaten sanctions or blocks against any editor that disagrees with them (see also use of sarcasm/passive-aggression at [6], [7]). This, combined with their edit-warring, can hardly be called conducive to a collaborative environment.
4. Skyerise has also produced a blatant example of canvassing. Another user, @Trystan:, pointed this out and suggested a re-formulation of the canvassing attempt. Skyerise's response was "I'll speak as I like, write as I like".

Threatening the project

Perhaps the most concerning thing Skyerise has said is this:

1. "I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks" (the last bit is pretty funny, but even funnier to me given that I'm a bisexual man whose username is taken from a 1980s gay icon). Also note the status quo is actually the opposite of Skyerise's position.

I've never interacted with Skyerise before a few days ago, and judging by their userpage they seem like someone who's done a hell of a lot of good for the project (although with four previous blocks). This is what is really peculiar to me, and it's a bit worrying that someone's behavior could change so rapidly. I understand that passions do tend to run very high over LGBT issues, and Skyerise seems to be very passionate. I'm taking a break from editing LGBT topics and cutting back my Wikipedia editing as a whole for a short while, and I personally think it would best if Skyerise did the same, in a way that is hopefully self-enforced rather than imposed by the community. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could be offered, or someone Skyerise has interacted with before could have a word. I'd like to hear from others, and I think I've said everything I want to say, so I'll be butting out. ¡Bozzio! 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Quick, somebody call the wahbulance! Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. I, at least, and I suspect others, would like to see you seriously respond to the complaint here. Please take the time to do so... --IJBall (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, User:Bozzio has either not read MOS:IDENTITY or failed to comprehend it. Due to this, he began to edit-war and I unwisely engaged him. In the process, he exceeded 3RR and got blocked and now holds a grudge. I have not continued to edit war, limiting myself to one revert per day on related articles. That's about it. Not watching this train wreck. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do take a look at the summary of my work on my user page. Feel free to block me or whatever, I don't (usually) get paid to edit here. Of course, be sure to remember: blocks are not punitive but preventative. I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong at the current moment. Discuss me all you want, I've got better things to do. Especially since the OP apparently can't be bothered to stay present in the discussion him or herself. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First, Bozzio, you neglect to mention that you also posted warning messages on Skyerise's talk page. But the number of messages Skyerise posted to your talk page seems like overkill. Skyerise, you talk about a block but Bozzio was asking for an interaction ban...would you have any objections to that? Of course, it would either have to be voluntarily observed or adminstered by an admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed not to post on his talk page once he actually requested somewhere other than in an edit summary. Is that sufficient? Seems like he continues to try to engage me by posting thread such as this, but wants to bow out of the discussion himself. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, blocked users cannot post on user's talkpages other than their own – you know that and you know very well I was blocked at the time. You've already acknowledged that you saw my edit summaries and made the choice to continuing posting. ¡Bozzio! 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REVTALK. And using profanity in your edit summaries while simultaneously expecting another editor to obey them seems like baiting to me. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, everything I've posted to Skyerise's talkpage is basically mandated – edit-warring warning, EWN notification (regrettable edit summary, my bad), then two ANI notifications. Hence I didn't feel the need to mention them. Also just noticed this relevant discussion on Skyerises' talkpage. ¡Bozzio! 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of your templates were mandated. And if you hadn't started an edit war (and made more reverts than me), the template you just mentioned wouldn't have been "necessary" either. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which templates weren't mandated? ¡Bozzio! 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR warning. You had the option not to edit war yourself. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not be mandated like ANI, but it's common courtesy to warn someone before going straight to the admins. ¡Bozzio! 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is mandated if one intends to file a 3RR report, since the report from requires a diff of a 3RR notification. BMK (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we can basically agree upon the past. Going forward, can you two stay away from each other? Think hard about this because it means not checking their editing contributions, not lurking on their talk page, just going about your business with no contact with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I wasn't going to say anything further about this matter, having no wish to be part of Skyerise's drama, much less a further target of her sarcasm and vindictive abuse of process. But after seeing the antics of the last few days, her sarcastic responses to advice from a fair few other editors, and her reduction of editors who don't share her views to crass stereotypes, I feel like I must add one final comment. What's regrettable about this whole affair is that it largely escalated because Skyerise doesn't understand or refuses to recognize one critical, fundamental point of human nature: you can't force another person's respect, whether it be of you, or of what you believe. It has to be earned. Spraying accusations of transphobia like confetti at anyone who disagrees with what she wants, abusing all manner of wikipedia templates and noticeboards, ignoring the advise of other editors, making threats, adopting a "fuck you!" attitude, and especially standing on the mountaintop and shouting, "You'll agree with me because I am right or you'll pay the price!" will get her nowhere. Reasonable, calm and respectful discussion will.

Sadly, all Skyerise has done, via her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and her various tantrums, is to do her cause far, far more harm than good. Calm, reasonable arguments have no effect -- she sees herself as the sole arbiter of truth and what we all must do, and refuses to move from that posture, using it as a justification for confrontational behavior and edit warring. Moreover, she displays a stunning lack of understanding of a range of wiki-policies, a worrying trait in someone who both claims to be the last word on the section of MOS:IDENTITY she wields like a baseball bat, and has edited here for ten years. All the quibbling, nit-picking, and game playing with regard to other editors' behavior won't change the one, problematic common denominator in this sad affair: Skyerise's aggressive editing. How she's eluded another block escapes me. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and personal attacks

This post by Skye [8] is loaded with personal attacks against users they disagree with. It's also a blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS. Calidum T|C 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I mention any names? That's what makes a "personal" attack personal. This is an "if the shoe fits" sort of situation. The only editors who could possibly be offended by it would be those who fit the general description. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that's a big deal. Skyerise! Nice to meet you. You got a ton of edits, and yet you don't seem to realize that responding to every single note is counterproductive. If you'd stop pissing people off you'd be much more likely to avoid a ban/block. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is correct. Longevity on Wikipedia is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm quoting that... Carrite (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) /// Now snipped on my User page as "Liz's Law of Longevity." Carrite (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Like" Jacona (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not blue link it? WP:LAWOFLIZ? Blackmane (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously worried

I may have not exactly been involved this ANI report, but I was following along to see where this would go. I stumbled upon Skyerise's talk page, who made rather worrying (for me, anyways) comments on another user and seems to play a game. After being confronted by AussieLegend about a {{portal}} addition to sections that weren't supposed to be and suggested to add it in External links, the user argued that "Yeah, but I like it better.". Then they went "total bombers". [9]. I would consider this WP:NPA, but that's just me. Then, whilst debuting a wikibreak, they seem to take WP:Content dispute, ANI reports, etc. as a game [10] (which was later edited to [11]). I have no idea what to make of this, but I find it worrisome and rather disturbing. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a frustrated editor who's perhaps nearing the end of her tolerance for Wikipedia and its drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The harassment for being trans and the constant disrespect of women and trans folk on this encyclopedia by editors is enraging, there's a reason I can't bear to argue these issues on the current discussion. People are saying awful things - that have already been hashed out, and are brought up again and again every time someone comes out as trans. I haven't been following this situation at all but there is no doubt in my mind that straight up frustration at people stating that the existing reasonably-good policy needs to be revamped because trans women are "really" men, that our Wiki-compliant system that avoids harm etc. is wrong and that somehow this situation hasn't been revisited with Chas Bono, Laverne Cox, ad nauseum. I can't sufficiently express how stressful it is - and I used to do trans education and outreach in the 1990s. And the moment they find out you are trans, it's off the races with the "you have a COI" crap. So. Yeah. It's a train wreck. Ogress _smash! 20:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I can imagine how frustrating it is, but I don't think it excuses some of the things I'm seeing. There's also a time to step back and take a break, and let others step up for a bit. This kind of aggressive editing and interaction is going to lead to permanent burnout VERY quickly, and WP benefits from having editors like Skyerise here long term. I also wanted to comment on what you said about people claiming trans people have COI... this should not be allowed at all. Period. Nobody would claim COI to try to dismiss women from contributing to topics on women; Canadians on Canadian topics, doctors from articles about medicine, etc. That's just not what COI is. I think it should be clarified somewhere that even implying something like that is, as policy, completely unacceptable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia I was merely supporting NinjaRobotPirate's comment at the time. You'll note I started with "there's a reason I can't stand bear to argue these issues on the current discussion". I wasn't apologising for anyone, merely providing context. Of course the fact that trans people can't handle the conversations because of the horrible discussions leads to not great outcomes. And the result of ongoing harassment has lead to women leaving Wikipedia in great numbers or being banned due to issues like this and GooberGate (I can't say its name or it'll show up and kill me). Ogress _smash! 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Internetwikier

This user is a single-purpose account, whose interest is focused exclusively on one institution – the United Synagogue, a union of orthodox synagogues in Britain. She has edited two other articles at Wikipedia, but those edits were intended specifically to support her particular grudge against the United Synagogue. Originally she tried to add to the article an extensive section relating to a letter by a disgruntled blogger criticizing the synagogue for its pro-Israeli positions. See, for example, this revision. In an RFC suggested by administrator User:Dweller, editors agreed that the material was inappropriate and it was removed.

Internetwikier then added material suggesting that the United Synagogue was the object of criticism for its position. For this, he relied entirely on a three-word quote from the Iranian state radio; he added other references, but none of them mentioned United Synagogue. Every attempt to edit the article or to introduce other material relevant to controversy surrounding the United Synagogue (if there is such controversy) has been reverted by Internetwikier. See this edit as an example.

Internetwikier's posts to the talkpage have been more in the style of outraged tirades than of reasoned discussion of the issues facing the article. It has been pretty much impossible to conduct serious review of the article there.

I would like to suggest that Internetwikier be topic-banned from any articles having to do with British Jewry. If in the course of the next few months, she proves to be a disciplined editor who abides by Wikipedia's policies, she could be reinstated.

Note: I have referred to Internetwikier as a female, but I have no idea as to the gender of the editor. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, this is true. I am also a specialist in the area of international politics and, for what it's worth, Cybernetics. The accusation of 'single-purpose' account is symptomatic of my early contributions to Wikipedia, nothing more.

There is nothing is my current contributions to the United Synagogue website that is against Wikipedia rules. I am more than happy for any user to contribute and indeed alter any text that I submit. However, what is not correct is when editors decide to alter direct quotes from a website to 'clarify' what they mean when my submissions makes patently clear that my contributions are direct quotes.

As I mentioned in my comments when reversing the changes that have been made to 'improve' the direct quote, if the direct quote is not to other editors liking then they need to request an amendment to the original source material or find new sources that better clarify an institutions viewpoint. There is no possible way that a Wikipedia contributor can submit unverifiable qualifiers to direct quotes for which they have no possible way of diving the speakers 'original intentions'.

This is a direct quote and as such must be quoted directly.

This seems simple enough to me.Internetwikier (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been party to the dispute, but for various reasons this article in my watchlist and I have been watching from afar. I would like to back up Ravpapa's complaint.

Internetwikier started editing around the time of the 2014 Israel-Gaza War with a Wikispace rant about the United Synagogue: [12][13]. His or her edits thereafter basically consist of similar negative sentiment toward various British Jewish and Zionist organizations, with a particular emphasis on the United Synagogue, where his or her edit warring resulted in temporary page protection which he or she denounced as "censorship" and other such talk.

Arguments on the talk page seem to consist mainly of long and intemperate soapboxing about Israel and Zionism and paranoid rhetoric about "the Zionist-propaganda machine", Fox News, and "US Neocon world views" (a personal attack on bobrayner [14]).

Since there is basically no constructive edits in his or her entire edit history, I would advocate a block instead on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: This is a direct quote - why alter this a pretend that the quote says anything other than it actually does on the original sources webpage?

If you wish to add new sources, please add them.

Personal attacks are unwarranted as I am quoting DIRECTLY from the organizations' website. If they had an issue with the content then they clearly would not have produced the material and worded it in such a way as to be ambiguous. Internetwikier (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I find Internetwikier's edits problematic. For example,

• 'The United Synagogue was among the groups encouraging its members to lobby MPs. Its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants led on the issue. The Board of Deputies issued a "call to action" on Monday, saying there was a risk of a "significant PR victory for anti-Israel, anti-peace groups".' [15]

seems to have been turned into:

• "...by formally advocating that United Synagogue members put pressure on their local MP to not support the motion to recognize Palestinian as a state and that United Synagogue members instead suggest that their MP add support to Pro-Israeli and Pro-Zionist organizations, such as Israel Advocacy UK, We Believe in Israel and the Jewish Leadership Council." [16]

Suggest the editor focus on something else. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Although professing to be an uninvolved editor NeilN's is clearly not disinterested. While he contributes no sources, quotes or extra material to the conversation he objects to the inclusion of extra material and references provided by others.

Extra references have have come to light ( www.borehamwoodshul.org/aboutus/files/BESNews609.pdf ), produced by those affiliated with the organization, yet you provide no justification for not including it. This needs to be addressed. Internetwikier (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in making sure what sources actually say isn't distorted. And any interpretation of a primary source (i.e., "President of the United Synagogue, Stephen Pack, took a political stance on Palestinian statehood...") needs to be sourced to a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• wouldn't this article as edited by internetwikier fall under WP:ARBPIA? I checked their talk history and there have been no notifications. That might be a way to start. Otherwise I would support a topic ban per WP:NOTHERE. holy cow. SPA indeed and seems to be one note POV pusher making this kind of editorializing edits and this, and on talk, this kind of thing and this. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now notified. [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• We already have a surplus of POV-pushing, source-misuse, and personal attacks. We don't need any more. This should be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to hear from StevenJ81 and Mutt Lunker who have been editing this article and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say much, because I know my own biases, too. I will say this much:

• I offered to set up a sandbox page to try to create a consensus around some reasonable accommodation to Internetwikier's point of view. Whether I like it or not—and I'm not afraid to admit that I don't—I felt the sort of information that Internetwikier wants to put on this page was likely to show up somewhere, eventually, because it was likely to have at least some coverage in some reliable sources. So what I wanted to do was to try to create a space where the critique of United Synagogue might be aired, but in a way that is proportional to its importance within the overall context of the full range of United Synagogue's activities. And everyone seemed to be satisfied with this approach. Nominally, even Internetwikier agreed.
• But I didn't create the sandbox page instantaneously, because of real life. (I warned everyone at the time that I would not be able to get to it right away.) And before I knew it, Internetwikier had started editing the United Synagogue page again. I would have assumed that s/he would have allowed some time for everyone to work on this, but apparently that was not to be the case.
• Additionally, Internetwikier took the perspective that s/he was entitled to write whatever s/he wanted, and that it was entirely up to all the rest of us to make up the articles' balance, if we saw fit. That may be one way to create a NPOV, but it's not much of a way to create consensus.
• Frankly, I walked away, about six weeks ago, because I know my biases. I had really been willing to bend backwards to give Internetwikier some air time. But I just couldn't take it any more. It was clear to me that User:Internetwikier has absolutely no interest in creating an unbiased encyclopedia article. Internetwikier is only interested in her/his perspective, and only wants to edit the article on his/her terms. There is no interest in consensus, and if there is any interest in neutrality, it's technical: the rest of us are invited to "neutralize" her/his edits.

To conclude, my offer to create a sandbox is no longer on the table. Internetwikier is simply not interested in working to create consensus on a neutral article. I can't speak one way or another to the issue of WP:NOTHERE. But I do think that Internetwikier has no business editing this page or related ones. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would be instructive, in light of the opinions of the few editors here (who admit that they have a 'bias' yet who fail to provide primary or supporting secondary sources in support of their own bias), to compare the United Synagogue page NOW with what it was, and what it had been for a very, very long time proceeding my intervention last June 2014.

There is a clear night and day difference between the United Synagogue page of today with that of pre-July 2014 simply because the editors in question here, who object so vehemently to my contributions, comprehensively failed to pay the United Synagogue wiki any attention whatsoever - to the point that a clearly pro-United Synagogue wiki-editor had copied and pasted vast chucks of the the United Synagogue official website and passed this off as 'objective fact' about the institution in question.

Leaving aside my clear disappointment with the lack of interest paid to this page entry before July 2014 it is also apparent that the wiki-editors in question who have chosen to 'undo' my contributions display, and admit to displaying either in person or from their listed areas of interest of their personal pages, a pro- Christian, Jewish Zionist or US perspective. This is necessarily problematic such perspectives imbue the writer with a set of beliefs that they deem to be unquestionably objective fact.

It is for other editors to merit the 'quality of my contributions', and I will indeed be making sure that Twitter users who have a range of political and historic backgrounds are now drawn to this wikipage to add their own (arguable better) edits, but what can be deduced without a shadow of a doubt is that none of the editors here have produced even a scintilla of insightful commentary or a shred if evidence for their objections to my sourced points. There are literally no entries from anyone who has any sources for their opinions, except mine. Why is this?

Also worth noting is the clear bias against any news organization who doesn't conform to the narrow world view of politically right-leaning US foreign policy. The clear hatred for an Iranian news agency is a litmus test for the impartiality and objectiveness of the editors who have objected to its inclusion into the category of 'permitted source'.

It is not, and clearly can not be, my responsibility to provide sources and evidence to the contrary that many people believe that being a religious organization and espousing a direct political opinion on a nation state is PROBLEMATIC. With the separation of Church and State, the 'norm' in 21st Century Europe, such a stance by a religious organization merits explicit mention and inclusion in a wikipage. Again, I repeat, just look at how far this page has come since July 2014. Readers can now , quite rightly, see that The United Synagogue has an overtly political active, Pro-Zionist, Pro-Israeli viewpoint that pervades its every public mention of Israel and Palestine. To hide this fact, despite my 'poor quality entries' is to engage in explicit deceit. Internetwikier (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, thanks for coming to ANI and offering your experience. Internetwikier, I just wish you had a better understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSPIRACY.

As for as politically right-leaning? Usually Wikipedia gets accused of having a liberal bias and I've frequently seen Wikipedia accused of being pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim or Islamaphobic. Wikipedia reflects the editors who contribute to it and the reliable sources they can find to support their arguments and governed by generally accepted policies, guidelines and principles. It's a social and cultural construct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier, Liz has it exactly right with regard to NPOV. Also we try to build content progressively related to references made in what are considered to be WP:RELIABLESOURCES in Wikipedia as considered to be relatively more reliable in general than sources that may have developed less of a reputation for fact checking. Please also make use of reference at CITING SOURCES. On various occasions looking at your citations I found it difficult to see how the citation related to the content that you had added to the text.

Please also consider WP:TALK#USE which states "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.." While WP:Original research does not carry weight in Wikipedia it may be helpful if you can explain how you developed your views.

The most major thing that I considered to be an issue on the TP was the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics adopted by both sides with Dweller, StevenJ81 and Technical 13 providing a potentially balancing approach throughout.

A search on site:www.theus.org.uk/ regarding zion, zionist or zionism developed a large content in regard to a controversial issue which deserves report. I sympathise with Internetwikier's desire to see this covered but don't consider the manner with which this has been pursued to have been appropriate.

Internetwikier please do some soul searching and respond to these issues. GregKaye 06:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye I appreciate you calm, measured comments. I will take on board your suggestions. I would ask that Wiki Editors here help the community to understand why relevant and non political additions to this website are continually removed (I would say censored) but leave that to the individual admin to take a look and see if I'm misspeaking here: I for one am lost for a justification for the continued removal of the Registered Charity No. of this organization and its physical address (Registered Charity No 24255; Executive Offices: 305 Ballards Lane, London N12 8GB; Tel: 020 8343 8989). Please assist the community here. Internetwikier (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier Various editors have commented on edit warring and adding unsourced material. Even the seemingly moderate StevenJ81 has questioned the validity of your contribution to the mentioned pages. I have mentioned battle ground tactics. One route you could take is to say how you view the situation and to give any relevant reassurances regarding any potential change in approach. I appreciate comment so far regarding taking things on board. GregKaye 08:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I see. For the record, let it be noted that those editors who have made comments on edit warring are one and the very same editors who have undone my contribution 3 times in a row, rather than they themselves taking to the talk page to look for consensus or writing on my talk page first. As I am relatively inexperienced to WP and they are not, surely it there is a point to be made that trying to enforce others to adopt best practice, without doing it themselves, is a wholly self-defeating tactic on their part.

Specifically on 'edit-warring' it is no so much a question of me adding un-sourced material as the material I add being deleted buy other editors which appears to be exclusively motivated by a desire to remove sources simply because RT News/Press TV has the audacity to print articles that these editors do not agree with, claiming that the aforementioned organizations are not reliable sources of news. Are we really going to censor any output of RT News and Press TV because they're the United States' boogieman of the day?

Wikipedia 'represents consensus' and as such hotly political issues represent a challenge to Wikipedia as sometimes there is no consensus, rightly or wrongly, to be found (Wikipedia apes real life in that respect). However I am not attempting to force anyone to agree with what I believe in nor am I removing any other contributors material - I encourage other too add material to 'balance' by assertions. If it matters to anyone out there, and you appear to suggest that it does matter, then MY personal opinion is that if a religious organization blurs the distinction between religious body offering spiritual guidance to the flock and political lobbyist designed to promoting a racist, inaccurate version of a historical narrative that is 1) deeply divisive and offensive, 2) controversial 3) not independently referenced and, for me the most worrying, 4) behaves in flagrant violation of the rules of a UK registered charity which, according to the UK Charities Commission states that:

Charities can campaign to achieve their purposes. But a charity can’t A) have a political purpose, or B) undertake ::::::::::political activity that is not relevant to the charity’s charitable purposes

then, yes, I do believe that this irresponsible and deeply partisan behavior should be documented publicly on Wikipedia. I would hope that you all too would share these modest goals and hope you can suggest ways of helping me to achieve this in fair and 'balanced way'. (Edit unsigned by Internetwikier, 07:03, June 7, 2015‎)

@Liz: Since you invited me here, I'd like to make sure you see one more comment I will make here. Then I'm going to un-follow this page, because as happened when I was previously working on Talk:United Synagogue six weeks ago, I no longer feel I can participate constructively; it is upsetting me too much.

Internetwikier is repeating a pattern here. Initially, s/he is happy to "take on board your suggestions" about handling things in a measured, balanced way. S/he is a good writer, and knows how to say the right things to suggest s/he will stay within the rules. But soon enough an agenda clearly emerges:

• "MY personal opinion is that if a religious organization blurs the distinction between religious body offering spiritual guidance to the flock and political lobbyist designed to promoting a racist, inaccurate version of a historical narrative ..." (emphasis added). I'm a big believer in WP:AGF—including, early on, assuming so with Internetwikier. But that is such a strong bias that I do not really see how Internetwikier can possibly contribute constructively to this page.
• "A charity can't ... B) undertake political activity that is not relevant to the charity's charitable purposes." I think the United Synagogue itself would argue that what it is doing is entirely relevant to the charity's charitable purposes. But unless Internetwikier can find a reliable source that says that US is undertaking political activity not relevant to the charity's charitable purposes, then Internetwikier's proposition on the subject is WP:OR, and has no business here. And if Internetwikier has such a source, quote it, and let it speak for itself.
• "... I do believe that this irresponsible and deeply partisan behavior should be documented publicly on Wikipedia." Again, this is an incredibly biased and partisan point of view in and of itself. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There are many, many places that Internetwikier can go to express an opinion, try to document and report partisan behavior (sic), and so forth. But that's not the proper purpose of Wikipedia, until and unless the facts are firmly established and of encyclopedic reliability.

If anyone is asking me, the article as it now exists covers the topic appropriately. It devotes a small, but non-trivial, amount of space to the subject of United Synagogue's support of Israel and Zionism. This is reasonable in view of the fact that Israel advocacy is just one piece of what the United Synagogue does—again, not a trivial piece, but not the majority of what it does. Then about 60% of that small section speaks about what US does, and about 40% is devoted to critique of what it does. Again, I think that shows pretty reasonable balance.

I just started writing "I'm not sure why Internetwikier needs to add more along these lines to the article," but actually, I do know why: Internetwikier has an agenda, and wants to expose what s/he sees as racist, irresponsible, partisan behavior. So I welcome Internetwikier to do so—in a journalistic setting, not in an encyclopedia.

I'll add one last thing: If Internetwikier is really so concerned about improper behavior under UK charities laws, s/he can write to criticize charities that encourage members to support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Somehow, I don't think we're really going to see that very soon. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
So, on June 5, Internetwikier was given notice of discretionary sanctions. The very next day, internetwikier invoked Godwin's law on the United Synagogue talk page. That is about enough, right? Propose topic ban from Judaism and Zionism, broadly defined. If an admin wants to do that via DS, more power to them. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (struck due to sound of wind whistling through empty streets Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

@Liz: @GregKaye: @Jytdog: @StevenJ81:

1) You don't have to do any searching all to find the following articles linked from Google when entering 'british zionist organisations charitable status'. These fist page links alone are enough to demonstrate the controversial and glaringly obvious 'hidden' agendas these 'charities' hold by promoting political and racial viewpoints that are contrary to the terms of the charities commission. You've even got an example of an organization stripped of its status for pro-Israeli Arab-bashing!

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/asa-winstanley-uk-charity-with-mossad-links-secretly-denounc.html http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/charity-commission-attacks-gaza-convoy.html http://www.stopthejnf.org/israel-charity-registration-shows-charity-commission-failed-to-protect-public-interest/ http://www.bradfordpsc.org.uk/?p=64 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3541746.stm

2) FWIW we have already written to the charities commission so your suggestion StevenJ81 was a good one, but 9 months too late.

3 )As for Liz's '60% this, 40% that nonsense' how do you propose passing that off as encyclopedic quality editing? You can only add a little more information about a particular facet of an organization, up to a certain percentage, so that it 'represents the % of what the organization does in the real world!?' How on earth would you go about calculating that? And how would you know? And why would we trust your 40% guesstimate anyway?

No. Instead, how about the rest of Wikipedia contribute content based on where their area of expertise lies and if you don't have anything to add to the page, you know, to get the %'s up or down as you see fit, you just accept that fact and move on?

The controversial truth is that the US.org.uk have themselves decided that their raison d'etre be all about Israeli self-promotion and political Zionism that underpins it. I didn't decide this, nor, as you can tell, do I think it's particularly helpful and constructive in promoting religious tolerance (notice I didn't say race here as 'Jewishness' is not a ethnic category, ethnos being another unhelpful divisive artificial categorization notoriously co-opted and misused for political gain, but I digress). If Zionism and pro-Israeli propaganda permeates 100% of everything they do does that then mean, according to Liz's equation, that the page should be 100% about Zionism and Israel? Or is it only about website coverage? Or working hours spent on pro-Israeli issues? I'm sure you can see from my highlighted suggestions that this is problematic and not useful. You basically need to add more content yourselves if you want to 'dilute' our efforts to highlight Zionism within the United Synagogue. Internetwikier (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier to whom are you referring when you write "we" and "our"? (e.g. "FWIW we have already written to the charities" and "And why would we trust your 40% guesstimate anyway?" Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the percentages were my writing, not those of @Liz. And clearly, I'm not looking to measure this like we measure flour in a cup measure. My suggestion was more along the lines of "Israel advocacy/Zionism is only a portion of the activity of United Synagogue, so it should only be a portion of the article" and "that portion of the article is more or less evenly divided between description and critique." There's no "equation involved." Cut it out. What I am suggesting is that you are giving undue weight to a portion of the United Synagogue's activities. That's it. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: "Israel advocacy/Zionism is only a portion of the activity of United Synagogue, so it should only be a portion of the article" is an opinion based on what source exactly? Have you been to their website, read their material, watched their youtube output?

I asked you in all honestly because I can assure you that you won't go for one page of content or 30 seconds of video footage before reference is made to Israel. Does that sound like it's 'only a portion of their activity' if reference to Israel is found in almost every article they write / speak about? Be honest. Internetwikier (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested sanction: Topic Ban

1. (Language originally that of @Jytdog, but I concur.) On June 5, Internetwikier was given notice of discretionary sanctions. The very next day, Internetwikier invoked Godwin's law on the United Synagogue talk page. That is about enough, right?
2. (own language) In the section above, I have made a clear case that Interwikier's point of view is so biased that this user cannot contribute in a productive, balanced way on this page, or on any related page.

Therefore, I propose: Topic ban from Judaism and Zionism, broadly defined. I believe this remedy is available via DS, but I will be happy to start any mechanism available to make this happen. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I'd support that. Internetwikier seems unable to edit collegiately or without bias. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regretfully my a*se! How about you add some balancing material yourself if it is so important that this page appears balanced - although I'm sure Godwin would also like the page on Hitler to paint a balanced picture too, eh?

That modern day Israel has enlisted an army of PR representatives in the British Jewish establishment has been documented fully. Balanced material would say that you add reasons why this is not 'bad', per se, not that you just deleted the material that said that this is so. Internetwikier (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you quite understand the actual meaning of Godwin's Law. Perhaps read that first, and then understand how your editing correlates. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Ok, please someone block this user, before they get out of hand with their ranting.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• support use of DS or community topic ban, whichever comes first. User is using up all the WP:ROPE they've been given here, which has been very generous. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - if my block proposal is not adopted. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I see no reason for a broad topic ban. This is the only article where Internetwikier has shown his pugnacious editing style. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support time limited ban with the hopeful intent so as to "guide" Internetwikier to also adopt the editing of other topic issues. After reading through the page I think that, while "pugnacious" seems to me to be a bit strong, it none-the-less tackles a central issue with this editor. Please can editors give recommendations to IW of relevant guidance to consider. GregKaye 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative sanction: Indef block

WP:NOTHERE.   AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference one way or the other between this and my proposed sanction. I would certainly support this approach if the community and/or administrators think it preferable. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I would still like this to get the attention of an administrator. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Currently not justified. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

173.182.136.41 on Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

Hi,

173.182.136.41 have repeatedly introduced factual error on Fifty Shades of Grey (film) ([19][20]). When I reverted his vandalism of the page, he reverted my revert and posted the comment "Your lying chinese editors have no brains just like your lying british editors they own.". I believe this constituted unacceptable personal attack and request that administrators consider banning the user for vandalism and improper behaviour.

Thanks, — Andrew Y _talk 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Links: 173.182.136.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not this person again. The IP has been doing this change since early February with two other separate IP address: 184.162.146.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 207.134.235.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They began changing American movies and whatnot into British things sine January [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] on other articles. However, they have merged to a Fifty Shades of Grey related article, such as Dakota Johnson [26] [27]. They took a break and returned adding factual errors on the film's article [28] [29] [30] [31] (using 207.134.235.81). They moved IPs and started vandalizing and edit-warring again using 184.162.146.227: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. They returned in April after those edits and resumed vandalizing once more: [37] [38] [39]. They were consequently and finally blocked on April 8 by Materialscientist. And now they've returned with bogus editing again. After using an IP locator, I discovered the three IPs are from Canada: two from Montreal and one from Toronto. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Completely unacceptable grammar, more like... Carrite (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like a job for an edit filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I agree that an edit filter might be the way to deal with this. I'm not going to block at this stage as it seems the person in question IP hops fairly frequently, so a block won't achieve much and would run the risk of collaterally blocking someone else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC).

• Semi protect the article for a time? Blackmane (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't already, given how often the main page was/is vandalized. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• This looks to be the fourth time it'll be protected. Prior protections have been for months at a time and vandalism has recommenced once it was up, so I'm giving this a year this time around. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• • If this continues at other articles than those being protected drop me a message, an edit filter shouldn't be difficult to set up for this user. Sam Walton (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:YESPOV on Somali pages

In the aftermath of the departure of User:Middayexpress, I've been working to restore a more NPOV (precisely, WP:YESPOV) view of issues on several Somali pages. WP:YESPOV states that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." This means that material that happens to disagree with anothers' point of view should not be removed, because it decreases the completeness of coverage.

The Puntland Maritime Police Force article particularly caught my eyes, as I hope to encourage another user driven away by Middayexpress's POV-pushing to return to editing this and other articles. I reintroduced content based upon United Nations Group of Experts' reports to the PMPF article, and became entangled in reverts with User:26oo. He repeatedly removed these reports on the basis that their content was in some way prejudicial or biased. I advised him that edit warring was not the fashion that this encyclopedia handles these cases, and he told me that he was not concerned with the welfare of this encyclopedia [40]. This raises the question of whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I told him that the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard was the proper manner of disputing whether sources were unreliable, and he he just continued to try and tell me that the UN Group of Experts' material was undue [41]. Thus in addition to ignoring YESPOV he is distorting the meaning of UNDUE. He has also changed User:Cordless Larry's signature to another user's signature ([42]), though this may have been some sort of mistake.

The community has recognised that Somali articles have been suffering from POVpushing for some time, with its topic banning of User:Middayexpress. Unless we thoroughly implement WP:YESPOV on these pages we will be continuing to allow violations of WP:NPOV. I would request that User:26oo be warned about the importance of adhering to NPOV, and if s/he is not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia, that s/he be counselled that continued editing here is probably unwise. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06 is either lying or misconstruing much of what transpired. It's all in the page's history. I reverted large blanking of sections which Buckshot06 said was twisted.1 I asked them to go to the talk page to discuss the trimming down of the sections because it was wholesale removals that were well referenced and balanced. The user responded with what he referred to hostile 'blunt' talk in my talk page saying that "things have changed around here". At this moment I do not understand what he is referring to. After I reverted the blanking, the user removes unbalanced/redundant material in a more amiable approach. I proceed to do the same. During this time, we came to an understanding regarding another page called Corruption in Somalia (refer to my talk page).

Afterwards the user introduces WP:UNDUE material in the introduction which they didn't do previously. This summary is not balanced as per the material in the article. So I removed it until the user either balanced it or we come to a consensus. (talk page Refer to talk page) The material he introduced was clearly in a bad faith given the strategic locations on the article and previous history of removal. The user has no previous edits on the article so reffered them to a third opinion already given in which the same situation is being tackled. It is then that Cordless Larry makes me aware of the fact that user Middayexpress who was a very active member of WikiProject Somalia has been given a topic ban which is why the blunt quote about things changing around here made sense. The material in question however has absolutely nothing to do with that user and was not introduced by that user. Cordless Larry also suggests that the material can be balanced rather than removed altogether which was what was happening however the user is intent on bulldozing his UNDUE material.

The user is using Middayexpress' retirement as an excuse to introduce new material without balancing it. The allegations about Cordless Larry's signature is also untrue. I merely copied and pasted another user's article because I didn't want to type it out and one of the pastes is next to his signature which was by mistake, not replacing it. It was meant to go in my paragraph not both places and I didn't notice it. If you check the talk page's history/time I remove things by accident when I refresh too so it's clumsy not malicious. I also apologized for that, in any case. It's a complete non-issue.

In regards to me not caring about the encyclopedia, I said this; Past run-ins you've had with [other] users do not concern me nor the well being of the encyclopedia.1 So that's also false. 26oo (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This summary clearly demonstrates that User:26oo doesn't understand what YESPOV means, as he continues to say that that YESPOV material is 'undue'. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A summary in the introduction is supposed to be balanced as per the material in the article. How can you just take one side of the coin and put it in the introduction, it makes no sense. United Nations questions/alleges/asserts... needs to be due. It's not even a major part of the article yet you insert it in the introduction as if it summarizes a large article like that. Can't you see that your material is clearly in bad faith? There is not even a section regarding legality. You mention Middayexpress, a faulty signature and YESPOV as if I'm the one pushing the undue material. 26oo (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you have replaced my signature again, and this time also deleted an important part of one of my other comments explaining why I objected to your removal of sourced material. Can you please stop doing this? You didn't paste another username next to mine, you replaced it both times. I'm trying to help facilitate consensus on the article talk page, but that's not easy when I keep finding my comments attributed to other users or deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's another lie. It was fixed 3 minutes later edit fix. Buckshot06 made a comment before me [edit conflict] before the page updated so Wikipedia removed it when I submitted, hence why it's fixed 3 minutes later. There's no need to divert attention from the subject, admins can check the history page. It's an edit conflict, not my fault. Your involvement has been reverting back to newly introduced UNDUE material. Your only productive input was suggesting balancing the paragraph. (Refer to talk page). This is a classic case of Wikihounding. 26oo (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of lying, 26oo. That edit didn't fix your deletion of part of one of my comments or your edit to my signature - see the diff. It wasn't fixed until I did so this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With reference to your comments above 26oo, it's a little irrelevant for this discussion where I started to introduce new text. You'll see that I've done so in the body of the PMPF article in my most recent changes. Please concentrate, for this discussion, on why you believe it is appropriate to continually try and remove one, referenced, point-of-view, which only happens to be from a worldwide IGO with specific responsibilities for international peace and security - a WP:THIRDPARTY. (To address your specific order-of-editing concern, the reason why I was readding material in small chunks was the fact that battleground editors in other Somalia articles had consistently removed large edits I made. The specific place in the article had very little to do with it). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, there's one from 6th and one from the 9th. I'm not intentionally replacing them, it's the edit conflicts as I copy and paste names, that's why I tried to fix them. My apologies. I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to bring it up as it's malicious. I think it's an attempt to move the goalpost. It would be a very strange way for me to try and undermine a person. 26oo (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only raised it here when you did it for a second time. I wasn't interested in raising it in this discussion the first time, but when it happened again it started to seem that you were doing it deliberately. If it was an accident both times, then fine, but please be more careful in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Cordless Larry. I will be more careful and preview before I submit. 26oo (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. WP:BALASPS

• The strategic input of UNDUE material in the introduction, as well as using WP:Weasel such as "ostensibly" is not correct and should be balanced. That's the whole issue here. If it does not accurately sum up the contents of the article, then it has no place in the summary. Also, as pointed out in the talk page, the credibility of the UN Monitoring group has a third party has been questioned given the recent resignation of one of its members for unrelated advocacy. I suggest that we should balance the paragraph and summarize the contents of the article. 26oo (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Buckshot06 has been canvassing with HOA Monitor and has admitted to have limited knowledge on the subject matter.1 The editor goes on to say that they will follow the lead of HOA Monitor. On the subject, a third opinion was given on HOA Monitor's biased edits but Buckshot06 is now using him to push the UNDUE POV. He is adding WP:WEASEL as well as out of date references from 2012 which is before the deployment of the PMPF.

• I'll follow your lead initially, because my knowledge of the PMPF is currently once-over-lightly; basically I get the impression that it was a private force of the President, or some such. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

He is continuously adding UNDUE material, using WP:WEASEL as well as out of date references. 26oo (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's canvassing, 26oo. Canvassing involves notifying someone of a discussion in the knowledge that they will provide support. Discussing how an article can be improved on a user talk page isn't the same thing. This is essentially a content dispute as far as I can tell, so should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what's being done. HOA Monitor has a history of trying to push UNDUE material and a third opinion was given, check above. I'm not sure why you'll deny this, "You have two editors saying here that it is valid" refer to the talk page. He says that two users agree and thus must be pushed after the canvassing. HOA Monitor did not even mention the introduction (which is the whole reason we are having this discussion), his concerns are regarding Somalia Report which accurately should be removed and I've done and stated so. Please refer to the talk page before you make any conclusions. 26oo (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Buckshot's posts on HOA Monitor's user talk page precede the current discussion on the article talk page, so I don't see how they are canvassing. I suggest you continue to discuss the content dispute there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And all I am saying is that, Buckshot06 sought the influence of a user that has a negative track record on an article Buckshot06 never edited, before inserting UNDUE material. That said, yes it's being tackled on the talk page. 26oo (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To address 26oo's immediate concern, yes, User:HOA Monitor and I are considering editing and changing a number of Somali-related article, and chose to discuss potential actions before we started them. Such things occur every day all over the site, and are entirely uncontroversial.

What's more important is that User:26oo continues to demonstrate here a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV: it simply doesn't matter if the material is 'negative' or 'positive', what matters is that it is based on WP:Reliable Sources, and is presented based on how important any piece of data is to the general picture, depending on who is trying to put it across. He has three editors, HOA Monitor, Cordless Larry, and myself telling him on the PMPF talkpage that the Group of Experts material is germaine, a Reliable Source, and WP:THIRDPARTY, yet he continues to argue, here and elsewhere, that because it is 'negative' that it somehow has less weight. I would ask him whether he can draw our attention to any WP rule about 'negative' material, because we continue to draw his attention to THIRDPARTY and YESPOV with very little apparent result. This makes me wonder, given his earlier insertion of untruths in 2009 [43] re Galkacyo, his block for edit warring in 2013, and his earlier admitting 'that [neither other issues] nor the well-being of the encyclopedia concerned' him [44] whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I have over and over and over again tried to convey to him that 'negative' does not make WP:UNDUE, but he simply does not seem to comprehend this, nor what WP:YESPOV actually entails. I remain increasingly concerned about this user's motives for editing this site. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with negative or positive. It has to do with creating a balanced introduction. There's no need to bring up an edit from 2011 which has nothing to do with the subject matter. You've already tried to smear me in your first post on the ANI when you were insinuating I was vandalizing Cordless Larry's signature, an error which he understood.

You've understood that the item is unbalanced in the introduction so you moved it to the overview, which is great. However now you are using WP:WEASEL, to push an out-of date reference in the introduction, before the deployments. Also Cordless Larry is right, we should stay on the talk page from now on, I'm not sure this is the forum for that.26oo (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo I take exception to your assertion that "HOA Monitor has a history of trying to push UNDUE" material and challenge you to substantiate that. My previous attempts to edit Somali pages were repeatedly blocked or reverted by Midday Express, who has subsequently been topic banned. In what way does that constitute WP:UNDUE? On the contrary, I find the page places undue weight on Puntland government statements and -- until I pointed it out -- a paid propaganda outlet named Somalia Report. Introducing credible third party sources is intended to redress this imbalance. I find your attempts to exclude content that you object to, including UN reports, very similar to that of Midday and am beginning to share Buckshot06 questions about your motives for editing this site.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for soapboxing, I'm the one who removed Somalia report, so I don't know what you are on about. Take the discussion back to the talk page. 26oo (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have little interest in WP:NPOV and as you do not seems to understand what UNDUE actually means, you have repeatedly pushed allegations of 'bad faith' which bear no resemblance to WP:AGF's actual wording, the correct place is very much here, 26oo. Your repeated attempts to remove solid THIRDPARTY sources in favour of involved govt sources like Puntland and paid-propaganda Somalia Report, makes me wonder. User:HOA Monitor, User:Cordless Larry, and I would all like to assume good faith in your contributions, but we are beginning to find this quite difficult. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole reason there's a content dispute is because you are deliberately adding UNDUE material, there's no need for projection. You are also tampering and inserting opinions into referenced text on other pages too i.e Somalia. I'm the one who removed the solicited Somalia Report text and I moved the section about UN bodies to support. So you are incorrect about me removing things. Cordless Larry has an evident bias throughout the talk page and inserts his opinions without reading the talk page. He assumes things I am not doing multiple times throughout the talk page. He also incorrectly assumed I was removing things from the page when I wanted a balanced introduction per content, he also backed off of that agreeing the removal of the 'overview' section. Content was moved to establishment and support.
User:HOA Monitor is claiming I am removing the NYT article, which I actually expanded, contrary to his claims on the talk page. 26oo (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you're presenting my comments out of context. When I said "I'm contesting your assertion that material from 2012 doesn't belong in the article", I wasn't assuming that you were removing things, as you put it. I was just responding to your suggestion that "As such, it has no place in the article, let alone in the introduction". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the millionth time, negative does not equal UNDUE. UNDUE states that 'Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.' You are continually trying to introduce non-THIRDPARTY material, which has less weight than the United Nations reports, as shown by their THIRDPARTY status, intergovernmental status, and consensus of support on the talkpage. What you're consistently trying to argue is that the minority view has equal status, which, given that they are Puntland Govt etc, does not accord with THIRDPARTY. This is simply not WP:UNDUE. Because of banned users like Middayexpress, a lot of Somalia-related pages are completely dominated by unsupportable minority views. These do not reflect THIRDPARTY, NPOV sources. UNDUE is not an argument you can use. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry. I said it has no place in the article if unbalanced. I simply wanted to point out that the report is before the force was deployed, as acknowledged by the very source Buckshot06 provides.

Buckshot06, your edits are in clear bad faith as you say in this summary that cameras weren't looking. Not sure what to make of it other than clear bad faith. I'm not saying two sides have an equal standing, that's ridiculous but you tamper with your own sources as shown in the link above. 26oo (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say 26oo that you do not appear to understand what WP:Assume Good Faith means. I am trying to improve the encyclopedia by introducing more reliable, WP:THIRDPARTY sources (such as those that report the force is for internal security, and they have not reported the internal security operations they've been on). You are denigrating THIRDPARTY sources in favour of WP:QS sources who have Conflicts of interest. Thus I would instead argue that you are not showing good faith in trying to improve the encyclopedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who has no good faith and tampering with your own sources i.e 1. You also removed content calling it WP:CIRCULAR when I've shown the original source on the talk page (edit). On the ANI, you pretend to act in good faith but on the talk page and page's history there's tons of bad faith. 26oo (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I won't dignify the nonsensical charge of 'tampering with my own source' with an answer. Would you kindly, again, define what you mean by 'bad faith'? We're introducing THIRDPARTY sources, while you're defending WP:QS conflict-of-interest sources. Who's trying to advance a more reliably-sourced encyclopedia here? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are tampering with it, look at the link above. THIRD PARTY is ok but per source. You insert your opinions into referenced text which are not in the source. Here is your opinions in the edit and summary from PMPF article. Now you are removing things because you don't like them even after I proved it was not WP:CIRCULAR, as Cordless Larry even recognized. It's all in the edit history, no need for projection. 26oo (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break

As noted on my talk page, it would be helpful if the editors who are raising concerns regarding 26oo's conduct could provide diffs to demonstrate each of these concerns. The comments here from several editors in good standing are certainly serious, but this matter appears to require some specialist knowledge to be able to assess the issues around the references being used and removed, and diffs would greatly help in stepping admins and uninvolved editors through the concerns. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based harassment by EconomicsEconomics

• EconomicsEconomics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Greek government-debt crisis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

EconomicsEconomics has been making continuous ethnicity-based attacks since 1 June 2015 on Greek editors at Talk:Greek government-debt crisis constantly accusing them of WP:COI based on their Greek-sounding usernames and other identifiers of their Greek origin. I have given this user multiple warnings about harassing other editors including a final level 4 harassment warning on their talkpage yesterday but to no avail. Today, after I accepted Danish Expert's compromise wording he again came to the talkpage today to accuse me of COI:

(Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT)

Another attack here from 8 June

Please kindly accept that "username and motivations" are not irrelevant to WP:CONFLICT, even the opposite.

COI attacks against Greek editors from 1 June 2015

May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia).

There are many more ethnicity-based attacks but I have added just a sample that I hope is representative enough and shows a persistence through time as well as unresponsiveness to warnings or discussion. Can an admin please put a stop to this ethnicity-based harassment? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not harassing as User Dr.K. knows better but he omitted the following statements (all on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis") (I am technically not so versed in showing diffs, the bold typefaces are only put in when citing). There are many editors having problems with Thanatos666 and Dr.K., as they show clear behavior of WP:CONFLICT and try to "own" the article "Greek government debt crisis".

Citation 1:

"@Dr.K. , you know it better:

(so why the show if you hate long discussions?)

I am not "targeting Greek editors" but I proposed (after very frustrating and blocking discussions with Greek editors) to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT (Thanatos666 himself said that his agenda is to have "Greek interests" represented and that "Greek interests etc.[need to have] a prominence") that they should refrain from blocking the article improvement. You strongly supported Thanatos666 in blocking everything. What are you trying to convince me? That I'am blind?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)"

Citation 2:

"Dr.K. now picked the only option that is blatant WP:SYNTH ( "Due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption - as part of meeting one of the conditional terms in its bailout program, the corruption level improved to a score of 43/100 in 2014" ) - this is totally made up - and anyway not very believable if one has read the press the last years. Also again a very astonishing double standard of Dr.K. who has tried with his other edits on this talk page to make everybody believe he would fight WP:SYNTH (even if there was no WP:SYNTH.). (Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT )--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and it is even intentional deceit by Mr.K. as the title of the Dec 2014 source is the opposite: Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece, detailing: "In fact, if anything, people are now so squeezed they have fewer inhibitions about taking bribes than before the crisis.", and: "Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders" - I don't trust in no word anymore from Mr.K., if I ever had.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)"

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to show the language of Thanatos666 works in concert with Dr.K: (also on the same talkpage)

Citation 3:

"You are exactly confirming what I said: With a mainstream understanding how economies work it is easy to understand that BOTH happened - Greece got a debt cut worth 100 bn, bailout loans >200 bn, various other supports AND there was a firewalling and support of the international financial and banking system, too (no conspiracy thoughts needed, just common sense). With common sense it is also easy to understand that a 10 mil population with >300 bn debt and a high debt/GDP ratio and >10% annual deficit has to execute a lot of hard changes to arrive again at a sustainable state.

To comment the measures in the debt crisis with a phrase like "the interests of the Greek people were arguably sacrificed" seems to be as POV as to reducing it to a sentence like "the interests of the Eurozone tax payers have been sacrificed because Greece circumvented the Euro treaties and now wants the other people to pay for it". But even if you prefer one-sided sources like Paul Blustein to comment or "better understand" the debt crisis, it does not change the way Wikipedia should describe the crisis in a summary, i.e. the main causes, main measures, and main evolvement points. So, why still block a transparent summary of the debt crisis? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)"

You fucking racist idiot, the very fact that it was only ~100bn and that had been for so long delayed and that such a huge new loan(s) was given under such conditions is the very point of it being extremely negative for the interests of Greek people, tipping the scale greatly for the interests of the creditors, even that is, if one limits oneself to a framework of a supposedly, a so called mutually agreed upon, amicable agreement and exclude a Grexit etc (...)

--Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All I see right now is a bunch of people wielding spears and wearing tusk-proof armor, on both sides of the debate. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not link to humour pages. This is ethnicity-based harassment and it definitely is not funny at all. How would you have liked someone to use your ethnicity to accuse you of COI in editing an article, assuming you were transparent enough to divulge such details about your background? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no humor tag on No Angry Mastodons, and my point still remains. You need to calm down, there is no evidence of blatant harassment because of your ethnicity, I know what ethnicity based harassment is like (as I have dealt with it), and I don't see it here.

Don't tell me to calm down, per WP:CALMDOWN. It is a form of trying to portray an editor as out of control. Please don't do that. If you don't recognise the harassment that's your problem. Not mine. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying calm down as per WP:AGF. Its clear you are worked up about this, and I don't recognize the harassment because I don't see any evidence of harassment, all I see is incivility all around. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hasty assumptions are a sign of being worked up. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked EconomicsEconomics 24 hours for the personal attack above.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Unblocked after seeing that he proxied Thanatos666's comment from talk page. I would like to hear from Thanatos666 regarding the personal attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This diff has the attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • Hi Berean Hunter. I am not trying to justify Thanatos's intemperate remark, but if you check the date it is from 2 June 2015. One day after he was provoked by EconomicsEconomics's statement:

      May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia).

      Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just applying the "find"-function on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis" for the three five words

• f...ing
• f.ck
• shit
• idiot
• liar

will always lead to the user Thanatos. But I don't think he is addressable as being very emotional with this article. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC) --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Thanatos's behaviour justify your ethnicity-based harassment of the other Greek editors? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of that? I don't see any harassment coming from EconomicsEconomics. Just basic uncivilty, but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So you dismiss the three quotes I provided at the top of this section? It is your right and your problem of course. I can't be any clearer about the harassment which I think is clear enough. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The three quotes there are simply accusations of COI, I don't see how that means he is harassing anyone because of ethnicity. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Can you specify why I am wrong and what did I put Economics through? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What you did wrong is quickly assume EconomicsEconomics is attacking you because of your ethnicity, and when I said "but seeing what he has been through," I was referring to the "fucking racist" comments he was pummeled with. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And you think the three quotes I gave are not ethnicity based attacks. I think we are going in circles. And do you think that Thanatos's remark gives him the right to say that other Greek editors have a COI? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When did I say that? He has the right, as a wikipedian to suggest that someone might have a conflict of interest based on their edits, not their ethnicity, nowhere in those quotes does he mentioned the ethnicity of an individual or group of wikipedians, so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. I repeat myself: I you do not see evidence of ethnicity-based attacks and harassment after I gave you the three quotes in my opening post, it is your problem, not mine. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The last weeks you didn't have such a problem teaming up with Thanatos666 who is constantly hard core humiliating with those 5 words (see above) until today. You never protested the slightest, even defending him here. Isn't this again a bit of double standard from your side?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Greek interests" alleged quotation of me: It's a ridiculous example of quoting and misquoting out of context. It's an audacious lie! I've just written a reply to EconomicsEconomics (henceforth E.E.) on this, noting inter alia that he/she has now gone far beyond redemption; instead of me writing another rebuttal anew or copying the former hereto, anyone interested can or should go to the talk page and search for "OK, I had taken a break - something I'm thinking of repeating because".
• Regarding the language I've used: Yes I have expressed myself in "french". And to be frank I would do it again. E.E. has used among other things racist slurs, stereotypes and false and ridiculous personal and ethnic-based accusations (the irony is that he/she among other things has yet(?) to realise that accusing other editors, a whole ethnic/national group of them, for bias after having used him/herself racial slurs, stereotypes against a nation and an ethnic/national group of editors is to say the least a ridiculous and presumptuous contradiction) after I (and Dr.K.) had in fact warned him repeatedly. Dr.K. has remained civil, polite. I haven't, I didn't, having had warned E.E. that I wouldn't (search for "I'm briefly replying to you and I'm remaining reasonably polite only because third parties may read this and I don't want people to think that I/"we" can't respond; next time I assure you, I won't be so polite..."). I had also stated at a relevant point in time that if any admin thinks I must be punished for the language I've used, then OK, fine, but that there must be also other steps taken; search at the talk page for "Preemptively to any wikipedia admin(s) who might read this:".
• E.E., among other things, keeps using fallacious arguments (e.g. moving the goalpost, search e.g. for "1. (myth) – why should it be “impossible” for Greece to collect due taxes and execute privatizations?" taking into account what he/she was replying to and also the eventual response on this specific issue by me; see below, the next phrase I've provided to be searched for), misrepresentations of what other people have said, creative interpretations of WP policies, blatant lies etc; search e.g. for "I shouldn't reply to you - yet again -".
  I personally have long lost any hope that he/she can discuss or act in good faith, even if the racist slurs were to be disregarded.
• PS There has been a long discussion or "discussion" over the last days at the article's talk page that has evolved into various sub-discussions with various people joining in at times and clustering together and against others (to be frank, some of them, imo have joined in to simply push for e.g. an ideology... ;-)); it started with me discussing with Danish Expert. I recommmend, as I always do, to whomever is interested and before any decision is to be made, to go through the whole of it/them carefully because among other things context is crucial. Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Give me some diffs of EconomicsEconomics being racist and using slurs. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

PS You could have gone through the whole thing (and therefore could have found it by yourself), as I have asked; alas...

Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I did that, and that quote above doesn't show any slurs or discrimination against those of Greek background. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not, can you please explain how that quote is blatantly anti-greek? Because I think you might be misinterpreting what he said. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• WTF!?!? No I can't, I refuse to! This is absurd! If for example you really don't understand the meaning and the gravity of the aforementioned phrases then you have no place here judging E.E. or anyone else for that matter...
• To third parties: Do I really have to explain this?!?!? Is this also the opinion of (most) other editors? If so, I simply give up, it would be utterly meaningless to continue... Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So tell me oh ye wikipedians, would it have been considered my fault had I again expressed myself in "french" towards E.E.?!? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in. As you all know, I have debated quiet a lot recently with all three editors, and been reading through most of the posts at the talkpage debate now being patrolled for potential "ethnicity-based harassment" problems. I agree with Weegeerunner, that EconomicsEconomics did not post any "ethnicity-based harassment", but that the debate from both sides suffered from heated emotional tension without sufficient use of WP:AGF. The sending several times of a warning in advance by Thanatos, that if EconomicsEconomics posted something being perceived provocative then his next reply instead of addressing the problem or misunderstanding in a friendly polite manner - instead would be malicious, IMHO does not serve as an appropriate way to respond. In fact such attitude (last time responding by posting 16:31, 9 June: You're such a presumptuous, such an audacious liar... I pity you..., instead of replying "sorry, but you apparently misunderstood and by accident misquoted what I wrote, my point was..."), only fueled further tensions between the two editors in concern.

As for the specific red line you now focus on, my own personal interpretation was that EconomicsEconomics did not intend to post a racist slur with his last line. His main agenda in the debate was to ask for the lead more clearly to summarize the causes behind the Greek government-debt crisis, and I interpreted his last line to refer to this agenda of the debate, namely that "at least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press". However, Thanatos apparently interpreted the last line to refer to the preceding question line, assuming that EconomicsEconomics implicit suggested that: disruptive Greek editors with a culture of preserving chaos and slowing down any progress to the speed of the slowest was a typical element of the Greek national culture, which now had taught him the "understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press".

All of the above is only my personal third party opinion of what went on. My hope is, that both sides learned from the clash, namely the importance of always injecting a double dose of WP:AGF in the future before you reply, and if feeling provoked by other replies then its far better to respond by utilizing a patient and civil tone, rather than derailing the debate by posting tension building provocative counter-replies. As I perceived it, all sides from the start intended to be constructive, then the debate got heated, and as a consequence partly derailed. This said, I will leave it for an administrator to assess the two cases in its entirety, as I want to stay neutral in this clash (in which I am not a part). Danish Expert (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
Right.
Now a creative, an imaginative argumentation on and of supposed intentions has been brought forth and not on and of actual actions. And then the blaim gets passed to me; i.e. even if said intentions had not been (I don't see how could this be) bad, it's not E.E. who should have e.g. apologised and/or tried to mend things and/or denied explicitly to me the explicit accusation against him by me, clarifying things etc. (again, how could he/she?); it's instead me, (and I guess therefore also Dr.K. and other Greek wikipedians in general (let alone Greeks in general)) who should have tried to address the issue, I (and therefore we) the one who had/has been the target of this supposed instance of misspeaking or misunderstaning or whatever else one might say trying to justify this by invoking supposed intentions, and of the rest of the accusations he/she made and stuff he/she said.
Right.
PS Now how could one interpret this
"@Thanatos @DrK: you both seem to agree that the current article "summary" does a bad job summarizing at all; you both say it is too complex for you to write a good or at least mediocre summary; you both cannot specify if you would add/change/subtract specific points from a proposed clear-cut bullet summary I presented as a preparation; you both say you prefer to block other authors to write a clear cut summary ("accusing" them of POV without specifically saying what you specifically identified as POV). After 5 years of a very bad summary in this article, what is the risk here? afraid that you cannot tweak a short and understandable summary so easy later-on (to reflect your personal wishes you cannot really explain here)? Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"
like this
""I interpreted his last line to refer to this agenda of the debate, namely that "at least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press."",
only Zeus knows...
Or put in another way, what does it (the latter) even mean?!?! ;-)
PPS I repeat, if this is the opinion of most editors then I simply give up... Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only posted my objective third part opinion of how the "accusation debate" now being investigated evolved. None of us (only EconomicsEconomics) can know for sure what EconomicsEconomics meant by the words of his last line in the specific reply you cited above. When applying WP:AGF, one of the potential meanings could be the "friendly one" (green version) that I specified above, namely that EconomicsEconomics posted a set of rhetorical questions to you and Dr.K in the hope this would result or push the debate into a more constructive path in his point of view - and that the last line should not be interpreted in the way you did to the last question line but instead more to the first rhetorical question (meaning EE only intended to hint that: despite of the causes of the Greek government-debt crisis not being clearly enough formulated by the lead of of the article, at least he had "start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press", suggesting that the press in his point of view has a negative track record of simplifying what the crisis is about from various angles while failing to present the true technical economic main causes behind the crisis).

My point is the last line of EE can be interpreted in multiple ways (of which my earlier reply also formulated the first one - the "racial slur interpretation" (red version) - which you apparently adopted). However, when the line can be interpreted in multiple ways, the only appropriate thing to do is to assume good faith on EE. I never pointed my blame finger for the heated debate at either you or EE. On the contrary, my reply above reflected my personal point of view, that both of you initially had been only constructive towards each other and engaged in a constructive debate, but that both of you got caught by emotions in the process, and then enrolled each other in a fight that could have been avoided if both of you had excersized a double doze of WP:AGF from the beginning. Moreover, I also find it inappropriate whenever someone reply to something he finds to be "an injust provoking policy-breaking reply", by a counter-reply being a breach of Wikipedia's policy of "exchanging substance based arguments in a proper friendly tone while assuming good faith". Adding fuel to the fire is never constructive.

All this said, my personal opinion is, that while both of you kind of owe each other an apology - and both of you could learn something positive from this debated emotional clash, neither of you deserve or qualify to get banned. However, as I am not part of your clash and does not want to be in anyway, I will leave it for an administrator to solve this matter. In this regard, my post (which is the last one here at this ANI page) is only a third part opinion submitted. As I want to stay neutral in this case, I will leave the further arbitration and resolution of the case, to be dealt with by one of the active administrators. Danish Expert (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. Stretching E.E.'s words and interpretation thereof to a level, the point of absurdity, so that they could become excusable.
So, let me be more clear, crystal clear:

• Your highly imaginative interpretation does not follow from anything contextual or from the words themselves! Said words are not in any way open to such an imaginative interpretation!
• I don't care if I get punished, I've said so, manyatime already. I've used said expressions, words and phrases used due to stated reasons and after having warned said interlocutor; I, unlike some other people, accept the responsibility for and the consequences of my words, of my actions. But there is no way in hell I'm gonna apologise to E.E. after such behaviour, accusations and expressions against me and essentially all Greek wikipedians, let alone against the whole Greek nation itself!!! Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is asking you to apologize but it is time to stop shouting and drop the stick. At this point, you aren't helping anyone including yourself. We don't block punitively but we will to prevent disruption. Let's hope that it doesn't come to that. Please see the below section on a proposed solution and see if you can abide by that, please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks are continuing by EconomicsEconomics

In the talkpage of the Greek debt crisis EconomicsEconomics continues his personal attacks:

No, Thanatos666 and Dr.K. are not "pushing an agenda", why should they? What agenda? It's obvious for everybody that they are being neutral about this article, and constructively cooperating to get improvements in the article, too. If there should be POVs and SYNTHs kept/introduced because of their actions, it would be pure coincidence, thanks to them it is a really good article, I insist.

I ask again for admin intervention. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, as one can easily verify by going through the discussion(s), I've repeatedly said for example that I don't like at all the present state of the article (see e.g. my long discussion(s) with Danish Expert), it's just that I don't want it to get even worse, according to my views on bad and worse, that is.
Similarly, one can also easily check and verify what Dr.K. (or others) has actually said... Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I checked, and I see you both acting uncivil. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any diffs about my alleged incivility? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All 3 of them

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

---

I propose all 3 users, Thanatos666, Dr.K. and EconomicsEconomics should be blocked for incivilty. None of them have clean hands, and they are all just trying to paint the opposing party as horrible while hiding their own mistakes. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you find any diffs to support your absurd proposal about blocking me for alleged incivility? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I think I just found my first one. Calling my proposal "absurd" is not civil in any way shape or form. Neither si assuming bad faith so quickly. I still have not gotten a single diff proving he was harassing anybody over their ethnicity.Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I just found my first one. Your arguments are becoming more absurd by the minute. You asked for my block based on incivility that occurred in the past not now. And I inform you that your original proposal was absurd and I have a right to call it so. Now, can you provide any diffs for any other alleged incivility than your absurd current allegation? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this whole ANI report evidence enough? You have made accusations of prejudiced harassment without evidence, and you act condescending and passive aggressive towards anyone who disagrees. That's what people with battleground mentalities do. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling someone "passive aggressive" is a personal attack. I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please observe these core policies of Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, how? I'm reffering to your behavior on the wiki, and I have proof, such as when you said You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case and how it is uncivil. I think you need to check out WP:NPA2. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't recognise your incivility and your condenscension I am not going to use ANI to try to explain it to you. My reply to you was measured and civil. Now please move along and let the admins handle your absurd request. I have no time for this nonsense. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your condescending tone is just showing how uncivil you are acting right now. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You have said that before. Please stop repeating yourself and let the admins handle this. Don't create more clutter for them to shift through. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That kind of language is still uncivil. I gave evidence for my claims, and you are being rude. But since I'm not in the best of moods right now, I'm leaving. I'm not gonna stay here and be treated like this. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You can always have the last word. But in parting I advise you to not forget the core policy of WP:AVOIDYOU. Good bye. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this AN/I is ridiculous, Weegeerunner has provided zero evidence, but wants all three users blocked? The only user who should be block is Weegeerunner for persistently accusing others of uncivil actions with no evidence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My only complaint is where this ANI report has gotten to. However, I do agree diffs would a lot of time. "Isn't this ANI enough?" is not enough. I suggest all users involved to WP:IGNORE, WP:AVOID and WP:GETOUT (if such articles even exist). They're all digging themselves deeper, bigger holes that no one has seemed to get out. I suggest that all users involve leave and let admins handle the report, unless a user has factual evidence of such claim before WP:Losing their cool (again, if it even exists). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal for Solution

I have read the Greek government-debt crisis talk page in its entirety because single diffs don't help in the light of the accusations. - EconomicsEconomics should be blocked to cool down (incivilties) - Dr.K. should be blocked to cool down (incivilties) - Thanatos should be blocked indefinitely (continuous intentional shocking insults) - Conflict of Interest editors should be blocked from the article for an least 6 months (If reading the article talk page in full it is evident that there are editors with a COI driven agenda leading to heated discussions.)--80.187.98.145 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok....that is not happening. This IP user may have lost his/her mind. Strange how this is their first post, but nevermind that. And yeah, diffs actually do help in this, since I have yet to see any by anyone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your insults and accusations to parties moderating this discussion are not really helping. To check the validity of the case that includes COI accusations you need to browse a 400 K take page and not to insult other moderators.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderatoring? Your "solution" is to block the three users, one indefinitely without any diffs or based reasoning. No one in a sane state of mind would even consider such a dictated punishment. Also, I never made an accusation, just stating how strange it is. Your defensiveness doesn't help in that regard. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TheGracefulSlick. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

After reading a 400 K talk page I proposed a solution. I didn't dictate or implement it. No reason to be rude again and again, TheGracefulSlick.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not rude to criticize a "solution". I wouldn't be so critical of the proposal if it was legitimate, reasonable, and held substantial amount of diffs that could support it. In that case, it failed in all of the criteria and should not even have been recommended.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't recommend or dictate my solution, I proposed one solution as the title shows and provided reasoning in brackets. Feel free to read the 400 K and do comprehesive diffs and reasoning. Your language in this discussion is rude, not critisizing my solution proposal.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who suggested it, why should I provide the diffs for you? That is your job if you want to make an outrageous proposal. Regardless, I read the discussions and, still, your proposal is outlandish. If you want to accuse me of rudeness, I couldn't care less. The fact is the "solution" is way too serious, a reasonable solution should be proposed by an admin, not an IP user who has zero experience elsewhere on articles or discussion (unless you are not a new user...).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't do cool-down blocks and there is no need for anyone to bicker in this sub-thread. So far, I haven't been convinced that blocks of any kind are necessarily part of a solution here. I haven't been convinced that there have been any racial slurs...if there were a slur at all it may have been nationalistic but not racial or ethnic-based. I'm not convinced that a nationalistic-based attack is happening either. I will say that if I had seen that remark that someone was a "fucking racist" at the time that it happened, I would've blocked Thanatos for the personal attack. Going to that level of incendiary isn't justified at all and does not help anything. This can be taken as a warning that it should not happen again otherwise blocking to prevent disruption is likely to occur. The continual accusations that keep occurring need to cease and those editors that are finding themselves greatly angered should voluntarily walk away and allow themselves to cool down and allow those that can remain calm to focus on the content. Dispute resolution could possibly work but if that breaks down then editors would find themselves here again. Danish Expert, MattUK and bobrayner have been level-headed and insightful and their efforts are commendable. I would suggest that Dr. K, Thanatos666 and EconomicsEconomics take a break and allow others to work on the article for a few days. When you come back, try to rejoin on the talk page without reverting first and seek consensus. Are you willing to do this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly fine for me. Thanks.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Sorry Berean Hunter, but if someone uses the (Greek) username of an editor to insinuate an editing COI that's an ethnicity/nationality-based attack. I don't have any problem at all to not revert at the article. My last edit at the article was to implement Danish Expert's suggestion almost verbatim save for a few grammatical corrections and the one before that was to correct another edit which was based on outdated information. I actually rarely edit the article and don't participate in the discussions often and the only reason I participated recently was because of some obvious problems with the edits including SYNTH. You said that if there were a slur at all it may have been nationalistic but not racial or ethnic-based. Fine. Are you going to allow nationalistic slurs on the talkpages of articles without giving the perpetrators a warning? I think you should make clear in your decision that nationality/culture-based attacks are not acceptable and should stop, otherwise you inadvertently provide those prone to them to keep harassing the Greek editors with them. I quote another taunt by EconomicsEconomics to remind you of the kind of attacks one faces on that talkpage from that editor:

Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I said above "I'm not convinced that a nationalistic-based attack is happening either." I had thought that this culture of "preserving chaos"' might mean Wikipedia culture since he seems to be frustrated with trying to make progress...his pleas to not have editing blocked seem to imply that. Nonetheless, he has agreed to disengage which is what I'm asking editors to do when the editing gets hot. You are experienced enough to let a (perceived) nationalistic slur roll off your back. If you feel that it is bait then don't give the satisfaction of letting someone see your anger but redirect back to a content discussion. Someone else might be taking your lead but getting themselves in trouble soon by not dropping the stick and starting to move towards ranting here at ANI. I was hoping that we get things moving forward again by not issuing warnings to anyone but focus on future editing. There are different people whose hands aren't clean and it would be best for all involved to press forward and let other editors try to help if they are willing. If there are warnings to be issued they are in the round.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly some serious and systemic NPOV problems on that article. I note that Dr. K. automatically reverted my attempts to fix part of the problem, with spurious objections in both edit summaries and on the talkpage. Thanatos666's rants are even worse, although the mindset that Greeks are victims of external prejudice is neatly aligned with the problems we have in article-space. If Greek editors are among those responsible for POV problems on an article about a Greek controversy, I hope that other editors may still be permitted to try solving the problems without all getting labelled as hate-criminals. bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

When I had mentioned above that I believe that some people had/have joined in at the article's talk page, just to promote an ideology, the main person I was thinking and talking about was you; you, imo, are in no position to cry "POV", "breach of NPOV", etc. Even E.E.'s involvement, quite unlike yours, actually began with an argumentation and a real discussion of sorts despite what happened next. I wouldn't have named you, called you out here, but since you've also come here and continued "arguing" and behaving in the same way...
Oh and for the last time, stop calling my comments rants (and more importantly stop repeating the accusations against Greeks editors!), especially when all you've practically done here or at the article's talk page is to repeatedly make accusations against people, who evidently disagree with your POV, and to agree with edits (or even to propose new edits, even more drastic ones, like removing a whole section...) and comments, which evidently agree with your POV... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm hoping that neutral editors may be able to sort this out while the others back away voluntarily. If they would agree to give a few days of latitude to other editors then an acceptable solution might be had.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought E.E.'s statement that Dr. K quoted was a nationalistic insult towards Greeks. Any other interpretation is just stretching it to give the user an unjust pass on the statement. I admit the others involved have not handled this gracefully, but that should not hide the fact that E.E. did commit what they have issue with. This is coming from a completely uninvolved editor who has reviewed the interaction of the involved parties.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(double edit conflict)

@Berean Hunter: You rightfully imply from the context that with the culture of "preserving chaos" I have meant the Wikipedia culture since I was frustrated that the WP article is not making any progress as I am interested to improve the article. If anybody understood something else I apologize for the missunderstanding.

@Thanatos666: Up to this ANI I never commented all your hard core humiliations and rants but only focussed on the article because I had to assume it to be a strange kind of humor, wasn't it?

@Dr.K.: I can confirm that you "rarely edit the article" but you omitted that instead you put a lot of energy in a team-up with selected editors to make sure all others also can't edit and improve the article.

One exception: when you saw the possibility to put in the article that "due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption...the corruption level improved" even though the source you had in said "Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece: Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders". (The reason DanishExpert offered in the talk section many versions about the corruption topic including this POV version is probably simple: he tried being too nice to editors who like to see positive reports about Greece because you reverted beforehand in a rude manner on this topic and put up pressure that the story is positive for Greece.)

If these (only historical editing patterns) are not continued there could be a much better article about the Greek debt crisis.

So why not accept Berean Hunter's offer?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: I note that Dr. K. automatically reverted my attempts to fix part of the problem, with spurious objections in both edit summaries and on the talkpage. That's a rather self-serving appraisal of the situtation. You kept adding expired and misleading phraseology based on a 2012 reference even though there was a 2014 reference which made it outdated. This information was corrected by subsequent edits the last of which was the one proposed by Danish Expert. But I have addressed these points in a non-trivial manner, not as you claim spuriously, at the article talkpage so I am not going to expand further on that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I accept that you are ambivolent on the point that a nationality-based attack occured. I disagree obviously but that is ok. You also said that the editor in question agreed to disengage which is a temporary respite. The problem is that he may upon re-engagement start these nationalist-based comments/attacks again. You say that I am experienced enough to let that roll off my back. I guess that is possible but, as is the case with any type of personal attack, making such attacks should not be allowed as a matter of principle and allowing such discriminatory comments on Wikipedia without sanctions will embolden these type of users and I don't think this is good for the project. But I don't know why you are telling me to keep-off the article talkpage because my contributions there resulted in more accurate phraseology and SYNTH removal while I have observed CIVIL at least as much as any other editor there. If you think that my presence there is detrimental to article development I would like to know why. As far as your comment about "neutral editors" why do you think I am not "neutral"? My only guide to editing has been since day 1 close compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Don't get me wrong though, I would very much like other editors come in and offer their opinions. This is a collaborative project after all and the community consensus is the primary rule. But implying that I am not neutral is not going to be solved by a few days' absence from that talkpage so I would appreciate a clarification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to stay off the talk page but rather requesting it. I also don't think that you are detrimental to article development but would want you to return after a brief break so that you might help with the improvements. At the moment you aren't neutral because you have been asking for sanctions here and will be perceived as non-neutral by others in which you have engaged in arguments above. If you are editing there during what is supposed to be a hiatus then they would likely re-enter prematurely. The idea is to make space for other editors to work on the article without them being part of the squabbling that has dominated the talk page lately. I believe that it has had a chilling effect as some editors have sidelined themselves and others may not want to enter the fray. This ANI thread is likely seen as TLDR by some editors and a warning by others ("No way I'm jumping into that mess"). If we can let the non-combatants work unabated on the article and talk page they may be able to improve things beyond the present arguments. We'll never know if they aren't granted that latitude.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for sanctions here based on specific and clear grounds which you did not accept and that's fair enough. Although we disagree, I hope you understand that my report was not baseless or frivolous. But to be sidelined because of the ANI report is not the best way to go forward at least in my opinion. As I said before, I participated in a civil manner with all the other editors except the one who chose to attack my national origin. The squabbling as you call it with the other editors is part of a debate on what constitutes SYNTH and is easily resolvable by an RfC, a report to DRN or ORN and other community resources and not by sidelining. You say At the moment you aren't neutral because you have been asking for sanctions here and will be perceived as non-neutral by others in which you have engaged in arguments above. "Engage in arguments" is part of any normal discussion. Do you think my arguments reached the level of disruption on that talkpage? In conclusion: there is no easy way to answer your comments but one thing seems pretty clear to me: I have no interest whatsoever in participating in a discussion where I am viewed with suspicion or temporarily asked to be sidelined however politely. And by the way, are you going to allow this personal attack by economics made while this report was still open to stand or do you think it helps improve article quality? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that you are being viewed suspiciously or that I have somehow singled you out. This certainly hasn't been the case. Since you do not feel inclined to accept my proposal then I will simply leave this thread open and let other editors/admins opine on how to best proceed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely you have not singled me out, since the request you made did not only refer to me. I also don't think you view me with suspicion. But being asked to stay off a talkpage as a result of making an ANI report which as you say will be viewed by others as some sort of combat which will deter their participation etc., indicates this is not prime time for AGF. This is not counting the nationality-based insults and base sarcasm which still blight that page. In any case I thought that was settled. I just told you I refuse to participate under these conditions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with this dispute, after reading my section with a clear head (especialy TheGracefulSlick's comment) I have came to the conclusion that my proposal for all 3 people being blocked was the magnum opus of stupid ideas I have had latley (right behind my RFA and the Raymond Coxon incident), I'm here to make an encyclopedia, not fight. And I'm off to go be competent and productive in my dispute resolutions and editing. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek editors compared to "Apple employees" by EconomicsEconomics

I recently found this gem on the talkpage of the Greek debt crisis:

there is an even broader problem: if Apple employees or their family members would obvioulsy block the improvement of the Apple article (having an obvious agenda to make Apple look good even if it means tweaking reality; block-reverting almost everything not compatible with their agenda; mainly active to block/delete and not to contribute; opposing any change of obvious POV/SYNTH/and so on; filling lengthy unnecessary discussions but not specifying what they really want or oppose; not even contributing to the article with their special Apple knowhow and sources), they should probably refrain from editing this article because of obvious WP:CONFLICT; is that different with the Greek debt crisis? Or better wait until every (competent and willing) author is fent away? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So now we have it. Greeks are employees of Greece and are not allowed to edit Greece-related articles. It is good to know. Now that we have this new model of international wiki colaboration, American editors are no longer going to be allowed near any American articles - Uncle Sam being a very demanding employer as we all know. British ones better stay away from UK articles, (who could be their employer, the Queen perhaps?). Germans we all know are employed by Merkel, and so it goes on. Taking this logic a step further, editors who do not divulge any details of their background or ethnicity are considered unemployed and are given full access to all articles as being free of any COI or agenda. Welcome to the new collaborative wiki-model according to EconomicsEconomics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth editwarring to retain BLP violations in talk page

User:PeterTheFourth has restored three redactions of his BLP violating material (and his first inclusion appears a bit point and gratuitous, as well as the gratuitous BLP violation on my talk page). initial edit using name gratuitously in violation of consensus and BLP. revert BLP vio 1 (my redaction), revert BLP vio 2(Bosstopher redaction), revert BLP vio 3 (my redaction). He cites [45] as consensus but it is very clear in that discussion that mentioning the accused name on the article page are very strict and talk page discussion should only use the name to formulate content, not idly repeat allegations of rape that have been investigated and rejected. Other noticeboard discussions have ended with cautious approach and not to add it [46]. To date, the consensus is that Noticeboard requirements cannot be met.[47] He repeats the BLP violation on my talk page by gratuitously mentioning the name of the accused person who has been exonerated multiple times and claiming he is an "alleged rapist." There is no point in doing this other than to violate BLP and be inflammatory. The person is not a public figure, is not facing charges, has no biography on wiki and there is no venue (or need) to defend him of these charges or even explore them so using non-public figures name in connection with a vile crime is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF and WP:BLPTALK especially in light of previous discussion and the current discussion. Repeating it on my talk page shows an attitude of indifference to BLP violations. User:PeterTheFourth is a SPA with few mainspace edits and that began his career editing the GamerGate ArbCom page.First edit. His singular focus appears to be related to topics regarding rape and rape threats. Edit warring to maintain a BLP and restore BLP violations should not be tolerated. He's been here before and obviously knows policy and his way around and should know better. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward is right, something about User:PeterTheFourth's behavior just doesn't add up to me. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He may not be a "public figure" but because he filed a lawsuit against Columbia University, he has been talked about a lot, at least in the local media. He is not facing charges but his identity is far from hidden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really that local, so wouldn't that be a case for his identity? Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz That's not the WP BLP criteria. We are deferential to BLP's and his lawsuit is not notable in and of itself. The article about performance art is not the place to accuse him by name or defend him except as it relates to the artwork. It's a slippery slope which was noted in both BLPN discussions. See WP:LOWPROFILE essay and also the WP:NPF policy Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. It's indefensible to repeat the claim that he is a rapist especially when there is no place for exculpatory material. Note, that PtF only adds negative information and but reverts the addition of exculpatory court documents regarding the lawsuit you mention.[48] That reversion (or court documents) iswas consistent with BLP (policy) and keeps the article from becoming WP:COATRACK (for the legal cases), but the addition of the negative onesmaterial arewas not consistent with BLP policy - the addition of negative information, removal of excuplatory information speak to POV editing and edit warring. --DHeyward (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2015 --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)(UTC)

With greatest respect to all concerned, this specific situation is an absolute thicket. Reviewing the bidding for bystanders, as best I can. First, we have the customary issues surrounding identification of alleged rape victims. In this case, we have the further complication that the rape victim has sought attention through performance art about the alleged assault. We have a host of interlocking hearings and proceedings at the University and in various courts, past, present, and contemplated. We further have Wikipedia's gender gap and gamergate problems, so it behooves the project to take care that it reached a policy that comports with public standards. In that regard, identifying the rape victim but declining to identify the alleged assailant might raise editorial eyebrows. We also have the potential for absurdity, should the performance artist call attention the alleged assailant's name in the performance. This is a situation that would perplex (and is perplexing) the most experienced editors and journalists. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Ibanned [49] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein - If the matter is framed as an alleged rape victim and a potential slander victim, the path forward becomes more clear. Of course, that would require coming at this matter from a position of impartiality. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrite: agreed. dHeyward: you're involved, along with half of Wikipedia. I'm not addressing you; I'm addressing bystanders who might not be aware of the nuances of a situation which would strain the policies of most (perhaps all) newsrooms today. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes MarkBernstein, I am involved in ANI requests I start. It's the reason you should not be commenting here. I don't wish the discussion to degrade into ad hominem arguments like in GamerGate talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Posting to acknowledge that I've read this thread- I don't see much to the complaint. You'll be able to see on the talk page multiple mentions of Paul Nungesser's name per the consensus that discussing his involvement in the case is not a BLP violation. I don't imagine that he himself objects to being mentioned, and he has given interviews as Nungesser about this. Per accusations of edit warring (the shocking transgression of not wanting other users to edit my comments) I'll step back from that article until the dispute here is resolved. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Of note are my two attempts to discuss the issue DHeyward perceives with my mentioning (redacted) name on his talk page here and here, which were deleted without a reply. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion appears to false as the BLP violating name only appears in link titles. And yes, I reverted your BLP violations on my talk page and asked you not to repeat them. You declined. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears in the time since I went to bed last night and I woke up this morning somebody has gone through and removed countless uses of Paul Nungesser's name from the talk page against consensus, including from straight quotations of sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Even on this page, he ignores BLP and consensus from the article to restore a BLP violation for a pointy reason. Does anyone need to see the name of someone accused of rape with no charges, not a public figure and consensus not to mention him? Any admins think it's necessary or within policy for this [50]? It's a clear attempt to smear him and PtF has a history of it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This SPA has a clear agenda and masks his repeated disruption of the gamergate articles in feigned politeness, even responding to harsh criticisms with 'Thanks!' etc. Which evidently works on those who should be blocking him for his actions. You're not supposed to accuse people of being socks without hard evidence and I have no hard evidence so I won't say that he is the most obvious sock that I've ever seen. But I think at the very least he should be topic banned. He wouldn't even be allowed to edit the articles if he hadn't made 500 edits on these articles before the 500 edit restriction was put into place. He is the poster boy for why people shouldn't be grandfathered in. Handpolk (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You say you don't have any hard evidence except I see you describe PeterTheFourth as a sock with absolute certainty (diff diff). Please cease smearing this account unless you have diffs to tie this editor with another account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I said it was obvious. That is not saying he is a sock with absolute certainty. For example, I could say it is obvious you are a woman who is deeply offended by the rape portions of this issue and that shapes your views and passion on GGC. However I have no evidence you are a woman or that you are deeply offended by the rape portions of this and that that shapes your views and passion on GGC. It's not absolutely certain at all. Just something that I could say seems obvious. To be clear, I'm not saying that. Just giving you an example to demonstrate that what you said is wrong.

This is the second time there was confusion over what I meant. The first time another editor misunderstood me in the same way you did. So I took greater care this time to make it clear I'm not certain and it is not an accusation. Hope that helps clear things up for you. Handpolk (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to intimidate me? I don't see you doing demographic analyses of any other editor. You have no idea what "deeply offends" me or what "shapes" my "views and passions" on that Gamergate article. This personal profiling of an editor commenting is completely out-of-place in an ANI discussion. It's like you assume all women think the same thing and feel the same way, that is obvious although that doesn't mean I can say it with absolute certainty. Because, you know, there's an invisible difference between the two.

And I'm not upset or offended, I just think you made an incredibly stupid edit that makes me take you even less seriously than I took you before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk I have no evidence that you smell like poo, and it's absolutely not certain at all. But it's obvious that you smell of poo. (See the problem with this form of reasoning?) Bosstopher (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

His very first edit is to GamerGate arbcom is quacking. He's obviously a SPA with previous experience. He has just over 200 mainspace edits (71 to Gamergate controversy, next highest page is A Voice for Men with 16). He has nearly 300 edits to the GamerGate controversy talk page, though. Over half his edits are GamerGate article related. --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• edit conflict

Handpolk can you please specify what "clear agenda" it is that you allege that PeterTheFourth has. On PeterTheFourth's talk page another editor commented on interpreted aspersion. Please don't just say that something exists without specification and evidence.

The mentioned article says "Paul Nungesser ..., as new details come to light, he’s speaking out and fighting back". I don't think that Wikipedia would be in danger of being sued in regard to reference to Nungesser's name and I guess it would be up to consensus in the article as to whether it would be of encyclopaedic benefit to the article for the name to be used. Currently the Matt.Perf. article uses the above citation for the text "Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, two other women with whom she was acquainted[cite] filed additional complaints with the university against the same student." We link to the article presenting his name but don't ourselves present the name. I don't see any reason that we can't do so and it is surely a content issue as to whether we should or not. GregKaye 09:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that we have a BLP policy that doesn't allow us to publish certain things such as accusing someone of rape (whether we are repeating it or not)? Particularly, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF? You are aware that the BLPN discussion has already happened and the answer was "No", correct? I not please read it, then redact it. You should not be publishing his name per policy regardless of the where you got it. It's not a question whether you can find it, it's a question of human decency. We don't have an article on him and the details that exonerate him aren't relevant to the article that involves him. It's policy not to name or accuse people of crimes and he isn't notable outside of that. We can link to lots of stories that are BLP violations on WP. --DHeyward (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why it is considered "pro-GamerGate" to support one side of this issue, and "anti-GamerGate" to support the other? Which side is which, in the case of this dispute? JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Caricatured answer - "pro-GamerGate" = Feminists are deranged....look at what this crazy feminist has done; "anti-GamerGate" = women are victims and need challenge nasty men. This then extends to any battle-of-the-sexes topic that can be identified in terms of these caricatured positions. In this case, self-publicising woman accuses a poor man; self-empowering woman challenges brutal male actions through art. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is: because the world is a depressing and miserable place. Alternatively go to /r/KotakuInAction and search for Sulkowicz. Then go to /r/Gamerghazi or /r/SRSFeminism and search for Sulkowicz and compare. Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a gamergate thing (check the search results, for example)- speaking personally, my interest in it comes because it falls within the general sphere of 'social justice'. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg -- "can you please specify what "clear agenda" it is that you allege that PeterTheFourth has" I can do you one better. He just admitted it right here. This 'social justice' distinction is semantics. Off of Wikipedia GGC has grown and become about more than that which is on this article. And people that are sometimes called 'Social Justice Warriors' (SJW's) have taken up the non-GG side. PeterTheFourth has essentially just admitted being an SJW. By definition, having a clear agenda. Handpolk (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

be definition, everyone has bias and agenda. the issue is whether or not such adversely affects your ability to edit within Wikipedia's policies and goals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no bias or agenda. Unless you call wanting neutral and unbiased articles a biased agenda. I agree with each side on many things. At present it's usually unnecessary for me to say when I disagree with the ggers because they are already losing so badly. Handpolk (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is right. [51] you have asserted that already! You go go go Mr/Ms Purely Neutral YOU! It is certainly enlightening for me to see what pure neutrality in editing looks like as I had a completely different understanding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, no bias or agenda, only wanting neutrality. Is that why you called me a "SJW shill" even though I have only made one or two edits to the Gamergate article? I have treated you civilly, I even responded to some of your questions. I don't understand how you can't see you can't have it both ways, you can't declare yourself only wanting neutrality while at the same time trying to figure out who is on which "side". This is just childish behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, suggest Handpolk rethink their comment. Having an interest in social justice is not by definition a "social justice warrior", and generally speaking that term is used as a dismissive pejorative and could be construed as a personal attack. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also used proudly as a self-identifier. I imagine this will come up again so I am willing to submit to your pedantry. How would you like me to word that to your liking, while communicating the same thing? Handpolk (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: If your intent is to say someone is advocating some form of social justice platform, then just say that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza it's not GamerGate related except for PeterTheFourth being a GamerGate SPA [52]. As such, there are contributors here that are the usual GamerGate contributors. I made a "new section" post to the talk page of the "Matress" article (unrelated to GamerGate) to explain an edit I made and ask a question and two regular gamergate editors immediately answered. They had edited there before I believe but not everyone that has chimed in has, I believe. I didn't direct the Matress talk page question at anyone in particular and I suspect the very blatant and pointy use of the name was baiting but of course, that would require a crystal ball. On its face, it's not hardly coincidence. Other regular Matrress editors responded appropriately and noted the decision not to name the accused and highlighted two BLPN noticeboard discussions. Why Bernstein is commenting on my ANI request is unknown as that violates the terms of a GamerGate IBAN (I had requested the IBAN be lifted earlier and hopefully it will be after this ANI shows it's pointless) but it's not unusual to see the same 4 or 5 editors in the same place at the same time. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Would like to clarify the reason I used the name. I was trying to demonstrate that their was not a contentious statement and thereby not covered by BLPTALK. For this reason I used the phrase (paraphrasing) "It's not contentious that [insert name here] is [insert name here]." While normally I tend to use "the accused" instead of the guys name I dont (as I explained and Aquillion reiterated her) think its a BLP violation. I also thought that "[blank] is [blank]" reads better than "the accused is the accused." Was not trying to bait at all, and am not really sure exactly what it is I'd be trying to bait you into. If anything I've had far more confrontational interactions with Peter while editing than you, so if I had a motive to bait anyone editing the mattress page surely it would be him and not you? Bosstopher (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Break

As others pointed out to you on that page, simply mentioning him on the talk page doesn't seem to violate WP:BLPTALK, which states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." The fact that he was accused is not controversial and is well-sourced, and I don't see anyone implying more than that there. This doesn't necessarily mean it should be in the article, of course, but I don't think WP:BLP requires censoring it on the talk page. In the talk page where this was discussed, I notice that you mentioned, by way of comparison, "If GamerGate BLPTALK rules are applied...", which I assume is what's confusing you here; the issue that led to so many talk-page redactions that case wasn't just that names shouldn't be mentioned, it was that people were posting accusations that were both contentious and poorly-sourced. Posting an accused's name in a context that implies guilt when that's not well-sourced wouldn't be allowed; but (provided the accusation itself is well-sourced to BLP-quality sources) simply mentioning their name in talk isn't generally a problem as long as you're cautious not to make poorly-sourced accusations. Notice that all of the policies you cite there are cautiously worded, encouraging us to think carefully about when and where to use names, but not placing universal bans on their use; given that, and given that censoring someone else's comments is generally considered a pretty big deal, I think you overstepped somewhat in removing the name repeatedly. Also notice that the talk page guidelines explicitly state that "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but its best to get their permission and normally you should stop if there is any objection"; you should definitely have stopped removing it after one revert. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be confusing you is BLP applies everywhere. BLPTALK allows links for the limited purposes of discussion for adding content (GamerGate articles don't even allow that, regardless of quality, if the content contains anything that wouldn't be allowed in an article on WP). All of BLP still applies including WP:NPF, WP:CRIME (please read them and apply them to talk pages). If the name were being used as proposals for content, it's fine. If it's being used to gratuitously connect him to an accusation of a crime (this case), it's not allowed. We don't just repeat accusations on talk or article space, regardless of sourcing, because BLP applies everywhere, all the time. --DHeyward (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You kind of leave out the fact that what the GGC page doesnt allow is a re-re-re-re-re-re-hashing of claims that have been established as FALSE by every reliable sources of the highest quality from the point of time they were first made. Very different circumstances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all different. The charge that the accused committed rape is false as far as wikipedia policy and the law go. He is innocent as far as writing about him here is concerned. Writing about him here only serves one puprose: to keep those allegations alive because he is not known outside those allegations. As an example, there are plenty of published and reliable sources that go into details concerning Quinn. We don't write about them and it isn't because there are no sources. We make a choice that BLP policy does not allow us to write about her sex life. Likewise, BLP policy does not let us explore unproven allegations against the person here as was apparent in both BLPN discussions and the talk page. What did you think was different or do you think this is about "The Truth(tm)?" --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again -- just to illustrate the general concept at issue here -- suppose Ozymandias is a living person, and a sculptor has created a statue of him. In an interview about the work, the sculptor refers to her effort to capture his "frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command." Numerous commentators agree that she had well those passions read.

Now, a sneering visage is not a crime but it's generally considered uncomplimentary; it's also now the crux of the notable work of art and of its reception. We could find ourselves in the awkward position of naming the subject if the artist accused him of regrettable traits that are not crimes -- being a cad, being a brute, being a vampire, being a Republican -- but not if she accused him of a crime until and unless the charges are proven, and even if the crime -- revealing secret surveillance, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest -- is considered by some excusable, or justified, or even commendable (cf. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience). What would we do if the allegation concerned something which is culpable but frequently not prosecuted, such as striking someone (for which see Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol)? Again, we risk stumbling into a result which is both ridiculous and, given the press attention Wikipedia's missteps on gender are receiving, likely to be ridiculed. I don't know the answer, but I'm confident it's not obvious. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like "The Zoepost". We could critique it in detail as art. Talk about "Ethics" it brings up. Ignore the vile accusations in the name of covering what the artist/author wanted us to cover. But....let's not. Let's agree that there are aspects of accusation, even in art and literature, that go beyond simple description and venture into defamatory and salacious details that are not necessary to expose in order to highlight the social issues. As an example, "Roe v. Wade" was anonymous with profound impact in society. Is Roe's current view, even if passionate and personal, relevant to the social impact of the case or can we write about it without ever knowing who she was? The art in this case is passionate and socially relevant. It is a notable work with influence. But in the end, that art and its influence doesn't hang on the balance of the accusation. So far, he is innocent of the accusation. In your example, the case would be that the artist accurately captured a "frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" but we would not say the artist captured "Ozymandias' frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" especially when reliable sources commented on it before the subject was even known and Ozymandias was not known to anyone outside the artists small circle (i.e. what is Mona Lisa smiling about?). In her Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, she notes that both actors consented to the acts they portrayed. One actor even portrays what is arguably a rape by a rapist. Does it matter who it is or how convincing his portrayal is or do we accept the fact that he is not a rapist because an authority said he is not? The argument is that he is an actor, therefore it was an act, and consensual, not a rape - case closed. The irony and similarity is not lost on the accuser, whence the name of the piece and the disclaimer. Irony does not mean we are held to different standards after such findings, though. Neither the actor nor the accused can be called "rapists" in Wikipedia and insinuating as much misses the foundation of our BLP policy and fundamental "innocent until proven guilty." The accused is not a public figures that had a life notable outside the one-dimensional accusation of rape - it now defines him. We give extreme deference to such individuals but also without condemning their accuser. Consider another case where a woman is raped by "John Doe" and testifies as such at trial. He is convicted but 20 years later is released on DNA evidence that overwhelmingly supports his innocence. Does that have any impact on whether the woman was raped? Nope. Does it mean she perjured herself at trial? Nope. Does it mean the man is innocent of rape? Yes. These seemingly contradictory statements must be portrayed on Wikipedia. We do not have to pick a side and we should not try to sway favor in any direction. Above all we should fairly present people, especially non-public figures that are only defined in the public's eye by the accuser, in a non-negative light abdsent a conviction. In this case, the only fair way to present the very notable and multi-dimensional art and artist, is to portray the accused anonymously. There is no way to fairly mention him only in the context of whether he did or did not commit rape. It is not up to the reader to do this, it is up to Wikipedia editors to not make Wikipedia the vehicle for such judgements. The art is notable, the act of rape, whether true or not is not notable in and of itself. The art is reflection of the experience of the artist and not something we can use to neutrally portray the accused.--DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this

1. a complaint about differences in applying BLP?
2. a SPA investigation against User:PeterTheFourth?
3. a proxy fight for Gamergate issues?

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a rant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for participating! I'm sure you thought your comment was helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an ANI complaint for edit warring a BLP violation into a specific article talk page and continuing to edit war that BLP violation after the talk page discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard discussions decided BLP applied and the accused should not be named. Three reversions on the talk page, two violation on my talk page and a violation here (and reversion). BLP didn't change. All the other stuff is evidence of PtF being WP:NOTHERE. --DHeyward (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question- are you referring to different BLPN discussions than these two? Because the consensus on both of these is that it's fine to mention them on talk, but might be iffy including it in the article without provisos to ensure that he's properly represented. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like DHeyward's BLP issues has been asked and answered. More than once. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rocky, I answered it above. No, they have no consensus to add them because the constraints cannot be met. It was listed for you here at the artcile talk page. [53] as to the results from a long time editor of the article. It's why the name no longer exists on hte talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So (assuming DHeyward's assertion about consensus is correct) there's no consensus, and DHeyward is insisting on his interpretation of BLP (and he's edit warring in the process). Rather than working on consensus. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No rocky, there is no consensus to add the names in BLPN (as PeterTheFourth claimed) and they placed a large hurdle for BLP at both hearings. The conclusion is that the hurdle can't be met and it is a BLP violation to add it. It's laid out for you by another editor, not me. Have a go at "reading." [54]. In any case, that hurdle prevents using the name except for cases where it's being proposed for addition to the article. That's the purpose of talk pages and it's why the name isn't found in the article or talk page today. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What I don't see is a consensus to support DHeyward's refactoring. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no edit war on PeterTheFourth's part, if there's no BLP violation. The evidence looks like 1 2 looks like the consensus was there isn't a BLP violation. Which means by going against consensus, DHeyward was the one doing contentious editing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, why have Gamergate editors arrived at Mattress Performance? DHeyward, I was thinking of asking you this on your talk page, but may as well ask here. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I presumed they followed me. I didn't edit or comment or revert anything. I came from reviewing legal terms and seeing the incorrect redirect from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause." I didn't even know they edited the page before. I certainly didn't ping them or edit anything controversial. --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at ANI for other reasons. I saw familiar names and was wondering what that all was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, I was thinking specifically of you. You were involved in Gamergate and now you're there. It's a concern if those problems are to be transferred somewhere else. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Whoa, back up the train. I was not a party to GamerGate and I am rarely an editor there. I have one sanction and that's an IBAN with MarkBernstein but he hasn't edited "mattress". I have not brought gamerGate to mattress. Far from it. PTF edited the mattress talk page 9 minutes after I did. I don't know when he edited it before. Certainly not anything that I commented on or did anything with. I've been here 10 years and have varied interests and articles. I can't stop people from following me. PTF is a gamergate SPA though. his edit history shows it as WP:DUCK.--DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is my first edit to the talk page, and this is my first edit to the article. I don't believe either of them were 9 minutes after any of your contributions. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can use Editor Interaction Analyzer to figure it out, DHeyward isn't wrong you did edit it once 9 minutes after he did, but it looks like PeterTheFourth started editing there first, so they did not follow DHeyward into the topic. Also, I generally think the name should of the accused should be avoided, on the principle of do-no-harm, but that is not policy and as others have noted the name is available from reliable sources (quick google search shows it in The Guardian, Washington Post, and the National Post.) Strongjam (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, you've made 244 edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy, which seems fairly involved. [55] The problem is that we have (I believe) three women on the Mattress talk page and c. 15 men, plus assorted IPs. As a result there has been a locker-room atmosphere at times. Opinion doesn't divide entirely along gender lines, but mostly. Add Gamergate (or even a perception of it) and the number of women will either decline or at least not increase. I would really like to try to avoid that.

I agree with you about the accused's name, by the way, but the name is widely known, so it's not an outing or anything urgent. But I agree that posting it is best avoided. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's not my intention to drive anyone away. I brought the problem here so it's not on that talk page. My edits to GG talk put me below PtF and I had a 3 month head start in september of last years. there are a myriad of articles they edit as well that are gamergate related that I don't touch including the men's rights nonsense. My only questions was about the BLP and I posted a notice about my edit. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't think it was useful to throw the name into the debate, though. or onto my talk page. I objected to the pointiness of that, but brought it here for resolution. I didn't ask for oversight, just why we were naming him. It is in lots of sources including his lawsuit but, as you said, it's best avoided because it is shaky BLP grounds to portray such a one-dimensional aspect of a living person that isn't notable outside the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Long time editor reports SPA for clear BLP violations and SV shows up to - question the motives of the long time editor - my my. This certainly narrows the list of potential sockmasters. - 46.28.50.100 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor here, this item just caught my eye because I'm getting a bit concerned about lack of care taken with BLPs. I only know about this incident what I've been able to glean from a quick read of the article and an even quicker skim of the talk page and this report. My thoughts on this matter are:
- BLP applies to all living persons, therefore it also applies to Sulkowicz. That means editors must not state that the complaint was false until it is actually proven false - not just "not responsible". Suggest "disputed", or at the very most, "unsubstantiated".
- What about this incident makes it more notable than all the other alleged rapes that are reported every day? If it's just the performance art piece, then write the article about the art piece and prune all the extraneous 'he said, she said' from it as it is of no lasting importance to the art world.
- Court cases appear to still be ongoing, so perhaps editors should wait until there's an actual judicial finding.
- What encyclopaedic purpose does it serve to name the alleged rapist? If in doubt - don't. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, thanks for making those points. In fact there are five people to whom BLP applies: the accused and four people who say they were assaulted: Sulkowicz, two other women and a man. We have editors saying or implying that the last four are lying, and that Sulkowicz may have broken the law by filing a false police complaint. In addition, there has been a locker-room atmosphere on talk guaranteed to drive most women (and not only women) away. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I am not subtle and don't pick up much on atmosphere; what I think that article needs is substantial application of the proverbial blue pencil to prune it down to something worthy of being in an encyclopaedia. I don't think it's actually a BLP violation to name the alleged rapist (his name appears in reliable sources); it's just unnecessary (and also unnecessary is the edit-warring over it). The most egregious BLP violation I see on the page is against Sulkowicz, in the repetition of a borderline defamatory claim from an anonymously published source. I also see BLP violations against Sulkowicz in this discussion, here [56] (flat-out stating that the allegation was false) and here [57] (apparently satirical, but a statement such as that in this context is so outright offensive that it really shouldn't have been made, even as satire). Daveosaurus (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus This edit you highlighted never mentions Sulkowicz and is in the context of Wikipedia (read it again). It is a restatement of "Innocent until proven guilty." If you look at my other examples, wikipedia is not in the business of deciding one story over another. Even if they appear to you to be contradictory, they are not. We write the encyclopedia as if the charges are not true for edits related to the accused and we state what the accuser has said accurately and without judgement. My example to Bernstein about the "exonerated by DNA convicted rapist" is apropos: we don't treat the victim as if she is a liar or perjurer and we don't treat the exonerated rapist as a convict. That dichotomy must exist and your insertion of Sulkowicz into my statement does not accurately reflect what I said as I never mentioned her. We do write about the accused as if he is innocent. That's BLP and if you follow the current discussions on the talk page you will see I am consistent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I've just double checked to make sure I used the right diff. The exact words I took issue with were "The charge that the accused committed rape is false". That is not so. The charge is unproven, possibly even unsubstantiated, but to describe it as "false" is a BLP violation of the person who made the allegation, who is named throughout the article, until such time as the person who made it is actually found to have made a false allegation. "Innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus you shortened my quote again. In its entirety, "The charge that the accused committed rape is false as far as wikipedia policy and the law go". You missed the entire qualifying point which dictates how we write. When we write about the accused, he is innocent - we are not discussing the person who is making the accusation. This is very important and fundamental to WP:BLPCRIME and the U.S. legal system. A person is innocent of rape until proven guilty, not "unproven rapist until proven guilty" or "unsubstantiated rapist" (both would be BLP violations if written that way). You seem to be claiming that this is related to the person making the charge (whom I didn't mention) and that it casts doubt on their veracity. It does not. They are separate accounts of the same event and we don't take sides. One of the reasons we don't mention criminal accusations for WP:NPF is precisely to avoid this confusion but it doesn't alleviate us of two things: presumption of innocence of the accused and accurate recounting of the statement by the complainant. They can be contradictory. They cannot cross over each other to violate BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) The relevant policy in BLPCRIME is "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot see any reason to name the target of this accusation (who is not notable for any other reason), let alone to continually re-add the name when others rightly point out that it has no place in the article. DHeyward was right to refactor it and PeterTheFourth ought to at the very least be warned against future BLP violations of this sort. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also completely uninvolved, and I agree with the two statements above.

I would add: these days, at least in the US, there is often a media climate around rape cases of "guilty unless proved innocent," rather than "innocent until proven guilty." Alleged victims cannot be named, while alleged perpetrators are frequently named. Now, for the record, so that PtF doesn't get the wrong idea: I don't, for even a minute, (a) suggest that such an approach is entirely unjustified, nor (b) that alleged perpetrators aren't frequently guilty. But that setup does give a person an opportunity to accuse a person on page one, ruining the perpetrator's life; if a charge proves unfounded, the reporting of that goes to the "back pages," and the perpetrator's life is still ruined. But such machinations are for the news media, not for an encyclopedia.

For that reason alone, an encyclopedia like this needs to make no assumptions whatsoever on anything until jurisprudence is finished. And that means no names for now.

If you don't like that, PtF, go to Wikinews. It is, in principle, a media outlet, and may have different rules on such issues. I don't know. But you just can't do this here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! all of those professional victims - everywhere! If one believed even a tenth of them, why this would be a Rape Culture we are living in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand in what context I was using the accused's name, StevenJ81. I was never advocating for its use in the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for not yelling, and not being sarcastic, like the previous poster. I really didn't deserve that.

No, I understand you're mainly talking about the talk page. But really, there is no reason you can't use substitute terminology (like "the accused") even on the talk page. I even appreciate that it's not rocket science to figure out who "the accused" (or "the alleged perpetrator" or whatever terminology you want to use) is, even if you know nothing about the case prior. But IMO, there is nothing gained from actually using the name, other than the relief of awkward verbiage/sentence construction. And there are many good reasons to hold off on using the name, for any reason, until the judicial process has run its course. Once the judicial process has run its course, either (a) he's guilty, his name will be out there, and he will have to live with it, or (b) he's not guilty, and deserves his privacy and reputation intact. That will all be soon enough. No need to rush now. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern and the attitude of staying cautious. In other situations, I would agree with not using the name of an alleged criminal in any context. However, I think that when the accused gives interviews and readily identifies as that person to media, it becomes absurd to insist on 'he who must not be named'-esque redactions of that name when discussing him- which is what DHeyward was edit warring to enact. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

[User:PeterTheFourth], let's be clear. In your accusation of "edit warring", I made one (1) revert (please provide diffs of more reverts if you continue the accusation). Then I came here. Two different editors either made modifications or completed the redaction on the talk page based on consensus. You deliberately reverted three times on that page to restore the BLP violation and repeated it twice on my talk page after being asked to stop. My one revert has been backed by consensus is hardly edit warring and we are here precisely because I wasn't going to edit war on an article talk page - as it stands, your comments on the article talk page are redacted but not by me. --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter, thank you for speaking civilly. DHeyward, keep cool. I'll respond, then I won't have more to say. Peter, the most I could say about your comment two points up is that if I happened upon that talk page, and nobody were fighting, I might not bother trying to invoke a BLP violation and redaction a priori. (Not sure, actually, but might not.) After all, as you say, the accused has gone public. That having been said, my practice, both here and in my personal (real) life, is not to use names in a situation like that. If I had written it myself, I would personally have He who must not be named it. And if anyone (like DHeyward) chooses to invoke BLP and redaction in this situation, they are really entirely justified in doing so, all the more so because they have CONSENSUS on their side. Even if there is a little space to think about leniency in a case like this, I think it's very bad precedent to do so. It's far better to err on the other side. So I'd really like to urge you to leave the name out and move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The BLP aspect is a bit overblown (the info is public in multiple RS's) but PeterTheFourth's edit warring was quite inappropriate and there's no obvious encyclopedic upside to including the person's name on the talk page. So it's better to just defer to people's sensibilities and leave it out, instead of wp:battling over whether it's permissible to keep it in. Re SlimVirgin's complaint of a locker-room atmosphere on the talkpage, I do see some crappy attempts to litigate the disputed facts there, but it's mostly from other editors than PeterTheFourth. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the PSR of Albania

The article affected was: People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Recently, there has been an edit war in this article. The reason was a dispute between what should appear in the country's infobox entry on religion. I think that it should appear, as it has done until a week ago, Religion: None (State atheism). However, there is another user, User:Guy Macon, that thinks that the religion entry should be removed. The consensus they base their edits upon is one reached in Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. Since the PSR of Albania was not an individual, I don't think that resolution applies here, since a person's view on religion is very different from a country's official position on it. To begin with, it is important that the PSR of Albania was state atheist. The infobox should reflect that. How? I think the best way was the former one. I am concerned that if the entry on religion is removed, people won't know if it was state atheist, or just that we forgot to add that information, or maybe that we just don't know.

--WBritten (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

From the closing admin (Guy) -- no relation other than us both having really cool names:

"The result is unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof - i.e. those who either do not identify as religious, or who explicitly identify as non-religious. In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case."[58] (some emphasis added, some is in the original).

"In any article" seems pretty clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think that it should be stated in the infobox that Albania was state atheist. It's a relevant fact. WBritten (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the PSR of Albania, which stopped existing in 1992. In their constitution it was stated that Albania had no official religion. It later pursued state atheist policies, and mosques, churches, and synagogues were used as schools, gymnasiums, libraries... This is why I think that the infobox was right. It said that the PSR of Albania had no official religion (Religion:None), and at the same time added that state atheism was enforced. Nowhere in the infobox it was stated that atheism was the official religion (because it is not a religion, to begin with). WBritten (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Was the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? Genuine question. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The PSR of Albania had no official state hobby. --WBritten (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By the same token, it had no official state religion. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran (for example) has no official state hobby, but does have an official state religion.--WBritten (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual answer here, and the "Not Collecting Stamps" thing is a valid point. But surely the question should be whether Albania simply had no official religion or whether it was officially atheist, and those are two very different positions (the former is equivalent to not collecting stamps, but the latter would be the equivalent of antiphilatelism). I don't know the answer, but that seems to me to be the question. Mr Potto (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, "not collecting stamps" as a state hobby would be like having "Not Sikh" as a state religion. It does not work for me because it's too specific. Okay, if you don't mind me doing a thought experiment, what if PSR Albania did not allow stamp collecting, but modern Albania did? What if PSR Albania did not allow its citizens to have any hobby? I think that that is different that not having a specific hobby as state hobby. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the reason I am so persistent is because the PSR of Albania was officially state atheist. That's why that was reflected in the infobox in the first place. It wasn't simply a non-denominational country, it was an atheist state, and actively fought against religious institutions. WBritten (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that the results of the RfC, which focussed explicitly on articles about individual persons, have any direct and automatic applicability on the article on a state. There are no doubt very good reasons for generally omitting that parameter on most individual people, just as there are no doubt good arguments for omitting it on many states. However, whether or not the well-known policies of socialist Albania, which were not merely non-religious but quite explicitly anti-religious, are notable and salient enough as a character trait of that state to justify inclusion in the box, is a matter of editorial decision that ought to be decided through open discussion on the talkpage. I notice that there actually has been some reasonable talk there. There definitely can't be any justification for the type of edit-warring that has been going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"State atheism" is a very nebulous concept and doesn't belong in the infobox. The German Democratic Republic was officially atheist, and one might find citation that say that atheism was enforced by the State. The truth is somewhat different: Religious people were not admitted to the leading party (SED), were not promoted in their jobs, if they got a good job outside the churches. On the other side, both Catholic and Lutheran churches remained open, some people (about 1 or 2 % of the population) went there to celebrate the Mass, and church dignitaries were used in inofficial diplomatic negotiations as intermediaries. Under the circumstances, it is better to remove the parameter from the infobox, cease the edit war, discuss what exactly happened at the time in Albania (a content dispute, possibly) and then re-evaluate the facts according to the closing statement of the RfC: "...In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case..." (which extends the validity of the closure to states and countries, stating a good reason) and "Another issue is noted: those who prominently self-identify as having a philosophical position on religion, but one which implicitly or explicitly rejects faith. In these cases in my view it may be legitimate to mention secularism or atheism as a philosophy, and that would have qualified support according to the debate, but it is clear that they are not religions and it is both confusing and technically incorrect to label them as such." The question is then "Did the PSR Albania introduce a religious system to be used to oppress the previous existing religions, or did they State maintain a philosophical/sociological position to reject religion officially? If it was the former, the name of the new (pseudo-)religion could be mentioned, if it was the latter, the closure of the Rfc sustains omitting the parameter. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things: 1) That the PSR of Albania had no official religion (like many countries today), and 2) That state atheism was enforced. If you want the facts, state atheism was actively pursued especially during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution of 1967. I think that if we remove the parameter from the infobox, readers of that article won't know that the PSR of Albania was state atheist, and may be think that it was just like any other country, or even that we don't know what its official religion was. The position of the PSR of Albania was not only philosophical/sociological. It was a political position. That's why I think it should be included. Maybe we could have an alternate parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist" or something along those lines. I still think that in no way did the former infobox claim that atheism was a religion, and I'd bet that most readers of that article understood that the official stance on religion of the PSR of Albania was state atheism. It was not a new religion, it was not a pseudo-religion. It was a state policy, proclaimed and actively pursued by the government. --WBritten (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., as far as I can tell, your opinion on the content dispute (or mine, or WBritten's, or Kraxler's, etc. ) is completely irrelevant, especially considering that ANI is supposed to deal with user behavior, not article content disputes. This content dispute has been settled already. I posted an RfC. I asked for and got an uninvolved and experienced administrator to write a closing summary and close the RfC. I specifically asked the closing admin to specify whether I needed to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox), and was told that there was no need to do that, and that the RfC applies to all articles. I believe that I did everything correctly.

On a related note, I just got the following notice on my talk page:[59] I have never edited the Balkans page itself, so I assume that this concerns People's Socialist Republic of Albania. If so, could we please post a notice on that article's talk page? I generally limit myself to 1RR and to uncontroversial edits on articles with discretionary sanctions, but I was not aware that People's Socialist Republic of Albania was under DS.

As long as the can of worms is open and we are discussing the article content dispute, here is how I think religion on pages about countries should be approached. I think it should be treated the way we treat it at England#Religion. That page gives the reader a true understanding of the religion in that geographic area in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? I think not.

BTW, in case anyone missed the main point, Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

Also, for those who REALLY don't get the point, putting X after the "Religion =" in an infobox is claiming that X is a religion. Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Trying to get around it by saying "Religion = None (X)" does not change this. That was the clear consensus from the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is what the admins ruled, I'll have to comply. However, I think that "Religion:None (state atheism)" did make it clear. If the consensus is to remove it, so be it. But, since it's an important fact (for this and many other state atheist countries), what do you think about including an alternative parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist"? WBritten (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is not what infoboxes are for. Anything that cannot be completely and uncontroversially summarized in a word or two should be in the article and not the infobox. I realize that you believe that anything important should be in the infobox, but this has come up again and again rewarding a wide number of parameters and the community has always decided that the standard for inclusion in an infobox is not importance, but rather lack of needed explanation and lack of subtle details. Things like birth dates, college degrees, maiden name, etc.

Getting back to the point, you have reported me at ANI. Please present evidence that I have misbehaved or withdraw your ANI report. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any controversy about this. The old infobox presented information in a neutral way. I don't think the consensus reached can't be applied here, since state atheism is important enough to be highlighted in the infobox. You misbehaved by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBritten (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I behaved entirely properly. I posted an RfC, waited for an admin to close it, and followed the instructions in the closing statements.

Regarding Future Perfect's accusation of edit warring, here is a timeline.

• April 2007 Article created with "religion = declared atheist state" in the infobox.
• December 2012 changed to "religion = None (State atheism)"
• 04:25, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon removes the religion entry.[60]
• 05:16, 02 June 2015 124.148.222.41 reverts[61] 1RR
• 09:14, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts[62] 1RR
• 10:17, 02 June 2015 WBritten reverts[63] 1RR
• 17:56, 09 June 2015 RfC closed with closing summary saying it applies to all articles.
• 09:45, 10 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC [64] 1RR
• 22:10, 10 June 2015 WBritten reverts[65] 1RR
• 22:16, 10 June 2015 WBritten posts to Guy Macon's talk page, Guy Macon noves it to article talk.
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon replies on article talk page
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC[66] 2RR
• 09:41, 11 June 2015 WBritten replies on article talk page
• 09:51, 11 June 2015 WBritten posts to ANI

So, nobody went past 2RR. As I mentioned before, if there had been a talk page notice letting me know I was editing an article under discretionary sanctions, I would have limited myself to 1RR as is my standard practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd let the DS thing slide but Guy Macon is overgeneralizing the RFC in my opinion. The comparison with England isn't valid since nobody really cares that Anglicanism is England's official religion (people there practice whatever religion they like), unlike PSR Albania that had bloody crackdowns. As JzG put it in the RFC close, there's a difference between someone who self-identified as atheist in an interview, and someone like Richard Dawkins. And the RFC clearly says "This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures." So it's better to have a specific discussion on the PSR Albania talk page about what to put in that article's infobox. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: " And the RFC clearly says 'This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures.' ", your selective quoting is deceptive. In the praragrahps that you had to have read before reaching the part you selectively quoted, the same RfC clearly says...

"NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful."

and the closing administrator responded by answering that question with...

"In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc."

...and...

"Religion=none would almost certainly be wrong, in any article on Wikipedia."

I have now exhausted my supply of WP:AGF on this issue. I could accept the first two or three times as honest errors, but from here on, if anyone claims that they read the RfC and that it claims to only apply to individuals, I am going to assume that the "mistake" is deliberate and that the person making the "mistake" made it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but I take that part of the close to be advisory at most, since it addressed an issue that explicitly wasn't part of the RFC. Just use some common sense instead of campaigning for encyclopedia-wide diktats about anything. Does JzG want to comment? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you said in the "Note to closing admin" on 6 May 2015 " The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful" , which to me indicated that it was undetermined about entities other than BLP subjects, but you personally thought there were grounds for omitting it, and that another RfC would be needed to settle the matter: I'm not going to get involved further here, but I think the only way of settling this would be the other rfc you suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is just about PSR Albania, then the best way to settle that is on the article talk page, maybe with an RFC there. Reasonable uninvolved analysis on a specific article page is almost always more convincing than running an abstract RFC and scraping its limited quantum of consensus across 1000's of articles whose issues can vary considerably. (Note: I'm about to take off and might not be able to edit again til next week). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone can give me a policy-based reason to do otherwise, I intend to continue removing the religion parameter from all articles where the region is listed as "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof, including our article on the PSR of Albania.

If someone posts an RfC asking about the religion entry on the infobox on the PSR of Albania article or asking about the religion entry on the infobox on articles about countries in general I will delay my removals pending the outcome of that RfC. I am not going to post such an RfC myself. I asked if I needed to do so and got my answer. Anyone who disagrees with that answer can take it up with the closing admin. Anyone who wants me to do other than what the closing instructions tell me to do can pound sand, because I refuse to do that.

And unless some admin wants to explain to me exactly how I allegedly misbehaved in this matter so we can discuss the specifics, this should be closed as a content dispute (a content dispute that was settled by RfC, to be specific) and thus inappropriate for ANI. I did nothing wrong, and WBritten did nothing wrong. There is nothing for ANI to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to JzG, who is generally a highly competent admin, in this aspect of his closure he simply made a mistake. The RfC was not only initially posted as affecting only individual people, it remained exclusively focussed on them right to the end. You, Guy Macon, brought up the additional question of states and organizations only in the very final state of the RfC, when everybody else had had their say, and there were only a handful of additional comments and !votes trickling in between that date and the date of the closure, none of which (as far as I can see) addressed this issue. Therefore, there is no way this RfC could be reasonably claimed to have established consensus for this aspect of the issue – it simply wasn't discussed in it. I have no problem if you want to proceed on the default assumption that removal of the parameter from other articles will be consensual, but I strongly warn you against taking this closure as a license for edit-warring if you should encounter reasoned objections or local consensus on individual articles. Even a perfectly valid RfC consensus would not be a license for edit-warring; much less a dubious consensus such as this. You did edit-war on the Albania page (4 removals in the space of a few days is edit-warring whichever way you look at it, no matter if you did or didn't cross the bright line of 3RR); don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You think that reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once is ... edit warring? And you are warning me not to do it again? I would like to request a second opinion from another, uninvolved administrator regarding whether I am guilty of edit warring.

I also find this[67][68][69][70] to be troubling. So far I have had five people make the same mistake, and (other than you), they all thanked me and accepted the consensus once I pointed out that they had missed the first paragraph of the closing summary. The Wikipedia community has accepted my removal of the religion parameter from over 600 articles (exactly one is still being discussed). It is time that you do so as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will tell you that it is fairly common practice for individuals who post giant font bold ALL caps messages with exclamation marks at the top of an RFC to be reverted. Do you really need bold, large font, all caps and exclamation marks? Do you think it makes it easier for people to read? Chillum 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea was to make it easier to notice. It was intended for readers like the five people who somehow didn't manage to notice the very first paragraph of the closing summary but instead read the title and stopped reading there. That being said, the fact that a single person has expressed the opinion that they don't like the formatting is reason enough for me not to do it that way.

So, does anyone here support the accusation of edit warring for me reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once? I take administrative warnings very seriously, but as far as I can tell the only possible way to obey this one is to never exceed 1RR and/or to never post an RfC and then act on the consensus from that RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about edit warring per se, but this begins to look like battleground editing and an effort to right great wrongs. I agree with FPAS that you are overstating the scope of that RFC. The part of the close you're trying to rely on simply is not backed by the comments of the RFC partipants, since the RFC itself explicitly excluded every type of article except BLP's. JzG basically added his own view about other types of articles, but I think he is wise enough to know that he can't impute that view to the other commenters. It's reasonable to make a BOLD edit to PSR Albania completely independently of the RFC, but as FutPerf says, you can't use the RFC to backstop an edit war over it. It's subject to reversion followed by discussion on the talk page just like any other content edit. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Disturbing edits by user:Schaengel

Collapsed 2 images. Which photo is better is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talk page, not here. BMK (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this image a better image illustration for the Basilika articel then the newer one? I think no. Obviously is distorted, the foreground is disturbing, it's less sharp, is has less resolution and the ensemble of fountain and church is IMO not suitable for a church articel. My proposal that is rejected without reasonable argument from Schaengel

Schaengel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declares articels of Koblenz to his property and reverts my replacement of this high quality image File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpg of Basilica of St. Castor and supplyes instead this two images of him (File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_01.jpg and File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_02.jpg. This is not only an content dispute because Schaengel refuses a factual discussion and reverts me in all wikpedia projects. Very poor behaviour and at expense of the article quality of the illustration. On German wikipedia a admin has already rebuked his notorious editwar behaviour. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• You need to provide more diffs of him reverting you here, or other behavior. The images you provided could be argued either way. As for other Wikipedia projects, that is outside the scope of the English Wikipedia, we have no authority there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The diffs you can see if you look at his contribs, but ok. He reverted me in four articels [71], [72], [73], [74], some also twice. The reverts in other WP projects are not to punish here but show the range of his behaviour. Schaengel is not willing to argue, either in the German Wikipedia (home) nor here. So this is a real problem. The replaced images are from many objective standards very high level compared to his images, he will notoriously save for "his" Koblenz articels. --84.174.225.45 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC) // forgotten to login --– Wladyslaw (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, we don't care about the German Wikipedia. Most of us don't speak enough German to use the evidence anyway as we would have no context. As for the reverts here, you both have been reverting each other. I haven't seen where you have once approached them on the talk page of the articles. Before coming to ANI, you have to attempt a dialog with them. ANI is the last resort, not the first. At this stage, it is nothing but a content dispute, verging on an edit war in some areas, and no one has tried to discuss yet. We do NOT settle content disputes at ANI, ever. Go discuss first. WP:BRD is a good read for both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, that's a little parochial, and we do have some people here who know some German. While it is true that behavior on dewiki is beyond our authority, if there have been sanctions against him there, that is legitimate for this wiki to use as corroborating evidence of a pattern of behavior. Wladyslaw, it would help if you added a link to any formal sanctions or rebuke on dewiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is the problem? The diff links of his revert took place here at en.wiki not at de.wiki. He is not willing to argue with me. So if you don't think that his behaviour at en.wiki is harmfull I am very surprised. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, Wladyslaw, you do have to try to engage him on the talk page(s) explicitly first, as Dennis has said. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look here [75] (do not editwar, use the discussion page, Schaengel reverts all over all wikipedia projects to save "his" images, next revert and I will tell this to an admin), I already pleased him to use the talk page, without positive result. He reverted me again. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, Wladyslaw is saying "he's causing problems here [gives examples], just like he did at de:wp". He doesn't seem to be asking for sanctions based on Schaengel's actions at de:wp. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs that Wladyslaw links, together with their page histories, I agree with his assessment of the situation. It looks like Schaengel's acting to protect his image from getting replaced — other than reverting people who remove his image, he's not made any edits since May, so I'm confident that he's not explained himself anywhere or attempted to discuss on a talk page. Moreover, he's reverted an IP address, too; while it may be Wladyslaw's, judging by the similarity between it and Wladyslaw's 84.174.225.45 up above (also note that Wladyslaw and Taxiarchos are the same person), it's clearly not a case of him stalking Wladyslaw: he's simply acting to protect his image. Finally, Wladyslaw stopped after one reversion on most of these pages, and Schaengel's version is the current one on all of these pages (except Koblenz, where another user restored Wladyslaw's), so I think we ought not consider him guilty of edit-warring. I've left Schaengel a final warning for ownership on top of the warning for edit-warring that someone else already left for him. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me write more carefully, Wladyslaw. Nobody here is saying that what the other user was doing here was right. One question here is: are you responding in the right way? Or is what you're doing just as much a problem?

• You cannot rely on edit summaries to ask the other user to talk to you. You have to go to the appropriate talk page and open a discussion there. And you have to notify the other user of the discussion, either with a ping, or preferably with a note on the user's talk page. Until you do those things, we can't help you here.
• Dennis suggests that you read WP:BRD for further information about that. I agree.

If you've done all that, you can come back for help.

• What Dennis was saying is that we do not impose sanctions on users because they also behave badly on other wikis.
• My response to him was that behavior on other wikis can be used as a factor when we impose sanctions on users because they behave badly here.

But we can't do any of this until you go through the steps I said above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

[ec with Wladyslaw] StevenJ81, please note that Wladyslaw already tried to engage at Commons: see the page history of Commons:User talk:Schaengel. Schaengel's response? Simple reversion. This is not someone who's interested in collegial editing: it's someone who doesn't want his image to be removed, to the extent that he'll oppose the other guy's featured picture nomination when everyone else is supporting it. When someone's doing the same thing across nine WMF wikis, and someone addresses it on one, there's no need to address it on any of the other eight. When you edit-war on nine wikis, and you reject discussion when asked, it's clear that you'll not stop unless you get your way or unless you're forced to stop. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait a few days if Schaengel is writing s.th. at the talk pages. Weegeerunner already reverted him in one of the four articels. If he didn't bring s.th. reasonable against my image proposal I will replace the images as I already did today. If Schaengel will revert me again I'll tell you again and than it's clearly again what is clearly (for me) already now, that Schaengel only will force his "ownership" on the articles. Thank to all for your help. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Nyttend. I don't actually disagree with you, but on a technical issue Dennis is right. We technically can't act here because of behavior there, if you will. Once Wladyslaw makes a single, by-the-book effort to engage Schaengel here, it becomes much easier to add in Schaengel's behavior everywhere else to throw the book at him. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your first statement, but not with your conclusions. The parties have already interacted in a public manner; requiring interaction here before sanctions would be rather excessively bureaucratic when the guy's pretty obviously breaking our policies and demonstrated his disinterest in collegial editing. Schaengel has been edit-warring and demonstrating page ownership here, to an extent that ignoring his current warnings will mean that he deserves to be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're allowed to make that call. I'm not. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And, let me add, then we could probably go to the stewards and establish a cross-wiki sanction, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can´t believe what I read here. The wikipedia really doesn´t need any autors anymore. I will consider to leave, I can´t be part of such less esteem in my article work. --Schaengel (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstanding. My intention wasn't that Schaengel will be punished. I guess the words of many users here had stopped his notorious reverts. Maybe he had a bad day and I will not overrate his behaviour. My proposal to Schaengel: switch off the PC, I will not revert you and not edit in "your" articels. Take a break and return in a few days and will find a solution. But this assumes that your are willing. I hope you understand this and will not be miffed. Maybe we can close this for today. This [76] should be uptaken as assistance and good will. It's up to you if you revert this and leave or take part in a matter that is ruled and suggested to have a good basic. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it cant get any worser, then there is the last kick off ... please stop talking so much sh... --Schaengel (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it was my last but serious try. If collaborative work and discourse is "shit" in your feeling I have n.th. to say anymore here. Really breathtaking crude aspects of you. If you are not willing to discuss you have to leave. In this case your work and participation here can only be due to a big misunderstanding of the project scopes. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I know that I am right. Its a big show what are you doing here at all channels, and most of the time you are talking with yourself. The german wikipedia looses so much authors ... now you know why. --Schaengel (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't talk to myself, I make documentation of the reasons for the image replacement I did. And you inculpated my to be not polite to you because I did't talk to you. Now I am talking and try to make reasonable why I repleced the pictures and all this is also not right to you. Did you really know what you want? The fading of authors is a complex problem that has multiple reasons. It has so multiple reasons that one person by oneself can't be responsible for that. Not even you that exhibit a very dubious behaviour. – Wladyslaw (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No you tend your ego. Thats why your are playing this big show, thats why you need an award for every of your photos. This is so embarrassing. --Schaengel (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A good question is also: why didn't you revert Weegeerunner but only me and why did you revert me all over all wikipedia projects? This I call a big show. Now your true face come out and the level of your input here is falling down to personal insults. I think the time is good now to make come true what you have already announced. Goodbye. – Wladyslaw (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this: no, I don't need an award of all my images. The fact is: I have donated far more then 6000 images and many articles. Only a small quote of the images may receive an award. There are photographers that are much more better than I am and they have many more awards I ever will receive. But out of your words it seems that there is speaking enviousness and distrust. Do you really need to act so? This is really embarrassing. – Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: At this point you certainly have my support for whatever sanctions you deem appropriate to impose. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you haven't discussed the images on the talk page, you've only talked passed each other and about each other here. Fortunately, Taxiarchos228/Wladyslaw has started a discussion at Talk:Basilica of St. Castor, and I would strongly suggest Schaengel join in that discussion, as the issue appears to be a legitimate one. Not doing so and going back and starting to revert again and again....THEN we have the basis for edit warring / disruptive behavior, and at that point, valid authority to take action to prevent disruption. Schaengel, I just started a new essay due to another editor, but it would equally apply to you: WP:ENGAGE. I think it might be worth a read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone may be impersonating me

User Michael thomas 89 has contacted me about being approached off wiki be someone claiming to be me. He said that the person had claimed to have checked their declined draft article Draft:New_Net_Technologies and directed him to my user page “I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarahj2107 ” . The person then offered to rewrite the article and get it approved.

Michael thomas 89 claims that they took the person up on their initial offer and the page was published. The person then demanded $300, said they had requested the page be deleted and it would only be reinstated when the money was paid. He didn’t think that was right so he then contacted me on my talk page and forwarded some more details to me via email.

New Net Technologies Ltd was created by blocked user user:Coralbatch on 22 May 2015 (the same day as the first email sent to Michael thomas 89), only edit by them and then deleted on 10 June by Guerillero under WP:CSD#G5.

I would really appreciate some help in dealing with this. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if he was sent a copy of the article to be approved prior to its use? If so, I would like that emailed to me for further evaluation. It may be possible to tie this in with certain paid editor groups.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, two other sock accounts are in play and should be checkusered against the already blocked editor as well as the one who is conversing with you.

• (draft history) by Neilmacleod (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (revision history) by ECooke1804 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Michael thomas 89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (already blocked by Guerillero) Coralbatch (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This may be related to an existing SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute a criminal offense? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this scam has been pulled before (possibly impersonating other admins as well) and just hadn't come to light because the "customers" hadn't followed it up or the articles they paid for did get created and have so far slipped under the radar. It's quite worrying. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: He was sent a link to User:Coralbatch/sandbox asking him to review the draft and let them know when he is ready for it to be published, along with payment details. I will email you what was sent to me. He is also saying that Neilmacleod is just a customer who created a page when they found there wasn't already one, and Emmacooke is someone from the companies PR department. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been pulled a few times before theres as OTRS ticket[77] about one we dealt with earlier in the week that resulted in a CU block of an account. I wasnt privvy to full details on the reasons behind the block unfortunatley. The blocking admin may be able to endulge other CU's though. Amortias (T)(C) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm I have handled at least two of these through OTRS. The modus operandi I am aware of involves creating an article in mainspace, then contacting a representative of the company and demanding money. If not paid the original author requests deletion via G7. I raised the issue at AN but it never came to anything unfortunately, because it would have required to go fishing with CU at the very least (or there simply wasn't any interest). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm having seen this in relation to another user, though I can't currently find the email I sent them about it. It was very similar (I'll help with your article for a fee, I am this user), and received by a user who came onto IRC rather angered by it. I'll post again if I remember/find out who they were impersonating. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've remembered a little more about the case I saw and it was slightly different from this one. A user was contacted about an AfC draft they had started from someone claiming to be an administrator who could accept the article for them for a fee. The user they were impersonating hadn't edited in a while and was neither an admin nor an AfC reviewer. Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That matches the case I dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen what I suspect to have been similar, --see [78]. I have heard rumors of many others. I'm not aware of any case where an actual administrator has been doing anything of the sort. (Arb com will of course as always be interested in any admin who does use admin powers to support any article they have written, paid or unpaid) I've alerted WP:LEGAL about this discussion. At the very least, the WMF ought to make public statement that a/nobody has the authority to promise that a WP article will be accepted or will be given a particular quality designation. and b/ that anyone offering to write WP articles without giving full disclosure of that fact on Wikipedia will be in violation of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For those with OTRS access and interest in this, #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121 should be interesting reading. I know of at least one company in the UK possibly involved with these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree wih DGG; this kind of thing needs to be escalated as it could be happening on a global scale. I would like to assume that nobody would fall for it, but they must have had a few bites if they keep trying. I don't believe these are "legitimate" paid editors, but are impersonating people because they're scammers out to get credit card numbers. Is there a way to put any kind of overall notice warning people of this? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DGG was right to notify legal, and they do need to get involved. It's not only an organizational issue, it's also a personal issue which can have unpleasant consequences for the editors who are being impersonated. This impersonation may have affected other editors as well, but it just hasn't come to light. I frankly doubt it's a scam to get credit card information, though. Writing Wikipedia drafts on boring businesses, is not terribly efficient way of doing that. But for people desperate for a bit of cash, it's a fairly quick $300, if you get someone to take the bait. Sarahj2107, did your correspondent say what method of payment the impersonator had asked for? Have any of the other OTRS tickets specified the payment method? Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Voceditenore. Payment details have been sent up the ladder although I'm not sure if they are in an OTRS ticket or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I dug out the IRC logs from the day the user came in regarding this and have some more details regarding the case I saw. The user had a draft that they had been working on for some time and were contacted by someone claiming to be a particular Wikipedia user. They claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" who was a "member of Article for Creation review department" - the person they were impersonating had only autopatrolled and reviewer rights and had not reviewed any AfCs. They were told that they "will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone and get it approved" and "it will cost you $150 pay me when page approved and published." Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning notices?

• Maybe we could use a template for userpages. Something roughly along the lines of "This user is NOT a paid editor and does not contact or solicit anyone for paid work on Wikipedia. If someone has contacted you claiming to be me, please use this email link or post on my talk page so that we may clarify. Thank you."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• User page notices can help on the personal level. But we need notices at the organizational level too. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is the ideal location for scammers to find potential clients. About 75% of the help requests there concern rejected "advertorial" drafts about non-notable companies, their founders, their products, etc. One person actually wrote "I hired a gentleman from India on fiver to create this page and I fear that he has abandoned me... Please help." The draft was indeed created by an IP that traces to India. The IP's first edit produced a remarkably "finished product". It might help to have prominent warning notices on that page as well as on Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Article wizard, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser Results

Here are the results of a fresh checkuser:

• Coralbatch (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Neil and Michael. Please note that this account appears to be editing through a botnet so checkuser is worthless here. (CU shows that they are connected to Faulkerfod (talk · contribs), who started the page, as well as Cameronag (talk · contribs), JennaelkinsTA (talk · contribs), Jacelegan (talk · contribs).)
• Neilmacleod (talk · contribs) and Michael thomas 89 (talk · contribs) are  Possible but I think they are innocent people who are on the same network.
• ECooke1804 is too old to CU

This behavior truly concerns me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks. My guess is this might be just the tip of a WikiPR-like iceberg, and I think there's more than one group of people or companies involved. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil and Michael blocked indef as spam/advertising accounts by JzG.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Three

(@JamesBWatson, Mike V, and Diannaa:) Abusive user is back. IPs: 81.193.2.240 (talk · contribs), 85.247.78.198 (talk · contribs), 85.245.57.9 (talk · contribs) and more. See my previous ANI reports (1, 2). SLBedit (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress's external canvassing

Regulars at this page will probably remember that Middayexpress recently received a topic ban from all Somalia-related articles. During the course of the discussion about the incidents that led up to this, Middayexpress announced their retirement from the site and also stated that they intended to attempt to publicise the dispute in the media. I've been keeping an eye out for any sign of this publicity, and just discovered this post, written by someone claiming to be Middayexpress, on SomaliNet Forums. The post mentions AcidSnow as a contact point for new members joining the site (I'm not suggesting that AcidSnow has done anything wrong here, and indeed he/she has been pretty much inactive since Middayexpress quit). I found this worrying: "Another advantage is that one gets to see the actual inner workings of Wikipedia. That includes identifying any vandals or detractors, which one can then do something about". It sounds like Middayexpress might be planning to engage in WP:OUTING, unless I misunderstand the comment. Note that "ajnabi" means "foreigner". Further down in the thread, Materialscientist and Buckshot06 are mentioned by other posters. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this, but I'm flagging it so that administrators are aware. It sounds like there might be more to come, however: "On the point of wiki detractors (including who they are and what they've attempted to do), there is a lot more I would like to write. But first I'd like to field any questions Somalinetters may have". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt see that you reopened a discussion here. I have mentioned previously that Acidsnow and the other users are possibly friends at ANI. They all do not care for reliable sources. They edit articles by backing their own original research as clearly seen here [79]. The ban should include acidsnow and it needs to be broadened to east african related articles. I already have the support of User Hadraa [80].

Here are some evidence of meat puppetry:

The users Acidsnow and Midday are found backing each other on various talk pages Talk:Walashma dynasty Talk:Harar Talk:Adal Sultanate

Midday backs Acidsnow here [81]

Acidsnow asks Midday to check out the article on his 3rd revert here [82]

Midday reverts inorder for acidsnow to avoid 3rr [83]

The Walashma page has been targeted by a sock since Middays topic ban [84]

Midday jumps in to defend Acidsnow on my ANI post [85]

Another issue to note is Acidsnow keeps restoring original research into articles as seen here, [86]

I have taken this to various noticeboards, Fringe, No original research etc to halt their behavior all to no avail. Most uninvolved users are reluctant to pitch in on the subjects at dispute, but its clear that the tag teaming has been successful in POVing articles. Zekenyan (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of going through a long list of users to see if any edits sync up; depending on what I find, I may or may not take the results to WP:SPI. In the mean time though it shouldn't be too much of an issue, I placed a 1rr restriction for the pages under the umbrella of the topic ban precisely so that any attempt to coordinate off site would end up choked off early. Of particular note in that case it that it may make an investigation into any sock or meat puppets easier, since they would have to coordinate openly in order to get around the 1rr mandate. As far as off site material goes, in my opinion, what they say off site shouldn't automatically result in an onsite security rush. We have freedom of speech and expression, if Middayexpress wishes to exercise it then he is free to do so. Rather like Hiemdall, all we can do is watch and wait to see what will become of the action. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on Midday himself threatening to alert "horn of africans”. The current ban is not affective. I propose the current topic ban be amended to “east african related articles and include Acidsnow. Zekenyan (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to identify any puppetry, TomStar81. I agree that we can't and shouldn't rush to secure everything; we just need to keep an eye out for suspicious editing and any attacks on Materialscientist and Buckshot06, given what is said about them on the forum. I'm concerned about the apparent outing threats, but will keep an eye on the forum thread so that I know if and when it happens at least. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

just want to say that i agree with Zekenyan about acidsnow and after having a long experience with him and midday will stand for what Zekenyan says ,p.s good job in lining up all there conversation.Hadraa (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is all an interesting chain of events Cordless Larry. Anyways, despite the baseless accusations presented by both Zekenyan and Hadraa (oddly enough, he himself was already proven to be a sock of the banned user Muktar allebbey by multiple users) I am in no form or way a sock puppet. This has already been disproven multiple times and to suggest it again is simply pathetic. AcidSnow (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Its not baseless when multiple users accuse you of meat puppetry. Shall I refer to the previous thread? Zekenyan (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only you and Hadraa whom belive so. In fact, Hadraa is a a sock himself, so that only leaves you. What "previous thread" are you refering to? AcidSnow (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have said you are following Middayexpress here [87] Its abit too late to act all innocent and you continue to include original research into articles. Based on the evidence above im sure BrumEduResearch and Spumuq can agree. Zekenyan (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Multiple"? Haha, it was only bobrayner! More importantly, his reasons for this claim were simply baseless. He even refused to respond back to me when I called him out. Anyways, I have yet to added any original research so please stop claiming so as it's simply a WP:PERSONALATTACK. AcidSnow (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, behave yourselves. Remember, we are all innocent of any accusations until proven guilty. That AcidSnow (talk · contribs) seems to share a similar mindset with Middayexpress (talk · contribs) only proves that two people who edit on this site happen to share a similar point of view on the matter, not that one user has multiple accounts to prove his point. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we are obliged to assume good faith. Moderation, gentlemen, in all things. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

While User:AcidSnow and I disagree on a number of content issues, I feel compelled to say that I've seen no evidence of him being a sock of Middayexpress, and indeed he's one of the more moderate Somali users here, in reasonably good standing. I do not believe that the attacks above on him are justified by any WP rules, and I believe they constitute WP:Personal Attacks. I would back User:TomStar81's views about the importance of moderation (fanaticism here only leads to edit-warring, bans, and blocks). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry, Buckshot06, and TomStar81. This discussion has quickly lost it's orginal purpose and has become a slander page against me. AcidSnow (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

first of all stop accusing me of someone that i am not ,second of all i used my real email to prove a point that is a Chinese document was a forgy so for the last time i have to be notifit about the case and stop acussing some one of what he is not .Hadraa (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

here are the copies of my email that i have but on line and like you can see i took out the ip address and name for that is private and contain sensitive staff , and you can use any sort of photoshop to write in any name or ip address you want its easy so don't be fooled and the hollow argument was a bout a fraud and forged that was used and i pointed out what it was you can see on again what is so easy like to write a person's name on a blank place in a letter is so easy icj 1 icj 2 like you can see ,and again i am not muktar like they accuse me of and i am tired of saying this again and again thanks

to show you what i meant here is a copy of the same email with the name of [Steve Jobs ] RIP (1955-2011) has the receiver of the email as stevejobs@hotmail.com,example of name fraud

so you see its easy to fill the blank with any name like muktar alebey or AcidSnow or any name you want.and stop your personal attacks against me and when did i ever say you are a sock of middy. again i took out the ip address and name for that is private and contains sensitive staff .Hadraa (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please keep this on topic? I'm not sure what this e-mail business is about, but I started this thread to highlight Middayexpress's comments on an external forum. If anyone has firm evidence that AcidSnow is a puppet for Middayexpress, then they should present it, but I am in agreement with Buckshot06 that although they may share a POV, that's as far as it goes. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Institute of Financial Accountants

Justgivethetruth (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA contributing only to the page Institute of Financial Accountants, and keeps adding unsourced claims of equivalence with British qualified accountants e.g. [88], and does not use the talk pages despite being requested to observe WP:BRD. He was apparently also using IP socks so I activated pending changes. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict-POV pushing by IPs. IPs pinging me unnecessarily and AHLM13 being made a scapegoat.

User:39.47.50.14 is tagging me with nonsense facebook request(giving me red notifications) and Kautilya3 constantly with fake accusations.

Kautilya3 disagrees with my edits most of the times1, 2. But the IP User thinks we are POV pushing along Human3015. The user previously edited Kashmir conflict with IP 39.47.121.0 . 115.186.146.225 has joined along with other users for POV pushing in Kashmir conflict. I want to stay away from that article talk page from now and that IP shouldn't ping me, mention me again in that discussion.

Whenever someone sees a suspicious sock account with anti-Indian sentiments, they are tagged as suspected socks of AHLM13.

The IP User 39.47.50.14 mentioned about this discussion which included Pakistan Commando Force. Maybe he was trying to frame Mar4d. Blocked editors come back with IP socks.Cosmic  Emperor  09:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Administrator Please check me for all these allegations if i am guilty please punish me but also investigate CosmicEmperor Human3015 and Kautilya3 for offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I say sorry if I hurt someone but i think i have not done so; please see in detail discussion on election 2014 here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict. Please also guide me how can i refer to arbitration committee because they have protected the page and converging to deny consensus. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again baseless accusation from this IP User. Kautilya3 is the one who gave me this warning. Kautilya3 always tries to be neutral. I shouldn't have commented on Nangparvat socks.Cosmic  Emperor  10:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IPs 39.47.153.210 (talk · contribs), 39.47.121.0 (talk · contribs) and 115.186.146.225 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserted a current news item into the lede of Kashmir conflict, and they also recruited Faizan (talk · contribs) into their project: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. The IP's came over to the talk page only after the article got put under semi-protection by NeilN. Another IP 39.47.121.0 then made an argument which I conceded and incorporated the news item at the level appropriate for the lede. There the matter should have ended. However, some combination of these IPs and yet another 39.47.50.14 (talk · contribs) have been arguing for their preferred version of the text, which essentially seems to mean that all mention of India should be eliminated and all mention of Pakistan should be glorified. At the same time, they have been casting aspersions on all the editors who reverted their edits. No great harm has yet been done. But it is likely that the IPs will edit war again once the semi-protection lifts and things might get acrimonious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All the IPs are from the same city.

Faizan was brought like this:

IP request on Faizan's talkpage

Faizan joins.

Ip users involved in Kashmir Conflict gives names for facebook then other Ip mentions the name on talk page.

According to my view the statements can be added to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 not Kashmir conflict.Cosmic  Emperor  11:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All these editors should be using the dispute resolution noticeboard where they will be forced to focus on content and not each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did! I added the statement to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014. I did not participate in the edit-war, and instead started the thread for discussion at the article's talk. The text was bowdlerized by Kautaliya, and it's inclusion depends upon the consensus at the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose spamming accounts

Several times a day over the past few weeks, a new user account is set up, and makes a single edit, adding a spam link to an unrelated article. The only obvious connection is that the edit summary is always the same: "Added informative link". Examples: [[97]], [[98]], [[99]], [[100]] - any suggestions as to how these edits can be traced and dealt with? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

1. Revert and block the offending account as a first step. (There's no need for escalating warnings or short initial blocks for editors whose first edit is a promotional link; such steps just waste the time of constructive editors.)
2. If particular websites are being repeatedly spammed, have them added to the spam blacklist.
3. If particular articles are regular targets for spam, consider semi-protecting them.
4. If the frequency of this type of spam seems high (or you've identified reasons to believe a particular group of accounts are linked), consider asking a CheckUser to look into it to see if there's a blockable underlying IP range (or open proxy) responsible.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I second taking this to SPI -- the similar usernames, edit summaries and behaviour should be enough to get a checkuser. MER-C 13:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesm.martinez21 with checkuser requested. Deli nk (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter which catches the edit summary could also be helpful? Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• These are domains of no conceivable utility to the project, spammed by sockpuppets, so I have blacklisted them. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• If we put an edit filter, they will use a new edit summary for future links, it is not a long term solution Spumuq (talq) 09:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More accounts

Sorry to reopen this thread, but using Special:Linksearch on the links spammed by the previously blocked socks, I have found another two dozen accounts. They follow the same behavior, have similar names, spammed the same links, and used the same edit summary. I suspect there are still more. I have reopened the SPI as well. More accounts may need to be blocked and more links may need to be blacklisted. Deli nk (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be quite widespread, I've created an edit filter to detect the edit summary being used. Sam Walton (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blacklisted another 41 domains added by this new batch of socks and cleaned the domains... but found another batch of socks. MER-C 03:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the new socks are taken to WP:SPI, the updated name for the casefile page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craytonconstanceb for reference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at the SPI, it looks like this has ballooned into an incident involving over one hundred accounts spamming dozens of links. This would suggest the involvement of a commercial organization. Is there any way of identifying the organization (without outing individuals) responsible for this? Deli nk (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Connect the dots. User:Boistonpublic used the same distinctive edit summary but was the only account to create a user page, so it is special. What was the link it inserted? www.areyouonpage1.com, which is apparently an SEO company. That site is registered to Paul C Leary of Westford, MA. The domains that are being spammed are probably all registered through a proxy registration service, but I would guess that most or all of them belong to the same person. This isn't a crisis, it's just another small-time spammer getting ambitious. Corpesawoke (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

3 x IPs from Different Locations Editing Same Articles with the Same kind of Info

82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
78.146.41.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The above IPs have been engaged in editing a certain articles only as can be seen in their contributions since the past 48-72 hours. Surprisingly, they are from different locations but they have synchronized their editing habits and edit/add/undo exactly the same info to the same articles. They have been talked with at the respective talk pages and explained that their actions are against Wiki polices by leaving comments during reverts, however they have failed to pay any heed. Instead, few senior editors have come to their rescue indicating socking. PakSol ^talk 13:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So?! If different people disagree with you on the same point, it dosen't make them sockpuppets or violators of any policy. I have no clue as to who those other IPs are. You're the one who is repeatedly violating standards of neutrality and historical accuracy by misrepresenting sources. You're user ID suggests you are associated with the Pakistani military. Then your POV-pushes in 1971 articles have a serious conflict of interest.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, yes, different people can always agree on the same point, but the way three of you have been synchronizing your efforts and have ganged up on me to commit reverts thus leading to 3RR warning. It is indeed surprising that all three of you instead of reverting the changes that have been reverted by other editors add in exactly the same sources and the words that the other IP have added. Coincidence? My user ID suggests nothing, this again shows that you have a habit of misinterpreting things to your own favour, nothing else. PakSol ^talk 15:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When you're pushing an outrageously biased and controversial POV not supported by any credibility, it's only but natural that people will try to stop you.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia

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

---

Violation of 3RR. See here. --92slim (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported at WP:3RN. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion has been started below, looks like this will be dealt with at ANI after all, probably in the discussion below though. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

92slim and Indian foeticide article

92slim (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive edits to an artice he/she has proposed for deletion, Female foeticide in India. User wants article deleted because of POV pushing over abortion.[101]. After AfD discussion, I fixed the lede so it was more clear that all abortion is not female feticide ([102]). However, 92slim continues to change the lede to his POV to get the article deleted: "Female foeticide in India is the act of killing a female fetus outside of the legal channels of abortion, for assumed cultural reasons." This is UNSOURCED and completely factually incorrect; female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion. I have warned 92slim multiple times and have now hit the 3RR on this. User is also trying to get Femicide in China deleted btw. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly ignored the deletion discussion with personal attacks [103][104] and repeatedly vandalised my talk page. "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" No, it's not. Sorry, find a source to back this up, as it's requested. --92slim (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not vandalize your page - I put warnings on there. I also don't see how I personally attacked anyone. Yes, female feticide is possible legally: Woman finds out she's pregnant with a girl, woman has legal abortion. This meets definition of feticide (killing a fetus) and is why the 1994 law banning ultrasounds was put in place. If you want to argue that abortion is not feticide, take it somewhere else. Your attempts to get this article and the Chinese article deleted suggest a topic ban might be a good idea. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You did vandalise my talk page, because you blatantly ignored the deletion discussion and went towards pointing fingers. Feticide (a legal term) is not a type of abortion. This is not an eBay bidding. --92slim (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To try and end this back and forth about content before doing anything else, do either of you have reliable sources that support what you claim to be true? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here. --92slim (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PhantomTech: The definition is pretty straight forward—92slim is trying to introduce a definition into this article that is not even at the feticide article—it's destruction or abortion of a fetus. See definition at MW dictionary, Oxford dictionary, medical definitions, law book, and in Law & Medicine book by Indian doctor. Adding information that feticide excludes abortion done within legal channels is WP:OR and in this case, POV-pushing. Btw, I feel I'm very neutral about this subject personally, and encountered this article only when user proposed for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR. The definitions you have included are medical [105]. For the legal (and etymological one, provided this is the English Wikipedia): At the pages 1852-1853 of the article I provided, which you haven't taken the time to read obviously, it's stated that "Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion,and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty" Note another's and with exceptions for abortion. You're the one pushing blatant POV. --92slim (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The definitions are general, medical AND legal. The link you provided refers to Indiana's criminal code; it does not change the definition of feticide but says people who engage in legal abortion in the state of Indiana are not to prosecuted for feticide. By the way, I would suggest you try to change the definition at feticide and see how that goes! Good luck! —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For example, Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion, and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty. seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide. It is also about the legal definition in the United States, whereas the article is about India. Wikimandia's sources seem to indicate that the definition they are supporting is more widely used, is there a reason a legal definition should be used over the seemingly more common one? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No, they're only medical: your "law book" says "medical"generic definition; the rest are the same. As explained above, the term has important legal distinctions from abortion. I suggest you stop reverting without proper reasons. It's written in English, not in Indian, so no it has nothing to do with India. @PhantomTech: "seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide" No, it doesn't. Another's pregnancy is not an abortion. --92slim (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When you terminate another's fetus, you are performing an abortion and the wording in the source seems to indicate that, without exclusion of legal abortions, those abortions would fall under feticide. Without having to agree on what Indiana's legal definition is, is there a reason why Indiana's legal definition should be used over what seems to be the common English definition in an article about India? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to intentional termination of another's pregnancy refers to abortion in as such that medical workers who perform abortions are excluded from prosecution under this statute. And it's not written in "Indian"? LOL. Which of the 7,000 languages in India is "Indian"? Are you aware English is the primary language of the Indian government? You may feel the term has "important legal distinctions" and you are entitled to your opinion; however, we apply WP:NPOV here. I have no problem if you want to put in the article on feticide that some feticide legislation allow exemptions for legal abortion, but that doesn't mean you can change the actual definition, nor is it justification for deleting the feticide in India article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No comments on that rant. @PhantomTech: Have you read the source provided? In sum: feticide is both a legal and medical term. There is no "common English definition" as you said. There is a law on feticide in India from 1994, but equating the word feticide with abortion means that either abortion is a crime or feticide is abortion, neither are true nationwide in the United States at least. I don't understand why India is even mentioned here; this is not the Indian Wikipedia. Feticide is not a Hindi word. --92slim (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the source, I've also read the many dictionary sources provided by Wikimandia which are where the "common English definition" comes from, most Wikipedia readers are not doctors or lawyers and are therefor likely to use the more common definition. If we are to use the legal definition, you should provide a source for India's legal definition and explain why it should be preferred, also keep in mind that it cannot be assumed that definitions in the United States have any influence on legal definitions in India. English, in "the English Wikipedia", refers to the language it is written in, not the scope of the content, and, as was pointed out, there are English speakers in India. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, English IS an official language of India. FYI PhantomTech, here is how the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, defines it: "Female foeticide or sex selective abortion is the elimination of the female foetus in the womb itself." 2006 Handbook on Pre- Conception & Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and Rules with Amendments . I don't know how anyone can actually argue with that source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thus this Indian handbook conflates abortion and foeticide, as opposed to US law which makes a clear distinction. Great start; at last the discussion is over. Well, I will make a clause later in the Feticide article (notwithstanding Wikibandia's blanket reverts), as this is a diametrically contrary definition to US law. As you can see, there is no POV pushing; I am only arguing legal definitions (which do matter), not medical. --92slim (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not arguing any definitions but your own POV. A U.S. state's penal code is not relevant to an article on India, even if it was "diametrically contrary" which it isn't (it's pretty clear to the rest of us that it DOES refers to abortion as feticide). That you don't seem to understand/accept this reinforces my opinion that you would be more helpful editing articles where you can be more neutral. Look forward to you withdrawing the AfD. Many lulz over "Wikibandia." —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: I highly recommend you use the talk page of feticide before editing it. Based on what's happened here I expect there to be some resistance, if I'm wrong all it will do is delay the change a bit. If the content part of this dispute is complete, it's time to settle the editor issues you've both brought up. Unless either one of you feel no further action is needed against the other and would like to withdraw your complaints:

• 92slim claims Wikimandia has broken 3RR
• Wikimandia claims 92slim has engaged in disruptive editing, POV pushing and breaking 3RR

Can both User:92slim and User:Wikimandia confirm that those are the problems you each feel need to be dealt with, correct any mistakes I've made, or withdraw anything you want to withdraw? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Get a clue, you refused to discuss this issue (the legal definition) beforehand just to have some "lulz" and opted for ANI; I don't think I'm the one pushing POV here. Don't speak for others, thanks a bunch and enjoy your pro-life stance. Nothing to add here. --92slim (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's it. And 92slim has graciously withdrawn the AfD. @92slim: I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift. Obviously I was right to do an ANI, as you were incorrectly inserting unsourced text to support your POV, adding back in text that had been removed as challenged, in violation of policy, as it was your burden to gain consensus first before adding it back WP:CHALLENGE, and you had been warned twice at the AfD and twice on your talk page. And as I said, I'm not even pro-life! GG! Thanks for playing! —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I inserted "unsourced text to support my POV"?????? Maybe you're the one who's challenging my faith in Wikipedia, troll. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I propose 92slim be topic banned or at least blocked for a short while for POV-pushing, uncollaborative activity, and blatant disrespect at AN/I and the nomination for deletion page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me. I already had withdrawn the nomination so you can go away now. --92slim (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to draw admin attention to this comment that 92slim just left on my talk page, again accusing me of pushing a "pro-life POV." I have already been on the record stating I am in no way "pro-life" but am being as neutral as possible while going by all reliable sources. That this is somehow construed as "pro-life" reinforces that topic ban suggestion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should just think about your claims of "unsourced text to support POV", because they are unsourced. Btw I don't intend to edit your topic anymore, "pro-lifer". After the last conviction for feticide in Indiana last month (yeah, by the "prolifers"; all she did was to abort), I can safely say you have won the argument. Enjoy the rest. Oh yeah, just for the "lulz", she is an Indian woman from Indiana; sorry if I don't know what language she speaks. --92slim (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, this sentence marks the first time a woman in the U.S. has been convicted and sentenced for attempting to end her own pregnancy. --92slim (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The infant was actually alive....outside her body. But alrighty then. Just stop POV-pushing and were square.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please just don't stalk me or my talk page again. This is all another excuse for anti-abortion measures at a state level. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, btw, there is zero proof the infant was alive. This wasn't confirmed; nice try though. --92slim (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for three days because of the reverting. If all agree that that's a nuisance (e.g. if you want to improve it while it's at AfD), let me know and I'll unprotect, or if I'm not around ask at RfPP. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from anything related to feticide or abortion for 92slim. If they continue to maintain their uncivil attitude toward Wikimandia, a temporary block or interaction ban may be necessary. Noting that 92slim has not yet confirmed they wish to continue to pursue action against Wikimandia. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue action, I already did pursue all the legalese that I could towards people who were uncivil to me in the first place. Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child, just to be pursued back at Wikipedia; I'm actually distressed. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Supporting an ethnically Indian woman...'" might be admirable, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Mr Potto (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the purpose is the lulz. Please, refrain from giving lectures. You know that this is a legal matter if you read it. --92slim (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment upset you, as that was not my purpose. But can I suggest that sarcasm is not helping your case? Mr Potto (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. --92slim (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim's continued behavior seems to show they're unwilling or unable to remain civil, for these reasons I support a block, in addition to supporting a topic ban from feticide and abortion. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not the place for continuing the content argument, so I've search for and added a number of dictionary definitions to the article talk page, which I hope will be of some help. Mr Potto (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can an admin please remove the AfD template, as the nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator? Done Mr Potto (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Request action against 92slim - besides being generally obnoxious on my talk page, 92slim is harassing me at AfD: I guess I somehow support "jihad" and again with the pro-life accusations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking the pages I nominated! You are editing in bad faith. --92slim (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

???? I regularly contribute at AfD, as is evident by my history, and many people can attest. Nobody is "stalking" you and my comments on those AfDs were certainly not in bad faith. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I ignored your little blob about "your history and testament". Also, you are providing pro-life arguments ("it's gendercide, not femicide"; "feticide is abortion" etc) all the time after this topic was settled, essentially just to provoke, just so you know. --92slim (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was gendercide not femicide; I specifically said femicide was the correct term, and I did not say "feticide is abortion." I don't see how my suggestion was provoking, nor do I see how my comment on the redirect means I support "jihad." I'm beginning to think someone is a few Bradys shy of a Bunch. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, the correct term. Right, but you prefer "gendercide" [106]; unsurprising. And yes, you did say "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" at your ANI post. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not say I "preferred" gendercide. I was responding to Hithladaeus's statement that femicide was a neologism and that gynocide would probably be the right term; thus I said femicide was correct, that the general term is gendercide and its subterms are femicide and androcide. As I clearly wrote. And anyone can see. And yes, I did say female feticide is possible by means of legal abortion, as is supported by multiple reliable sources, including the government of India. All us AfD jihadists are very particular in our demand for reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You blatantly did as per above. Have fun with your "lulz" (per your vocab); come back when you have time to actually read the arguments for deletion, medical vs legal arguments, sources provided and the difference between legal systems. Until then, I can attest that you have contributed nothing to solving our differences on abortion vs feticide (which was the whole reason for this drama you have come up with yourself for your POV political reasons). --92slim (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would personally want you to be banned from interaction with me. You are by far the most obnoxious "user" I have met here, and that's saying something. A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion, a sentence justified with the "feticide". Good luck with your already meaningless life, I'm out of this. --92slim (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Words ending in -cide usually imply murder. If a given abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's from the latin -cidium and denotes killing, not specifically illegal killing (cf justifiable homicide, suicide). Mr Potto (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Mr Potto is right; the -cide prefix actually means killing, thus suicide (you can't murder yourself). —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You're doing it wrong. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Add to that "infanticide". It's not murder - that's why people are charged with that and not murder. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Infanticide is considered murder; it's intentional, unlike homicide. Sorry for that. --92slim (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the word origin, in common usage a term like "homicide" by itself typically means murder: the willful and unlawful taking of life. If it's not precisely murder under the law, it typically has a qualifier, such as "justifiable" or "negligent". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Homicide doesn't treat it that way. It opens with "Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of another human being." and makes a distinction for criminal homicide. Mr Potto (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the distinction then would be criminal feticide vs. legal feticide? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. The disagreement seems to be about whether the article should be specifically about illegal feticide or about feticide (both legal and illegal) in general, and I think that's something for discussion and consensus at the article talk page if anyone wants to change it from the way it currently is. I personally have no opinion, and only really wanted to help with the definitions. Mr Potto (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Mr Potto: The issue started because 92slim wanted to delete the article Female foeticide in India entirely because of claim that abortion is not considered feticide in many countries, therefore feticide in India is not a real thing. Then he changed the definition of feticide to say that "feticide is the act of killing a fetus outside of legal abortion," even though that's not the definition. Nobody has a problem with including the relevant information that legal abortion is considered exempt under some feticide statutes. Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The AfD is closed, so that is moot. The article does appear to reflect the view, which is supported by various definitions, that "Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place". Hence my suggestion that any change to the article away from that would need talk page consensus. Mr Potto (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Like your confusion over the meaning of "homophobia", Bugs, you've shown by your comments about "homicide" that you don't seem to understand how the English language actually works.

The most obvious thing is to point out that prefixes and suffixes (like "homo/homi" and "cide") are NOT governed by fixed rules maintained by some authority -- there is not English Academy. Secondly, even given generally observed rules as to the meanings of certain prefixes and suffixes, actual usage -- whether intentional on the part of the coiner, definitional drift, or simply by being idioms -- determines actual meanings. Finally, for actual legal terms, there ARE given specific definitions which may or may not match "logical" combinations, your impressions, or even popular usage. For the last one, I'll point you to the Cornell University School of Law:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

This is Wikipedia, Bugs: words mean what reliable sources say they mean, not what you'd like them or how you've work them out in your mind to mean. If you're going to proclaim you understand the meaning of word, you need to check first. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinate block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; relatively new account; repeated personal attacks; made statement of "Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child" along with the uncalled for accusation that I am somehow "A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion" (and all of this regarding the article Female foeticide in India), comments on my talk page that I "obviously don't care" (about this Indiana woman I guess?) and claim that "this is a legal issue" suggest 92slim views WP as a great place to influence people and effect change offline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support indefinite block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; not only for what is being discussed here but also for POV-pushing and repeated harassment of other users on and in relation to articles relating to Armenia. Thomas.W ^talk 13:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked 92slim for 31 hours for battleground mentality and personal attacks. Considering that he had a clean block log, making a jump to indef seems extreme but I'm not opposed to leaving the thread open in case a different consensus forms.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block- 92slim's blatant pushing of his/her POV here and on the articles (whether they made sense or not) are distracting from any progress in actually improving them. Also, by the disregard for civility 92slim shows, with no sign he/she was going to stop, signifies a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather impede it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Berean Hunter. IMO 92slim's contribs history shows near SPA who edits only about abortion issues/Armenia and genocide/Ottoman Empire and Islam. Huge number of reverts and flippant remarks. In this recent edit, the editor MissionFix is actually correct that officially the Brazilian government has not recognized the genocide ("The Brazilian government has not yet recognized the Armenian Genocide, although the legislatures of Ceará and Parana have." —Armenian Weekly); Slim92 accuses MissionFix of POV pushing and Slim92's argument that the Brazilian Senate basically makes the laws (so I guess they're the state of Brazil?) is flawed and shows the same basic competency issue with interpreting information that we saw in this feticide drama. I know these topics are full of socks and vandals but this comment from IP editor seems familiar. It seems a bit odd that editor would create account in February and immediately jump into experienced user mode with this first edit, and not stop since then. Even creating this article redirect is POV. This is why I'm saying NOTHERE and possible sock of banned/topic banned user. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Just as a comment, do any comments by User:Wikimandia above deserve a caution about Wikipedia:Deny recognition (especially "I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift")? -- Aronzak (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aronzak, if you look at this ANI, I first mention lulz over him calling me "Wikibandia" (I honestly did laugh). Then he claimed I created this ANI "for lulz." So I said I did not, but it was lulzy. I don't see why I should be cautioned, nor was I aware of any rule saying you can't say lulz, or that saying this was offensive. Additionally, that essay seems to be about ignoring true vandals and trolls (ie don't feed the trolls), which I don't think 92slim is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Deny recognition is an essay, the personal opinion of one or more editors, not a policy or even a guideline. Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary_sanctions apply here? Maybe some warning notices are in order. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I think the articles about feticide, infanticide, gendercide etc should be protected under the same discretionary sanctions that abortion and genocide topics have. I don't edit these articles normally but I imagine they are problematic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've alerted User:92slim to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB, since the abortion sanctions apply to Female foeticide in India. 92slim was previously alerted under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thanks, but do you think it needs to be clarified somewhere that these articles fall under the abortion sanctions? 92slim's whole argument is that abortion is not feticide, so I think 92slim (and other editors with same POV) might dispute this. I don't have much experience working with sanctioned topics, so I'm not too sure how they work, except for noticing the warning template that comes up that they're protected. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to put a sanction banner on the article. Any edits, anywhere on Wikipedia that are related to abortion fall under the Arbcom case. The article Female foeticide in India refers to female feticide as 'sex-selective abortion.' If 92slim is hoping to avoid consequences with his argument that it's not abortion, the matter can be reviewed at WP:AE if he winds up being reported there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree it should apply so hopefully nobody will try to use that argument to split hairs. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Difficulties with a particular IP User

• 89.242.202.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jason Isaacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I spent the past few days editing and cleaning up the biographic article of actor Jason Isaacs only for one very belligerent IP User at the address of 89.242.202.34 to revert my edits, automatically and without discussion nor reading the reasons I very clearly provided next to each edit prior to doing so. The same user also utilised my own Talk page to needlessly attack me, referring to me as a "troll", in addition to ranting at me in capital letters. My cautious attempt to undo their obviously vandalistic reverts resulted a severe misunderstanding which led to my own account being blocked for 24 hours whilst the IP User received only a warning. Given that the user made no fewer than 4 reverts in approximately one day (well over the rule of 3) that effectively undid all of the careful edits I had spent several days making, not to mention their repeated abusive messages to me, I am highly surprised that they are still permitted to edit. Can somebody who is available please look into this matter as soon as possible, as I would like to continue with my work on the page (in spite of having to re-write every single one of the multiple edits I made) undisrupted? Many thanks in advance, Basic Bicycle Basic Bicycle (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, RR420 also reverted 12k of your edits and YOU reverted him with no explanation. You seem to be deleting mass quantities of sourced article, you have to expect people will revert you some when you do that. You've already been blocked once for edit warring, and you barely have 100 edits. When you take something to ANI, we always review the behavior of all parties. Are you sure this is a battle you want to take on? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've left Basic Bicycle a comment on Talk:Jason Isaacs. While I concluded last night that Basic Bicycle's intent looks to be 100% good faith (note also that I believe that IP 89.242.202.34's and RR420's were also in good faith), I also agree with Dennis Brown that making too many big changes like this too fast (esp. at a fairly high profile BLP like this) will often engender controversy, and it's better to broach the subject on the Talk page first... But, beyond that, this looks to me like pretty much 100% content dispute, so I don't think there's anything here for Admins at ANI to act on, so I'd suggest a close to this thread. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User Dmcq at Climate change denial

User Dmcq refuses to cease and desist from posting forum-like comments comprising pedantic instructions about searching for sources, and misrepresenting my comment, etc., instead of discussing the actual sources and statements posted and quoted directly in relation to article content, including the five listed in this thread, and the seven here. The disregard of the sources would seem to demonstrate that he is not editing in good faith. I had early mentioned NOTFORUM to him when he attempted to introduce a general discussion source and an off-topic quote[107]. A comment from an IP also had to be deleted for the same reason[108]
He has disregarded prior discussion on the Talk page related to the issue at hand, and it edit warred to keep the latest of such condescendingly pedantic comments on the Talk page[109][110] even after I deleted it[111] as violating WP:NOTFORUM and posted a warning on his UT page, meeting with an invitation to open this thread. I had earlier warned him about the disruption here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

They are searching for particular terms like 'neoliberalism' and 'market fundamentalism' and then want to put those terms into the lead. The terms are not supported by WP:WEIGHT, and I do not think finding sources using a particular term confers much weight to the term. I have been trying to show how to do it properly and avoid the bias but they just want to discuss their sources - and even then ignore what I show about the terms not being in any way major in them even. You can see the problem by their quote from their latest source [112] as supporting putting 'market fundamentalism' in the lead: 'Very little, however, has been written about how market fundamentalism has, from the very first moments, systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change.' Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NAEG, Content dispute aside, Ubikwit's behavior says "boomerang applies" Although this is not AE, note that Ubikwit, Dmcq, and myself are all aware that DS applies to this article. Assuming Ubikwit has found good RSs that should be given serious consideration, competent editors need the social skills to build consensus around their opinion. Faced with disagreement, there are any number of tools available, everything from

• posting drafts of article text to talk instead of edit warring
• crafting neutral polls and RFCs
• using WP:Third opinion
• for interpersonal spats, going to WP:Mediation

Ubikwit often takes another approach, as I think regulars on this page are well aware.If any admin wishes me to take time to post examples, I'll comply, given 2-3 days. His behaviors led to a

(1) Jan 2013, Arab/Israeli subject topic ban, then

(2) Sept 2013, Tea party topic ban, then

(3) ____ 2015, Likely topic ban related to American Politics and even while this case has been pending the climate pages are blessed with his acrimony. Oh joy.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) updated with e/c re ubikwit(below) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I had a long reply, but NewsAndEventGuy sums it up better than I had. Ubikwit's behavior seems more the problem, but regardless, this is a content dispute in an area where an admin has the authority to use a heavy fist, so I recommend that it be taken to content resolution of some sort instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for kind words Dennis, and although DR is a lovely fantasy, check out Ubikwit's reply when I suggested that yesterday

NewsAndEventsGuy: "I'm thinking the two you might be well served by utilizing WP:Dispute resolution or alternatively a self-imposed temporary interaction ban. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: "Why would you suggest that? An editor is ignoring Talk discussion and sources in order to push a whitewashing POV obfuscating the policies promoted by the "right-wing" (or "conservative") think tanks under criticism in the sources and the article, and mischaracterizing (sic) my edits as vandalism, etc. That is conduct on the verge of meriting a misconduct report. The notion of an interaction ban is ludicrous, and the editor in question is not engaging in a GF content dispute. Meanwhile, you are an editor involved in the underlying content dispute. Here, more specifically, since the piped link you'd complained about has been removed, it is obvious that the concern you raised has been met, and the text revised accordingly, and that is what one would assume you'd be commenting on in this context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC) (full quote, except paragraph breaks omitted)

As Ubikwit has already shat upon dispute resolution options as well as the other editor's good faith, I see little reason to think that compelling his DR participation is worth anybody's time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

(edit conflict)Perhaps this does rise to AE and DS, but I'm not sure about that, and it is more involved to post there, so this will stay here.

NAEG has also made some unproductive comments, but fortunately the disruption on the Talk page in this matter is confined to a single thread. I have informed him that the issues were related to conduct, not content per say, as Dmcq has been engaged in a meta-discourse trying to dictate editing practices, and ignoring sources, etc.

The call for a BOOMERANG is ludicrous, as is the raising of unrelated matters. NAEG's ardor here is somewhat unusual.

Here are a couple of other diffs regarding Dmcq earlier in the thread[113][114].

NAEG did mention AE, here in response to my comment, here to Dmcq proclaiming his agenda.

The disruption has to stop.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Are you making that statement after having read the relevant thread in its entirety?

I've just posted a couple of diffs, to make it easier, showing where he misrepresented both my edit and the source.

This is not a content dispute because he is refusing to address the specific sources, and instead attempting to dismiss them on fallacious grounds. He has also ignored the progression of the discussion from using "neoliberal" to "right-wing" (as opposed to "free-market" or "conservative" as too general) to "market fundamentalism", which NAEG had no objection to, at one point, though it appears that he has changed his tune here.

Regarding the actual content dispute about "neoliberal", for example, please see this edit "add re: neoliberals, with quote" , for example, to the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• My humble opinion is that if Ubikwit thinks posting the single thread link here is helping them, a WP:CIR block is required. That thread shows Ubikwit's inability to engage with what other editors are saying. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ubikwit, I've read the thread and even went back and read the policies, since they can change from time to time. To continue down the path you are going, you need more of a consensus. You need to go to DRN, start an RFC, do something except edit and talk. Looking at the talk page, if I had to decide who was the most disruptive, unquestionably it would be you, although I don't see anything that has yet to rise to the point of needing admin action, but that is where you are heading if you don't change tactics and get outside opinions. This is not an ANI issue at this time, it is a content dispute, and the burden is on you to get the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:@Jonhuniq: This is a good faith complaint about perceived misconduct in a non-good-faith content dispute.

I've already posted the diffs above (at least to my comment), but I want to post the text and brief explanation. The diffs relate to a total of five sources, two with quotes, that I posted here and here, beforehand.

It most certainly does matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize things and make them readable, not duplicate authors' own specialist in--clique lingo and confuse the audience. That you have found one description in a source does not change that more uses are made of other words in those sources that are simpler and describe the situation better, and in fact just looking at the first source in the article neoliberal is just used once whereas the terms I put in were used numerous times. If you really feel the urge to stick in things like that do it in the body of articles and not the lead, the lead in particular is supposed to be readable. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV instead of trying to dictate to others how to edit.
I've posted a small number of the numerous sources that use "neoliberal", and they do so because it defines a more specific set of specific principles and policy recommendations than the overly broad, general description of "free-market". Calling the term in--clique lingo and claiming I intend to confuse the audience is problematic. Making negative comments on other editors motivations is a violation of WP:NPA.
You have also misrepresented the fact that I have posted five sources above, not one, and three of them are peer-reviewed academic publications. Do not misrepresent other editors edits, as that is a violation of WP:TALK. Moreover, you have misrepresented the first source I presented, as the term "neoliberal" is used about ten times in the book. That is also a violation of WP:TALK.
Note that I have made some edits to the body of the article characterizing two think tanks as neoliberal, also based on scholarly sources, and I have added to the article on neoliberalism itself the concise summary of policies promoted by them according to the HP piece.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I mention, it appears that he misrepresented the fact that I'd posted five sources (among many), not one (or "one description in a source"), and fails to address the multiple respective descriptions therein, which is anything but "collaborative". Note that the use of neoliberal in this context is widespread, and I have introduced new material in the related articles where it was missing as well as sources, such as nine academic publications listed in this thread.

From where I stand, Dmcq's editing is obstructionist. With regard to WP:TALK

*Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
*Be precise in quoting others.

My understanding that such comments as that posted above were a violation.
I don't think I'll have anything more to say on this.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you find a solution but you're missing the larger point; you are the one wanting to add material that is arguably contentious, thus the burden is on you to get a larger consensus. This is no different than any other article, it is how Wikipedia works and you should know this by now. The squabbling and gnashing of teeth is a waste of time, but is not actionable at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to belabor the issue, so feel free to close this thread. I would like to note that the main point of contention had been about the use of "neoliberal" in the lead, whereupon there was a move to the more focused term "market fundamentalism", which seemed to have weak consensus, as implied by NAEG's edit summary referring to the "piped link". At any rate, others can sort that out, as I don't intend to engage any further for the time being, having posted ample sourcing, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for Ubikwit

It's unclear if Dennis' statement that there is nothing actionable includes my request for Boomerang sanctions on Ubikwit. Certainly, I think there is a large problem and the climate pages have abundant diffs that don't appear here. In addition, its sort of mind blowing that this has unfolded as arbs have hinted a site ban might be appropriate (see proposed descision on the American Politics 2 case. At any rate, since the thread was not closed, I'm going ahead with an explicit subsection heading to request discussion and explicit response on the boomerang counterpoint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• My comment about no action being needed was for all parties. As Ubikwit concedes there is a consensus counter to his preference, I'm going to assume that means he won't revert his prefered edits back in. It never really was an ANI issue, so I'm still opting to not take any action and let it be handled on the talk page of the article, as a simple (but loud) content dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is correct. In consideration that this has been deemed to be a content dispute, I've contributed all that I reasonably could at this point, and will leave the material in question for others to consider and comment on in relation to the sources I posted. Filing this thread was the last effort I make to remedy the situation, because it is now officially a content dispute, one with respect to which I have basically exhausted my efforts and available time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So you still think I'm someone with an agenda to oppose your well sourced edits that back your position. I didn't know about all those disputes and bans - surely they give you some pause for thought? I wish there was someone who could command your respect and who would explain things to you, any future effort on my part is obviously futile. Dmcq (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear a topic ban is looming based on Ubikwit's user page and the AP2 ArbCom. There is very little downside to implementing a community topic ban until AP2 is decided. --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• • BTW, "boomerang" is not an official function, per your summaries, there is no need to hold open a discussion simply because someone utters the phrase. Reopening just to speculate, without adding any evidence or insight, isn't particularly helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did offer that there is little downside in topic banning him until AP2 concludes.Here you can see the proposed decision. Here you can see Unikwit expects it. What is unseemly is that an editor requests that Ubikwits behavior be examined and with hardly any comment, its closed a few hours after that request because Ubikwit request it be closed. Holding open the discussion to give time for others to examine does no harm and we are not so bureaucratic that we require NAEG to file a separate request. My proposal for a topic ban until AP2 is decided is both short term, relevant and serves the encyclopedia by preventing an escalation of disruptive behavior as the decision grows near. If he is not topic-banned by arbcom, an ANI sanction can be lifted with hardly any ill effect. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I like your thinking: ArbCom's gonna do him soon anyway, so what's the friggin' difference if we do him now? That sounds equitable. BMK (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Making false accusations is a personal attack. Put up (some evidence), or shut up. I find the participation of you and SBHB here to be an interesting demonstration of the toxic group dynamic plaguing the related articles. Your statements without substantiating evidence here are the parallel to your statements on article Talk pages without support from sources, just like SBHS. Gee, what a coincidence!--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever accusation you imagine I made, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future. There still is, of coiurse, no downside to topic banning you until AP2 is decided. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC).

Nope. What's passing is a topic ban from "any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people." In a recent clarification case with very close parallels to this one (even the same specific articles), Arbcom ruled that climate change is not "politics" for the purposes of such a topic ban. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate change is not politics??? In what universe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In Arbcom's universe. Around here, that's the only universe that counts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, we never ruled that climate change is or isn't politics. Climate change itself is under discretionary sanctions. It's clearly possible to discuss the scientific aspects of climate change without intersecting with politics at all. Or without intersecting with American politics, which was the issue being discussed (not its intersection with politics, say, in the UK). No one on ArbCom in that discussion suggested that there are no aspects of climate that relate to politcs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And it would be a difficult argument to make that Watts article is anything but political. He's not a scientist and all his criticism of science is done in opposition to regulation. Criticisms revolve around his funding derived from political groups. It would be like trying to argue that there are aspects of Al Gore's view on climate change that are so narrow as to escape American Politics - he may agree with the mainstream scientists but it doesn't mean that his involvement is apolitical. There are certainly intersecting articles that have much larger non-political areas (i.e. Michael E. Mann is not entirely political, nor is Judith Curry) but Watts is not one of them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a behavioral dispute and not a content dispute. Witness the fact that both editors who accept the findings of the scientific community regarding climate change and those who reject those findings have had enough of Ubikwit's tendentiousness. The latter have been a bit more vocal in calling for an immediate topic ban, but my reading is that there is a consensus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment. Why don't you and DHeyward provide some evidence to substantiate your fabricated claims of tendentiousness. I note that you made a single comment

That's not quite right either. I'm acquainted with a number of prominent deniers, of which only a very small minority (one, maybe two) are "backed by industrial interests." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

in the relevant thread based on an assertion of personal expertise, with no support from sourcing, despite numerous reliably published statements that refute the inane statement you made based on an assertion of personal knowledge. That was certainly a tendentious assertion. What were your motivations for wanting to negate the sources claims that deniers are funded by industrial interests.

Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as blocks and bans...

• And I just noticed that the source Nigelj mentioned in the comment to which you responded also includes mention of "market fundamentalism".

  In addition to reversing the thirty-year privatization trend, a serious response to the climate threat involves recovering an art that has been relentlessly vilified during these decades of market fundamentalism [bolding added]

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was just an offhand comment, as implied by my edit summary. I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

It's simply disingenuous of you to accuse me of tendentious editing when you are one of the editors making a circus out the editing environment there by inserting stupid, insipid comments based on your purported personal experience, while attacking an editor that presents scholarly sources to support his proposed edits and rebut nonsense statements like yours.

You launched the "inquisition" by making your unsubstantiated allegation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ubikwit is edit warring on Neoliberalism also, Huffington Post blogs and other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123], but when I tried to stop the edit war Ubikwit told me to fuck off [124] and reverted again [125], still pretending that Huffington Post blogs and other wikipedia articles are reliable sources, and reverted this notice [126] and this notice [127] [128] [129] Spumuq (talq) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most disruptive attempts I've seen to make a point.

The editor was apparently trying to win a content dispute by exploiting this unrelated thread.

His assertions about a "conspiracy theory" are unsupported nonsense, and he has refused to take it to the FRINGE notice board. Other editors, invcluding NAEG, who will probably change his tune again, have pointed that out. The text is sourced to a peer-reviewed academic publication, etc.

Somebody block Spumuq for disruption.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Competence

Competence continues to be an issue for User talk:Futurewiki. This editor was brought to ANI here, and twice before while using the name Dragonrap2. There seems to be no learning curve. For example, they created of an article by the wrong title, then created a redirect to a more appropriate name here. Countless test edits, such as here. After thousands of edits, has no concept of how to add a reference, such as here. Any help would be of benefit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the linked previous ANI complaint, Gene93k identified Futurewiki as a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked account, 123lilbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks like nothing happened after that. There's arguably enough quacking to call this a duck: 123lilbrad socked as Dragon Lil Brad and Dragon Rap221, and Futurewiki socked as Dragonrap2. All of the accounts seem to edit Louisiana pages. I'm not quite sure why nobody ever filed an SPI against him as a sock of 123lilbrad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I. I do not follow this editor's work too closely but he is quite prolific and a very high percentage of his edits seems to be ill-considered or otherwise requiring cleanup. JohnInDC (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Gene isn't an admin (although he should be), but regardless, we need more links here, the past ANI and such. I see no mention of Futurewiki in the SPI archives of 123lilbrad [130] and it is obviously too stale for a CU to get involved. Proving CIR alone is often difficult, I might mention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking of CIR, I went though a dozen edits, picked the article randomly and found: [131] (copyvio?), [132], [133], [134] (why is there a "song of the year" section??), so yes, there is a valid CIR issue concern. Someone who has thousands of edits shouldn't be doing this stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

With this user, it would be much more practical to list the useful edits they have made. It would be a short list. Most of his edits have been a word in an infobox, where he almost always inserts his POV description of what type of community he thinks it is rather than its legal description. See the edit history of Fairview Alpha, Louisiana for numerous examples. He created an article on a region in Louisiana apparently he made up. It was so poorly written as to be nearly indecipherable. It's deleted and the name escapes me. His writing suggests we are either dealing with a young child or a DD adult. He needs to be indeff'd for CIR. Following the warnings on his talk will give ample evidence. Not in a position where I can copy diffs right now, sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Futurewiki for CIR concerns

I think the proper way to go is to let the community decide in a formal fashion. I'm proposing based on a number of edits that I have viewed that make me believe: While the editor may have the best of intentions and they edit without malice, they lack the ability to participate in a productive fashion for reasons unknown. The amount of cleanup and follow up required by other editors exceeds the amount of positive edits made by Futurewiki. This isn't something I propose lightly, but spending only 5 minutes looking at contribs makes it obvious in my eyes. They may appeal the indef block in 6 months.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support after looking at Dennis' diffs and some random others. BMK (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support a block for either this or sock puppetry, as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per DB and way too much personal experience cleaning up after Futurewiki. John from Idegon (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Indech's personal attack

I left this user a comment on his talk page and we engaged in a civil discussion. I even agreed with him [135]. However he went ahead and posted on another user's talk page [136] the following:

"Queridão, como vai? Eu vi que você tem ajudado bastante com as edições do artigo Brazil at the 2015 Pan American Games. No começo, eu não entendi por que você estava tirando as subdivisões que eu tinha colocado, mas depois eu percebi (mesmo sem olhar no manual de estilo) e passei a adotar a sua maneira. Agora tem um comédia lá discutindo comigo que tem que deixar tudo como o artigo do Canadá (que não está tão bom quanto do Brasil). Você pode dar uma olhada e me dar uma mão com esse pentelho? Valeu! "

This is in a totally different language (which I believe violates a wiki policy, I left a warning on his talk page). The kicker is the above translates to the following: how are you? I saw that you have helped a lot with issues of Article Brazil at the 2015 Pan American Games. At first I did not understand why you were taking the subdivisions that I had placed, but then I realized (even without looking at the manual style) and spent adopt his style. Now has a comedy there arguing with me you have to leave everything as Canada's article (which is not as good as in Brazil). You can take a look and give me a hand with this brat'? Thanks!

I am not gonna be personally attacked like this without some sort of action being taken against this user. It is uncalled for. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Sportsfan1234, you hadn't agreed with me at that point. I was upset, because of the way you intervened in the article I was editing, and without any warning, reverted many of my edits, without the politeness of discussing it with me on the first hand. Furthermore, you then posted in my discussion a message with a cocky tone "Oh, can you do as say? Thanks" sort of message. Quite an attitude. Now I see you're spying on me and translating messages that doesn't even concern you. It doesn't have your name in it, so how could you call it a "personal attack"? Is qualifying your attitude as that of a brat "an attack"? And finally, how can I know you really agreed with me if you posted it afterwards? How do I know you were just building yourself a case against me, since I didn't do what you told me to? Indech (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my post came off as cocky, that was not the intent. When I first posted that comment I was referring to the multiple differences (not the ===) on the articles between Canada and Brazil. I was following to the best of my knowledge WP:MOS, which you pointed out to me in that one instance was wrong so I went ahead and removed it for Canada's article (and the others when I do get time). I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, but merely pointing out how I was going about editing the article. Its definitely a personal attack, because it is clearly directed at me. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you know what? I'm sorry as well, since I let my self behave emotionally rather than objectively. I shouldn't have been harsh. Yes, it was uncalled for. Ok, shall we get back to work? And could you please stop stalking me? Thanks! Indech (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if Sportsfan 1234 closed this AN/I himself, on the condition you both learn to respect each other and collaborate? That would be an easy, quick solution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JackETC abuse

I received a message on my talk page that was incredibly rude and abusive from User:JackETC,

Titled: Rude C*nt the message read as follows "Don't delete the streak on Jack Frost's page mate, no one gives a fuc* about your opinion you fgt." [137]

I removed one of their contributions to Jack Frost (footballer, born 1992) as it was nowhere near notable, see [138]. This is not the first time they have been uncivil and abused another user, they left this message on The-Pope's talkpage in April [139].

This user often contributes information that is nowhere near notable and then abuses people when it's removed. They have broken one of the main policies of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Civility) and in my opinion should be blocked for their behaviour. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't abuse you, not once did I swear I covered all the swear words....... and The-Pope's can actually take someones abuse unlike you... grow up and stop being jealous, I am a valuable contributor and make way better edits then you.. JackETC (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your section heading was "Rude C*nt." That's pretty abusing and swearing. Plus I have no idea what you did here for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Using stars and shortening words does not excuse you from what you were insinuating, and your response shows that you cannot act with civility. Flickerd (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h per [140]. Not even close to acceptable. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership by Sitush

Please can someone review what has been going on at Talk:Babur, certainly from this section onwards. Soham321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly making claims that I have taken ownership of the article, although no-one else seems to be saying so. They've also alluded to possible racism on my part. I have told them that ANI would be the best venue to discuss such a serious behavioural charge, repeatedly made, but they are opposed to doing so. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)