Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read 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

Wikipediocracy doxxing

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

---

Wikipediocracy doxxed a couple users, including myself (though who I am is no secret) and a minor. REDACTED NAMES PER ADMIN REQUEST. I'm not sure if they're Wikipedia editors, but if they are, their actions are wholly unacceptable. Is there any way to find out if these folks are Wikipedia editors? If so, I'd like to see action taken against them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of them are current Wikipedia users. The Wikipediocracy is an external website not under the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia in any manner. More often than not though, as in this situation, their editorial 100% nails it, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that you've insulted everyone who was editing that article and trying to include information about the issue as misogynists, I'm not terribly surprised you agree with them. But your ill behavior is not at issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that misogynists feel insulted. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

you shouldn't be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, one other thing we have in common is that, unlike the other users involved in the editing of those pages, we both specifically warned @NorthBySouthBaranof: about his/her behavior. Not sure if it is related. Do you know who these people are, North? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would warn you about your behavior in attempting to smear living people on the encyclopedia, but that's already been done numerous times by administrators who have had to repeatedly revision-delete your scurrilous nonsense about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Given your penchant for making unfounded accusations about them, I'm not surprised that you're making unfounded insinuations about me. The answer is no, by the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious allegation, or at least implication. You are understandably upset about what happened, but maybe step back and think about what you are saying, and reserve your anger for the four individuals at Wikipediocracy, one of whom is already indef blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) who the other three are, but if any of them are still active editors here, I'd support blocks for them. The fact that we cannot regulate what happens at other websites does not mean that we have to put up with the consequences of those happenings, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not upset, more... grimly amused? I mean, I've never been doxxed before. Its like a rite of passage! People really hate me! Rather than the casual hatred they reserved for me in the past. I suppose I am somewhat annoyed at them on the other user's behalf, because, well, I'm an adult and used to such people on the internet, but they're a potentially vulnerable minority minor who now has their picture posted for the world to see in conjunction with their user name and some other personal information which could potentially lead to identification in real life (as opposed to the Internet, though it becomes more and more real every day, I suppose). I apologize for the implication; I just noticed it off-handedly while browsing user talk pages of people who were involved, in case the folk in question were users who had been on the page. Some people list their real life names on their Wikipedia profiles, or link to where they work or whatever. I'm glad to hear you weren't involved, North; thanks for your input, and I'm sorry I came off as accusatory. I have noticed you have been more civil recently, and I appreciate that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On this whole bit, since I am one of the individuals who was supposedly 'doxxed' in this article. It's not all that surprising that people--instead of wishing to conflate or actually dissent with actual arguments, have to refer to finding all the personal information about it. It's a bit weird of an obsession, honestly. I am a real person, you can talk to me, I'm not some robot being inputted some commands by some 'higher up' person, so why wouldn't they fight with an actual idea, a post on my talk page, 'Why did you do X' or 'Y' or 'Z' on this page, and get my real thoughts on it. Instead, they have to use bully tactics, doxxing me and posting information about me. That said, it's obviously more safe for me to not comment about the validity of the information posted, for my safety of course. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action can be taken here. Wikipedia cannot regulate offwiki attacks, per WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. KonveyorBelt 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• We can certainly block them here if they aren't already blocked, but unless someone is going to propose a specific on-wiki action, we should close this thread. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I propose that we block the ones who aren't already blocked, and then close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That was all the action I could really expect/hope for. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the logic of people who do stuff like this. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. People write My Little Pony fiction? Drmies (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lots of them. FIMFiction has north of a billion (yes, with a b) words of pony fanfiction on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• A link to some explanation of what the hell you all mean by "doxxing" would be helpful for those unfamiliar with this neologism. See Doxing. Otherwise we might assume it was related to "becoming a Doxy:" Floozy, prostitute, mistress. Edison (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't be such a luddite, Edison, with your old-fashioned "dictionary" full of dead, stupid words. Besides, you're wrong: a "doxy" is clearly a more economical version of User:Roxy the dog, with some metathesis or sumpin' thrown in for good measure. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't a doxy a little winged creature that Mrs. Weasley was cleaning out of Sirius' house? Btw, @Tryptofish:, you reverted my attempt to wrap this up nicely, so care to explain what you hope to accomplish by keeping this open? Tarc (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I trust that is no longer a serious question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Why isn't it a serious question? What administrative action are you seeking here? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, it's obvious to me. Take a look at my 23:26 comment. If you wanted to wrap it up, I wonder why you have continued to comment afterwards, and in any case, you were more than a wee bit "involved". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, I resemble that remark. -Doxy the rog™ (resonate) 03:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• One of the editors involved in the GamerGate article dispute, Tarc, apparently commented this doxxing article in an edit summary when reverting one of the editors allegedly doxxed: "rv: Good for you to get together some editors who apparently squeezed a non-existent thing out of non-existent sources. It doesn't make t any more real, and it looks like outside eyes are finally getting in on this." I can't interpret that other than an endorsement or approval of the doxxing. Are these kind of shots at the editors mentioned in the article acceptable? --Pudeo' 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure he's just talking about other editors looking at the article; people often refer to getting "other eyes" on stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that Tarc deliberately said (On Wikipediocracy, with the same name) I had fun on Wikipediocracy for awhile pretending to be a black conservative. Can’t really say why or when it started, it just kind of came about during some discussion or other, that it’d be fun to be something else and argue as if that was important. So I rolled with it. “As a black man…” can be quite an argument-buster if wielded correctly.

We can smell our own; Tutelary is complexly, Grade-A full of shit.

As for the rest of the rabble at the Zoe Quinn and related articles, it’s a continuation of the original harassment she endured; the overlap of white, single 18-35 yr olds who are both gamers and Wikipedians is sizable. Since Tarc is a Wikipedia editor, can anything be done about this comment? Tutelary (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that that wasn't someone who used Tarc's name to get him into trouble on Wikipedia? If we rely on Wikipediocracy comments to block Wikipedia users then Reddit comments are grounds for blocking as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone made a point about this by imposing as me on Wikipediocracy and commenting about my blocks, and even calling Drmies a 'nutjob' and such and complaining about an apparent 'feminist dominance' on here. This is growing to be quick harassment, only thing that's missing is the harassing phone calls. Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with the anonymous comment section of a blog; anyone can be anyone, identity is not provable. Perhaps this will be one of those proverbial "teachable moments", and going forward you will be less dismissive of the harassment endured by Quinn, Sarkeesian, et al... Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I call BS. Every intentional violation of BLP is an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. Ask around about what Qworty was doing: it was harassment. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

... and Qworty's little game was exposed by Wikipediocracy and its so-called "doxxing," I remind everyone. Then Qworty acknowledged the accuracy of this on-wiki and only then was the community capable of doing anything. So-called doxxing has its place and Wikipediocracy doesn't engage in it either frequently or lightly. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence suggests, TD, that you were outed because you attracted attention by behaving badly in public and by leaving a trail which made it easy to tie your behavior, good or bad, into a single identity with a real-world name. That's your fault, and in the real world, pointing over at Wikipediocracy and bellowing "they outed me!" is either a sign that you don't really care that they did that, or an act of colossal stupidity. Either way, the revenge you seek here is a childishness which should be disregarded in favor of a consideration of your sins at the articles in question, where you apparently are pursuing some sort of vendetta. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously blaming him for getting doxed? Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, I am. People who don't act like that don't motivate others to find out why they are acting that way, and those who are so promiscuous with their identity do not find such curiosity so easily satisfied. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting moral quandary, isn't it? On the one hand, WP:OUTING is strongly forbidden by site policy, and it causes people significant distress. Some "outings" appear to have served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer. On the other hand, Wikipediocracy contributors have also successfully identified several cases of serious abuse of Wikipedia, where repellent behavior would have continued indefinitely if not for Wikipediocracy's "outing" (the cases I have in mind are those of Qworty (talk · contribs) and Little green rosetta (talk · contribs), although the latter seems to be active again now with an alternate account). We actually owe Wikipediocracy a debt of gratitude for calling attention to those cases, because these "outings" served a constructive purpose and likely reduced the real-life harm these individuals had caused. So... like most real-life ethical questions, it's not as black-and-white as one would like to believe. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who got doxxed for "behaving badly" by having opinions about BLPs, you can fuck right off with that. The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a response to me (based on the indenting, I'm guessing it's not), but in any case I'd put your "outing" firmly in the category of "served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer." I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not directed at you. I was torn between just indenting for threading or pinging, but I figured it was less justifiable to "ping" someone and tell them to fuck off than it would be to just say it. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To respond to your comments that it isn't always black and white, that is true but in a really unpelasant way. To the person doing the doxxing, it's often completely black and white. Back in the day BLP apostasy was exactly that in the eyes of folks at WR and other places. BLPs were a struggle for the heart of the project and represented a real potential damage to humans based on anonymous work. We can look at them and say that this manichean view was unfounded, but they don't feel that way. The folks at Wikipediocracy are likewise concerned over sexism and harassment getting "justified" in the encyclopedia. Their concern "looks" better to us (after all, the gamer gate stuff is disgusting, but that's a story for another time), so we might be more inclined to view the outing as a necessary journalistic evil. But I don't think we need to dig too far into the piece to see that characterization as strained. The run down on TD from that article is basically "look at this fucking loser", which is par for the course with outing articles. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that nothing besides a lot of talk is going to come of this, but "The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar." I couldn't put it any better than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that none of you are meant to be speechifying in relation to BLPs, either in articles or talkpages, then chilling of such speech would seem to be a good thing and in accordance with this site's principles. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Protonk (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is that-a-way. Doxxing people is not the way to correct BLP problems. In fact, the spirit of WP:BLP is that living persons should be treated with respect, and even Wikipedia editors are living persons. meta:Privacy is another of this site's principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs no one should be engaging in any form of agenda pushing. The talk page of Quinn is an object lesson in agenda pushing, attempts to get inappropriate sources accepted, character assassination, and wearisome arguing. Such speech has, according to the rules, no place here. If no one here will get the house in order and freeze it out don't complain when outside forces do the job for you all. John lilburne (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I was outed for being an admin and having the "wrong" opinion on wikipedia BLP policy and expressing that opinion in RfCs and on project talk pages. Not discussing subjects or whatever else. My point above was about the entirely bullshit notion that getting doxxed by some random person with an axe to grind is karmic punishment for "bad" behavior. If it is, it is only so accidentally. The main function is to make the outed person look small and feel vulnerable. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act. It sounds like your situation was done to you out of vengefulness and spite, which isn't cool at all, and I sympathize if you were doing something good here. There are other situations, e.g. Qworty, where the revelation of an editor's identity was a good thing, as it unmasked some rather nefarious deeds. The right to privacy here isn't quite the same as a right to anonymity. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

>Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act.

It kind of is. If you have a specific criticism on someone, make that criticism. But doxxing is dumping a huge amount of info for the purposes of humiliation or intimidation. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it kind of isn't. Per my example above, Qworty was rightly shamed and driven from the project. That was about a textbook example of "good doxxing" as one can find. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Qworty was, but if he was being criticized for a specific set of behaviors that's not doxxing. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that it is my contention that anyone editing BLP content ought not to be anonymous, that at the very least they should have there contact details held on file by the WMF I'm hardly going to be sympathetic about the doxxing of an admin. Sometimes it might be karmic punishment, sometimes revenge, sometimes simply for the LOLZ, it makes no difference. People put controversial things online under their own name all the time without any ill consequences. You deal with any harassment as it happens and the WMF should protect those that are targeted, but having the RL identity of a WP administrator or participant in BLPs isn't harrassment. You are relying on security by obscurity, that is really the wrong way of doing it. Al most all of you can be doxxed by a determined set of people. John lilburne (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mangoe:: The real concern with it is A) it is against the rules, B) chilling effects, and C) that they doxxed someone else who, according to them, was underaged and (possibly) transgendered. As I noted, I don't actually care that they doxxed me in the abstract, but if they were Wikipedia users who were engaging in conversation with me on the article (they weren't) and they wrote an outside hit piece on me, that would obviously be an issue, no? Especially if they were willing to do it against people who, you know, did care. The allegations in the article were false in any event; indeed, it was noted that several of the revdels were done in error, because they were, in fact, sourced and thus probably weren't necessary. A couple of them were probably necessary, but they were not done maliciously, and we discussed it on the talk page. The rest of their accusations were... what, exactly? That I was fat and jealous of Zoe Quinn, despite not even working on video game development? Given that the discussions can be seen over on the talk pages for Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, you should really look there to see whether they're, well, just plain old wrong. As they are. They're angry more or less because their POV is that it is all sexist misogyny; they are fanatics. The reality is that the reliable sources paint a much more complicated picture, with claims of misogyny being only one side of the story - the other side being that it is about something else. Actually, it is really about five or six different stories at this point, because the reality is that more or less Zoe Quinn was the ignition point for a lot of pre-existing conflicts in the gaming community, regarding corruption, nepotism, misogyny, the so-called "social justice warriors", insulting gamers, general toxicity of the community, and several other things. It is kind of stupid. But, well, I edit stuff about current events sometimes. It just so happens that this is a particularly dumb one which ended up becoming huge thanks to early attempts at censorship causing the Streisand Effect. At this point, it is being noted by the Taiwanese press as being worrisome because they're afraid that if people don't make nice by the holiday season, it might negatively affect console sales because people will see the nastiness and choose not to buy consoles (whose components are sourced in Taiwan), and instead buy tablets (which are mostly made in China). All this, over a dumb fight on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipediocracy blog piece that gave rise to this ANI thread. I'm no fan of insults to women's dignity, and I think that a lot of what is in the piece does a positive service (as indeed many of the blog pieces there do, in my opinion, because anything as big as Wikipedia can do with some skeptical watching). However, I think a useful thought experiment is to read the piece while mentally deleting all of the actual naming of editors. Go ahead, say someone is such-and-such years old, and they previously claimed to be such-and-such a gender, and so forth – but just leave out the personally identifying information. In terms of investigative journalism, the beneficial effect would have been exactly the same. But the addition of actually identifying private individuals (I wonder if someone could sue Wikipediocracy for defamation?) just makes it look like 4chan. Maybe the people at Wikipediocracy think that they are big impressive defenders of integrity who put Wikipedia's house in order, but to me the naming just makes them look like a couple of teenage bullies. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole conversation almost makes me glad I didn't know better than to use my real name when registered 8 years ago, instead of User:MsSmartyPants or something appropriate. Of course it also makes me wonder what to do when such information is revealed and an editor is being disruptive or POV pushing to the max. I guess nothing, except some how or other let them know that you know? Hmmmmm... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pudeo?

Um, regarding this edit, which some unknown "Pudeo" decided to harp on...you have it wrong. "outside eyes are finally getting in on this" referred to other Wikipedians who had never been a part of older discussions at 2014 Isla Vista killings, not anyone off-site. It has nothing to do with "doxxing", and doesn't even have a connection to the Gamergate stuff we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Titanium Dragon already corrected me on that. And heh, don't be so confused if "unknown" editors comment here - that's the reason why issues are posted to ANI in the first place. --Pudeo' 14:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A question

If such an issue reveals that a Wikipedia user, through looking at their contributions to an external site, has a conflict of interest or other viewpoint that makes them incompatible with editing certain Wikipedia articles, is that sufficient reason to take action here? I'm not entirely sure if this has occurred before, but I'm sure it probably has. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

you're not sure but you're sure? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Typing at the same time as being harassed by daughter#1 to help with her Maths homework. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to ping/link and dredge up old drama, but yea, a year or so ago, Arbcom banned a user for edits made to Encyclopedia Dramatica regarding another Wikipedian. BTW, file an ANI on your kid for harassment, they'll send her to bed without supper. (in case there'a any confusion, yes, that is a joke) Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, a user was indef blocked for canvassing on the men's rights site antimisandry.com and for using WP:Socks. The SPI was inconclusive but the off-wiki canvassing was too obvious to ignore. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Much as this sort of thing makes me uncomfortable, if the allegations that certain editors are pursuing an agenda against a BLP subject are true (I haven't evaluated the allegations beyond skimming the WO blog post), then I would say we most certainly should take action here. Most of us are here to build a neutral reference work. We get very hot under the collar about "paid editing" or "paid advocacy" but the corporate spammers are usually quite easy to spot and block. It seems to me that we should get much hotter under the collar about subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality, especially when it is directed at subjects who are real people whose lives and personal and professional reputations could be affected by a slanted Wikipedia article. Or do we have to wait for another Seigenthaler incident and a knee-jerk reaction to adverse publicity? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While that sounds wonderful, if we really go after all the subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality in addition to the more obvious examples then there will be few editors left to contribute to this site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a start to restrict BLP editing to editors who have demonstrated that they can edit biographies responsibly. (This could be a separate user right.) As it is, Wikipedia is throwing BLPs to the vultures to pick and fight over. Andreas JN466 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we take a binding vote on this right now? Also, could WP administrators please start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy? In my eight years here I don't think I've ever seen ad admin step up and openly enforce that policy. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, could that BLP user right be proposed somewhere? We could extend it to all BLPs (though it would stop mistakes from being fixed, including by the subject), or use it as a new layer of protection for any BLP deemed problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Found your proposal on the mailing list, March 2011. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

An intriguing idea. How does someone demonstrate that they can edit biographies responsibly when they're not allowed to edit them until they've demonstrated it? GoldenRing (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Submission of responsibly written and appropriately sourced biographies through AfC, for example, or solid research contributions to BLP talk pages. Andreas JN466 12:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it still smells a lot like the established BLP club marking their turf. How is this consistent with the third pillar? GoldenRing (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not about marking turf; it's about making use of the flexibility demanded by the fifth pillar in order not to have fucked-up biographies that make a mockery of the second pillar and aren't consistent with anything in the Foundation's charitable mission. Andreas JN466 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You can get in trouble for your behavior off-site, and I think that's absolutely okay. And if you admit to being paid or whatever to edit articles, or otherwise engaging in behavior against the rules, using off-site posting as evidence is perfectly acceptable. That being said, we should not be barring people from articles simply because they have some sort of point of view; editors are allowed to have points of view. You have points of view, I have points of view, we all have points of view. That's fine. What is a problem is when it affects Wikipedia. The reality is that the people most likely to edit articles are people who are most interested in them, which is going to inevitably and invariably mean that they have a point of view on them. The problem comes when they're unable to act as responsible editors of Wikipedia. As long as they are WP:CIVIL, maintain a WP:NPOV in the articles (remember, editors can have points of view, but articles cannot), and otherwise behave within the rules, there's no reason to ban them. In any case, it would benefit people for making false aliases for the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia to make it impossible to trace back their opinions and thus result in such bans, which is highly undesirable - having traceability is both useful and worthwhile. Frankly, if you conduct yourself poorly on Wikipedia and you have an obvious point of view, we can deal with it easily enough - and indeed, more easily than if we institute such a thing.

It also would encourage people to write attack pieces like this if they were "rewarded" by getting revenge on people they didn't like, which would be extremely bad. You don't want to encourage negative behavior.

The fact that Tarc commented on that article approvingly, for instance, should not be grounds for banning him from editing those articles - but repeatedly calling people misogynists on the talk page and elsewhere would warrant action, because at that point, he'd be breaking actual rules (namely, against civility on Wikipedia). I don't care if he is pro-social justice, and neither should anyone else; the problem comes when it results in edit wars, incivility, excessive POV pushing, ect. which are all actions on Wikipedia.

We have rules against outing people and suchlike for a reason, and we definitely should not encourage people to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When editors actively push an agenda that could reasonably be construed as misogynistic, in tone or intent, said editors do not get to hide behind civility shields, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's agenda, WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars and those who violate it are violating policy, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What if an editor admits to hacking into others computers? I'd be wary opening links posted by an editor like that, I think it puts other Wikipedia editors at risk --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone is admitting to engaging in illegal activity, at that point the police should be involved and I would recommend contacting the police/FBI/whatever agency is relevant in whatever country the user is from. People who post malicious/harmful links on Wikipedia tend to get banned rather quickly; reporting such incidents to admins is very important. Incidentally, if you are referring to the user who I think you're referring to with this, you can relax; the person who claims to be a hacker who uses the same username on various messageboards started using it back in 2007, while the Wikipedia user used a different handle until 2014, and they aren't the same gender; they're almost certainly different people, especially given the Wikipedia user's supposed age. A lot of people happen to have the same usernames on the internet; I may be the most prominent Titanium Dragon, for instance, but Titanium-Dragon (with the hyphen) on tumblr is not me, and there is a WoW clan which uses my name which I am unrelated to, having never even played the game. I've actually spoken to several folks who use my name over the years, making jokes with them about who the real one was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your name consists of two common words, however. When someone's shared handle consists of a non-English word and exactly the same 3-digit number, and they have clearly the same interests (right down to individual people) on more than one website, then I can think we can pretty much assume they're the same person. Not to mention there has been further links posted off-wiki, which I won't repeat but are 100% convincing. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite:: While I've been ignoring this because the issue has been resolved (and because I've been busy doing other, much more enjoyable things than argue with folks on Wikipedia), I will note that someone sent me a private message on Twitter which more or less confirms that said user is the same person. However, it also confirms that they're telling the truth on their profile; they identify as female, and have done so elsewhere since as of at least March of this year, using the same name and everything. As long as they're behaving themselves on Wikipedia, I don't really care who they "really are" and what they self identify as. If someone says that they're a lobster, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't try and edit all the articles about seafood to complain about the terrors of cooking their people alive and try to put seafood boil into Category:Genocide. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're sure of that? [1] --81.129.126.66 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A new game and a suggestion

Anyone want to guess who User:PseudoSomething is? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is what has become of ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 07:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know it's not difficult. Can I suggest, apart from the full protection and RD2 that is covering those four articles now, we simply indef any "new" editor who heads straight for those articles and starts with the misogynistic crap. There's only two possible reasons for it; they're a sock of another editor, or they're a meatpuppet. In neither case do I see that we're losing anything here. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Who am I supposed to be? Honestly? This is the first time I have ever made an account on Wikipedia. That is why I haven't even tried to touch the edit button on an article. I am trying to speak on behalf of the GG side because of a lot of the crap that has been said about us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Familiarity with Wikipedia (i.e. linking, indenting, reliable sources) whilst claiming you don't really know how it works, and then heading straight for another editor with the same criticisms as other accounts. Oh, and a user page that says "I'm New". Please don't take us to be stupid people. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I still have no idea who you think I am. I link to things because you kinda need proof behind it. I indent because I see everyone else doing it, and you add 1 : on each time you want to post under someone. Its just formatting, and every site has different formatting. Why should I post if I am going to fuck up the formatting of a ton of other people? I said my say to Tarc because he was pushing a biased POV and North (I think that is their name), because of my concerns. I put "I am New" in my user profile because I thought you needed to have that made for you to have a talk page, in case anyone needed to post something on there. Your calling me out for studying the formatting of the site before posting, for linking proof behind what I say, and for something I made to try to make sure I am within the confides of communications. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just another sock/meatpuppet arrived to try to ram the "angry gamer POV" into the articles in question, showing up with an instant familiarity with both the Wikipedia and who's who in discussions that precede his alleged "new" arrival. WP:RBI and keep an eye out for the next one. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, yall have called me a misogynist, a sockpuppet/meatpuppet (I dont even know what the hell a meat pupper is), have said my learning the protocols of Wikipedia before posting were bad, I havent even edited an article and didn't plan on it, and your trying to silence me. Wikipedia can do IP's right? Since you would only find this account on my home IP. Is this how all Wikipedia users are, or just a minority? I would think a minority, because the admin on the GamerGate page actually talked to me last night (or was it the night before), and listened to my say on things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppet: (noun). A person or persons canvassed offsite in an attempt to sway consensus in the meatpuppeteer's favor. Etymology: a sockpuppet made of meat. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What, you knew what all these things about Wikipedia were straight away (to which we can add "pushing a biased POV" and a clear knowledge of Checkuser), but you didn't know what a meatpuppet was? That's poor research. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew what a biased POV is because I talked about biased POV when others try to explain about GamerGate without providing the right info. Its a Point of View that is biased. What is wrong with that? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will note that while PS's contributions are likely from the push from outside WP to try to balance the article (eg a bit of meatpuppetry), they have not tried to edit war , haven't put BLP in the talk page, and are provided some food for thought when the article gets unlocked, which I'm happy to listen to and consider. Yes, some of the behavior is consistent with socks but without other evidence and signs of disruption, we can't do much either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping Masem, I felt incredibly alarmed when this happened and didn't know what to do, honestly. I am trying to see how I can help balance the article, and I didn't even want to edit the article because of me being on the other side. So thank you for helping, it kinda calmed my nerves on this whole thing. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit guys, this is the reason why Wikipedia becomes a closed garden of old boys and can't get new editors. Am I now supposed to roll my eyes every time the Wikipedia Signpost complains that new editor statistics are going the wrong way? The moment someone new comes along to a controversial topic that's obviously making internet headlines, people are quick to jump on them, use disparaging epithets like "angry gamer" (thanks Tarc), and accuse them of being the neckbeard nazis. Assume good faith, you have no idea whether or not they are a genuine editor or an agenda troll; if they really are new, lead them to the right path (you guys were once newcomers to Wikipedia as well, stop pretending you guys were born with the knowledge of how Wikipedia works), and if they really are trolls, then give them enough rope to let them hang themselves. What I'm seeing here is sickening. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, AGF only goes so far. When a brand new editor comes to a - let's face it - in the scheme of things fairly obscure article, displays obvious knowledge of Wikipedia, and takes up a theme of righting great wrongs exactly where another editor hsas left it - to the point of attacking exactly the same people for exactly the same things - then you have to say, either this is the same person, or there is meatpuppetry going on. There is AGF, and then there is naivete. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me naïve, and don't spin the situation to make it look like what people here are doing is completely justified. The #GamerGate hashtag was the top trending tag on Twitter for a significant period of time, until it was dwarfed by the #Destiny hashtag for a day (albeit still remaining active, and still has been ever since Adam Baldwin started the trend). Everyone interested in videogames and their dog knows about GamerGate, it's hardly a niche topic. For a scandal of proportions like this, it's a no brainer that people with opinions will come to Wikipedia, create new accounts, and make posts on the talk page about their opinions on the matter. People are using the boogeyman tactic because it's a convenient one. AGF is your responsibility, as a member of this community. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And those people will immediately pick one of the other contributing editors out (who hasn't actually contributed since their account was created) and start attacking them in exactly the same way as previous accounts, will they? OK then, that's clearly a total coincidence. Silly me. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you benlisquare. I really came to try to have the voice of the other side heard because it was a controversial issue, but I didn't even think of editing the article because I am on the other side of the topic. I felt extremely alarmed and kinda felt like crap since I was being told I was a misogynist, sock puppet, and meat puppet days after I created an account, the mocking from them didn't help either. I gonna do my best to get up on the WP guidelines though and see what I can do. Thank you. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, between the actual doxxing, and the reporting of said doxxing, there might be a bunch of newbies on the article. So try not to WP:BITE the newbies. They're very likely to perceive it as censorship/harassment, seeing as that is the mentality they're likely coming from. If they don't understand stuff, be gentle. Dunno about this particular user, but people should try to be nice in general. Incidentally, the idea of the point of view and the neutral point of view being important are actually fairly well understood by many random folks on the internet who are completely unrelated to Wikipedia; they teach about it in school in the US. Indeed, one of the reasons that many of the gamers are so upset is precisely because they feel that many articles written by the gaming press do not adopt a neutral point of view. Just an FYI; familiarity with the NPOV is hardly surprising amongst this bunch. We may also see an influx of SJW types, who should be treated the same way as we treat the gamers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Titanium. I actually came before the doxxing, but wanted to make my voice heard about the other side, I didn't even think of editing the article. Your right though, Bias was just easily seen, and it was happening in the article. I didn't even want to edit it because I have bias on the other spectrum. I just wanted to provide the counter point of view.PseudoSomething (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose we site-ban Tutelary, Titanium Dragon and anyone else trying to smear the defamation of Quinn over this encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Add PseudoSomething to that list. I've just read through Talk:GamerGate. How much more time of genuine encyclopedia-builders is going to be consumed by these POV-pushers? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose that you stop proposing site bans for people who have committed the crime of commenting on a talk page. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that like I propose site bans all the time. I'm pretty sure it's the second time in 8 years I've ever made such a proposal. And I'm proposing they be banned because they're here trying to defame one of our BLP subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd oppose such draconian bans. You're essentially silencing anyone who wishes to question the current state of the article, under the guise of "defamation". Exactly what defaming posts have these people made on the talk page? Above, there have been allegations by Black Kite that these users spew, quote, "misogynistic crap". Where exactly is this misogynistic crap on the talk page? I don't see it. I haven't seen any hate speech against women at all by these individuals; sure, they may have opinions that differ from other people, but that is not misogyny. I'd like to see you directly address and explain exactly what part of these editors' posts are so defamatory. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not their defamation, the defamation and invasion of privacy that is the the root of this piece of misogynistic shit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"misogynistic shit" - again, you're throwing buzzwords at me, instead of explaining your position properly. What words have these editors said that justify a ban? Where have women been attacked? These editors are here because they believe that the page is imbalanced, and are trying to tell their personal opinions on the matter. Discussion is the core aspect of any constructive negotiation, you need to understand what they think while they need to understand what you think. Conveniently silencing them instead of addressing their points and refuting them is one of the most underhanded things you can do. Picture this: You are debating with an Armenian genocide denialist. Would you rather have a rational discussion with him, addressing each others' points, or would you prefer that he screams "AMERICAN IMPERIALIST DOG! TURKISH HISTORY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!" at you over and over again? Because that is exactly what's going on here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is zero problem if the editors have a clear agenda, one that if they spelled it out, would be completely against BLP, but their behavior on wiki is all within the lines of BLP and they are not being disruptive or the like. If they are trying to back up what they think personally with claims from usable RS that support part of what they think and avoid delving into FRINGE, what is wrong with that? So far, save for a few IPs that were dealth with quickly, while I can easily read who is on what side and point out things we have to be careful with, there's no statements on the talk page against BLP, nor anyone being disruptive. AGF has to apply unless there's clearer evidence of a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean like restoring BLP violations on the Anita Sarkeesian page and IP gossip at Talk:Zoe Quinn or adding hearsay about the suicide of Amanda Todd or defending statements like this one about Amanda Filipacchi? I'm not sure if you consider the Journal of New Male Studies for Michael Kimmel's BLP or the ex-boyfriend's blog for Zoe Quinn's BLP "usable" sources, but Tutelary doesn't consider the sources unusable in those BLP contexts just because they're biased. Or how about the Men's Rights Agency? And that's not taking the information about the editor into consideration that would get me accused of "outing" them. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I support a siteban for Tutelary per NOTHERE (in fact I was hoping the thread above would produce a consensus as to whether the off-wiki evidence can be used to justify a block). At most, I'd support a page/topic ban for Titanium Dragon because he seems to have an interest n contribution to Wikipedia beyond their slightly unhealthy fixation on this topic (though asking them to walk away voluntarily might have the same effect). I'm inclined to AGF (for now) on PseudoSomething (unless somebody wants to present more evidence), and I suggest we semi-protect all the pages (including talk pages) involved until this nonsense dies down an that admins closely monitor them and be prepared to sanction any editor who does not conduct themselves appropriately on those pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Talk pages should never be semi-protected if the mainspace article is protected. A good faith IP editor wants to fix a spelling error, but can't use {{edit semi-protected}}. What then? Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to, not your secret club of elite brothers. The administrative team is more than capable enough in dealing with troublemakers should they pop their heads out of the woodwork, blocking drive-by IP offenders who post any BLP-violating material on the relevant pages should be effective enough. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• My secret club of elite brothers? If I was running a secret club of elite brothers, I'd have one of my secret elite brothers secretly and elitely remove you from the secret, elite club and secretly and elitely oversight that comment so that I could secretly and elitely get my way. Oh, and they'd go to WP:RFED to ask a member of the secret club of elite brothers to secretly and elitely make the edit for them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at both Tutelary's and Titanium Dragon's long-term edit history, they are not at all limited to this topic and especially in the case of Titanium Dragon I can't see he has even edited this topic before. Calling that an "unhealthy fixation" is simply false and incivil. I might add that one editor, who was in the other POV camp than Tutelary, did almost 500 edits related to Zoe Quinn/GamerGate in a few days. You're not calling him NOTHERE and fixated because...? It is also a bit nasty that doxxing is not taken with due seriousness and the thread is tried to turn into a boomerang just because you seem to personally disagree with their position in a content dispute. Get a grip, HJ Mitchell. --Pudeo' 15:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• What makes you think I gave a flying fuck about anyone's position in a content dispute? Editors should conduct themselves properly, both with regard to other editors and with regard to the subjects of articles, and if they don't, I have no qualms about sanctioning them. Oh, and in the case of Tutelary, pretending to be somebody else so you can push your POV is despicable and (in my opinion) ample grounds for a siteban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have -not- impersonated anyone else, my name is Danielle and I am a woman, and you referring to me by male pronouns is especially offensive given that the only institution to express that view is Wikipediocracy, the institution which doxed me. Please don't do it again. Oh, and how is expressing a different opinion 'POV pushing'? Do you have any on-site proof of this at all? Period? Tutelary (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Where have I referred to you using male pronouns? If I have, it was unintentional—I try to make a point of using gender-neutral pronouns except where I know somebody has a preference. As to "on-site proof", that is precisely the point of this discussion, isn't it? If there was sufficient on-wiki evidence, you'd be indef'd right now; we're currently discussing whether the off-wiki evidence is sufficient presents grounds to ban you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account benlinsquare's sage advice, I'll now support the very wise HJ Mitchell's more modest suggestion (minus the talk page semi-protection, per benlinsquare, again). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're going to support site banning me? If anything other than doxxing me and harassing me, what did the Wikipediocracy state? They looked into where I edited the most. That's -nothing- in support of a sanction. I'm sure that a good amount of people have tons of edits to Barrack Obama's article, yet unless there is any problems with those edits, they should absolutely not be sanctioned for merely being active on those pages. Expressing a different opinion than other editors on an article/talk page is also not a crime that is punishable by death. Obvious oppose by me. Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that you posting on the hacking forum? What is the risk that you might hack other editors here and steal their bank details in that case? --109.148.125.244 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary

• Given the extremely convincing evidence posted elsewhere, Tutelary needs, at the very least, a topic ban from any BLP. Frankly a site ban would be easier, but this is a minimum. I do not see an urgent issue with Titanium Dragon at this moment - they have moved away from the problems which led to their previous edits being rev-deleted. If you respond to this with a Support, please identify your preferred sanction. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)m

What is the 'extremely convincing evidence' which you seem to have not posted? There needs to be extremely convincing evidence to justify sanctions against me, and I have not seen a single argument presented or a single set of diffs that I am disruptive in any way shape or form. There needs to be -evidence- and there is an extreme lack there of to justify sanctions. Obvious oppose. Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban with urging to edit somewhere less controversial. KonveyorBelt 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support siteban/indefinite block (as above). If and only if that's not possible, I'd support a BLP ban, though it's woefully inadequate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose What an awesome bandwagon. Something that is posted "elsewhere" but is not linked to from here cannot be used as justification here. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong, per precedent. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose insufficient evidence, has a very short block log (one short block that was good-faith unblocked). Just because someone has edited BLP articles and some of that information has been removed on BLP grounds (you know many living persons are controversial, right?) there's no reason and even so there is no pattern here. It is also disturbing that somehow this ANI thread (that wasn't even started by Tutelary) has become an absurd boomerang with no protection for those who were the targets of the doxxing, even using the doxxing article alleged information for borderline-harrassment. Exactly what related to GamerGate would warrant the topic here? How is this vote related to this ANI thread? --Pudeo' 19:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Knowing full well that this will probably only mean they'll be back with another account tomorrow. (Will support BLP topic ban if and only if site ban does not pass.) Andreas JN466 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• What evidence or implications there are that this user has been involved in sockpuppeting or would do so? --Pudeo' 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Anything to pry one of the misogynist warriors away from the battleground is a good move, as this user is clearly here to see that their anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian, etc... point-of-view is represented in their respective WP:BLP]]s. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  "One of the misogynist warriors"? You have been already asked to remain civil in this ANI thread by Titanium Dragon and by Drmies but now you have moved into direct personal attacks. Perhaps it's you who needs a cooldown. --Pudeo' 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• This Drmies sees no personal attack here. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I personally find the off-wiki evidence intriguing but ultimately circumstantial. That being said, Tutelary's on-wiki behavior has been unacceptable, as mentioned by User:Sonicyouth86 above. With defamatory edits like this and even taking someone to ANI for removing similar edits, she clearly shouldn't be editing BLP articles. And her pushing of unreliable sources shows she probably shouldn't be editing at all. Woodroar (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your first diff was posted by an IP, not by me and the ANI was to make sure that the administrator was within his right to remove the section, and I closed it myself because it ultimately was. I don't see how that is ultimately disruptive to the project and deserving an indefinite BLP topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Defamatory material was removed on BLP grounds and you chose to restore it, which is no different from adding it yourself. That you had to take it to ANI rather than read WP:BLP is disruption to the project. Woodroar (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is rather weak. Coming to ANI for clarification and accepting the decision should not be considered disruption. If it were, any administrative action review which gets upheld would be considered disruption and would lead to sanctions for the person bringing up the review. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI shouldn't be a "is this really policy?" Get Out of Jail Free card, though it often works as a final reminder for editors willing to change. That ANI was in July. Restoring the defamatory material was in August. This is now a recurring issue. Woodroar (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed. WP:HARASS 72.89.93.110 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban for the reasons stated here. I think that a minimum of trust is required for interactions among editors and I don't know how the community is supposed to react when Tutelary edits particular BLPs and articles about websites like Reddit or when they write about what they – as a woman – were able to "shrug off". Feigning collective ignorance can't be the desired solution. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per HJMitchell. I'd prefer an indef block/site ban but in the very least a BLP ban for Tutelary needs to brought into effect--Cailil ^talk 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The evidence brought here seems to be about good faith disagreements mostly. No evidence is presented of actual editing of articles in an inappropriate fashion. Just say no to lynch mobs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question. I want to ask for the exact evidence for this proposal. There are editors whose judgment I respect who are supporting here, and I have no use for people who intentionally defame BLP subjects or edit in a misogynistic manner, so I am not (yet) arguing against the proposal. But, somewhat per the subsection just below, I'm unclear as to the reasons. First of all, I oppose enacting any sanctions on the basis of "evidence" posted elsewhere. If Wikipediocracy presents evidence of disruption on Wikipedia, please show the diffs here. Beyond that, it seems to me that editors are citing diffs presented by Sonicyouth86, including: [2], which does strike me as containing some BLP violation, but it's the only diff like that that I've seen so far, and by itself it isn't enough for sanctions. The other links provided go either to edits where I don't see a problem (but I might be missing something), or to discussions where I might disagree with Tutelary, but I do not see evidence of working against consensus, just of expressing dissenting opinions. This is a real question, and again, I haven't prejudged this, but I'd like the editors who support bans to provide the exact evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It is likely there are many more, but they have been revdeled. KonveyorBelt 22:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, but please at least point to edit histories where that has happened. If I were to see a whole bunch of edits by Tutelary that were revdeled, I'd AGF that the revdels were appropriate, and that would be evidence that would convince me. But the statement that it is "likely" needs to be backed up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The page history of Talk:Zoe Quinn, for example, from 11:05, August 23, 2014‎ to 12:18, August 23, 2014‎ was revdeled. KonveyorBelt 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just examined the entire edit histories of Zoe Quinn and Talk:Zoe Quinn, from the creation of the page up to the present. There are depressingly many revdeled edits by other editors, which makes me wonder why we aren't looking at some of them (and of course I cannot know about anything that was suppressed/oversighted). On the page, zero of the many revdeled edits were by Tutelary. On the talk page, three of the many revdeled edits were by Tutelary, and in all three cases, the revdeled sequence begins with an edit by someone else, so I cannot see whether Tutelary's edits worsened the situation or not; in one case, I see Tutelary reverting Mr. Stradivarius, so that might have been restoring objectionable material, but I do not know that for sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I ought to ask: Mr. Stradivarius, what do you recollect about that revdeled edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: It was a proposed section for the article entitled "Scandal", five paragraphs long, written by Titanium Dragon. It was mostly well sourced and mostly neutral, but, in my opinion, some of the key phrases about Quinn were not neutral, and some of the sources used were not reliable. I thought that the problems were enough that it should be removed from the talk page. It was not so problematic that I would consider it as a base for any sanctions proposed here, though. I did think that removing it would be seen as being heavy-handed - and I was right - but I thought that it should be removed anyway. The edit itself was revdelled, not oversighted, so I can still access it. I can email it to you so that you can look at it yourself, if you like. (I see that you haven't set email in your preferences, but if you email me, I can email you back with the section.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Strad, thanks so much. That explanation is very helpful to me. And is it any wonder, in this context, why I don't enable e-mail and I take so many other precautions about my privacy?! No, there's no need to e-mail it to me. I'm seeing a very consistent pattern here, of Tutelary reacting to edits on talk pages by other editors. The other editors make what I think are helpful edits, reverting content that might violate BLP or reverting images that might be offensive, or closing discussions. Tutelary repeatedly objects to those things, and reverts them. If one looks at the incidences in which Tutelary has actually done something objectionable (in my opinion, at least), it always involves reverting someone else in talk space. Always. The obnoxious or BLP-violating material always starts with another editor, and sometimes that other editor is Titanium Dragon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Are you satisfied with Mr. Strad's explanation of what was removed? Nothing which got revdeled from me was posted in bad faith, and all of it was sourced (though, as he noted, he didn't like some of the sources - and at the time, which was fairly early on in the whole thing, the selection of sources was fairly mediocre). It wasn't me randomly attacking Zoe Quinn; it was an attempt at improving the article, and it was all done in good faith. I've reviewed the WP:BLPNAME policy and other related policies since and I think we've all been doing a lot better on it. If you aren't aware, a lot of the problem is that the whole thing started out with Zoe Quinn's ex making a very angry blog post about her being involved with other people, but who she was involved with ended up triggering a bunch of very angry gamers to accuse her and those she was involved with of being corrupt (which actually ended up getting an official response from Kotaku, who employed one of the people involved - several sites also later went on to change their ethics policies to address some of the other issues which ended up being raised). Obviously the whole thing is rife with WP:BLP issues, seeing as it is about living people, and a lot of the really nasty stuff is fundamentally a stupid fight on the internet which ended up blowing up to the point of being noted by the wider press due to some attempts at censorship triggering the Streisand Effect, but given that the inciting incident is important to understanding the issue, it is hard to discuss the whole thing without mentioning it. It is obviously a sensitive subject and is a lot of "fun" to word right, but is also attested in dozens if not hundreds of potential sources at this point, and is noted as being the trigger for the whole thing, which probably helps us now as we can cite Forbes instead of a semi-obscure gaming website. Strad felt some of it wasn't neutrally worded and might be a BLP violation and revdeled it; we've since dealt with things a bit better, I think, and managed to see how to discuss said material on the talk page without issues with BLP. It probably also helps that it ended up in a LOT more sources after the initial discussion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, those are certainly arguments that I am open to considering, especially because I think that accusations are being thrown around carelessly and I don't want to see anyone get railroaded here. I'm at a disadvantage, because I'm not an admin and I cannot see the revdeled edits, so I certainly think that there is room for more discussion. At the same time, I didn't base what I said on a single incident. In looking over edit histories (and initially looking in terms of Tutelary), I kept seeing you getting revdeled again and again. It's been happening a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That was about Titanium Dragon's suggestions, which were based on some reliable sources, though some were questioned. He just did not provide the sources in the initial suggestion and so the section got removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was an incident that was about someone other than Tutelary where Tutelary just happened to be caught in the middle. The only other instance seems to have been a rapid Huggle reverting of unexplained blanking by an IP on a non-BLP article where the blanking did have a legitimate BLP basis, albeit not explained. Nothing I have seen suggests the kind of editing warranting such severe sanctions. I actually see one instance of Tutelary reverting alleged BLP violations on Quinn's page. None of this suggests a strong case for sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban. Tutelary joined the gender gap task force, then sought to represent a woman's perspective in discussions on various pages (invariably posting against women's interests – e.g. "Fellow female editor here ... People here are getting mad that a woman's breast is depicted and I'm not sure why." [3]), while posting misogynist material offwiki. (This can be deduced from his contributions history and early account name.) If a white editor were to join a group on WP aimed at increasing racial diversity, maintain he was black himself, act disruptively around BLPs about black people, and post racism elsewhere, he'd be site-banned. (But if a siteban doesn't go through, then I support a BLP topic ban.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• We don't ban people for telling a few off-color jokes on Reddit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I find the comment at Jimbo's talkpage offensive, myself. Here are all the edits made by Tutelary at the task force: [4]. I've gone through every one of them, and I don't see problems there, although there seems to be a lot of objecting to closing of discussion threads. I think we have to be careful about basing bans on posts supposedly made at other websites. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per the evidence given, to be fair here a topic ban is not forever if the editor in question can win back the trust of the community over time then I see no reason why it couldn't be lifted in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• About that evidence, what I see so far is [5] and [6]. Is there anything else? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Before the ANI, there was pushing to include gossip at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd. And before that, it was the statement that it's only a BLP violation if it happens on the BLP page. Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing at "Suicide of..." pages. I looked at the Amanda Todd talk page, and although I do see some indication of edit warring, it looks to me like what you call gossip was based on some British news sources saying that the cause of death was hanging, and there was a content dispute about whether the page should include the possible cause of death, or leave it out. And the diff about BLP violation does not actually say what you attribute to it, and seems to me to be more nuanced than that. Again, I still have an open mind, and I am interested in whether I'm simply missing something. And based on the Zoe Quinn page history, I wonder why we aren't looking at sanctions against other editors, because there sure were a lot of revdeled edits there. But each time I ask for evidence, and only get weak stuff like this, I become increasingly concerned that the evidence is pretty thin. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Per the Private Manning precedent, if this user wants to identify as a woman named "Danielle," then this editor is a woman named Danielle, QED — at least that's the majority view of the nature of gender according to participants in that debate. Not my own perspective of gender but hey, majority: As ye sow, etc. As for the specifics of this incident, based on a diff cited above from the Zoe Quinn talk page, I favor a very narrow ban of this user from the Zoe Quinn biography. The call for a site ban by SlimVirgin above seems a gross overreaction — straight to the death penalty. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I said this above, and had an edit conflict, but I'll repeat it here: And based on the Zoe Quinn page history, I wonder why we aren't looking at sanctions against other editors, because there sure were a lot of revdeled edits there. Really, there's another editor whose name came up earlier in this ANI thread, who has had a lot of edits revdeled at the Zoe Quinn page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the rev-del was done because the statements about the controversy on talk were not directly sourced, even though numerous sources existed to back the statements. So, if that is the case, then I don't think any action is really warranted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- basically, per Tryptofish. Those clamoring for a ban have simply not provided any evidence that this is necessary, despite several requests. I think the grounds for a ban are very flimsy, and appear to be based on a personal dislike for Tutelary and their political opinions rather than any actual misbehaviour, and I oppose at this time. Reyk _YO! 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support' topic ban for Tutelary, Titanium Dragon, Puedo. Most of the time on this page we have a problem with people who are alleged to be good content creators but cannot be civil or collaborative. Here we have editors who, at least in their dealings with me, have been respectful and civil but are unable to create content within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia. Editors on this talk page have advocated edits that run counter to fundamental rules of the encyclopedia like RS and BLP. They have challenged first-rate sources like The New Yorker and Time using arguments that amount to conspiracy theories based on Tweets while advocating the use of poor sources, blogs, and forum posts. While, to their credit, they have expressed a desire to conform to our rules, an article involving a vulnerable target of harassment and the focus of intense media attention is too important and sensitive to serve as a learning space for editors struggling to grasp our basic policies. It is a mistake to frame this in a legalistic way, as a "conviction" for bad behavior where editors produce or challenge the "evidence" of their "crime" This is just a way of saying "you aren't ready for this article yet, please edit something else while you get the hang of how things work." Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In the edit history for Zoe Quinn, Tutelary has made a lot of edits, and none of them has been revdeled (I'm not talking about the talk page here). Titanium Dragon has also made a lot of edits, and over and over, they do get revdeled. Puedo has not edited the page. I'm still trying to fully understand this, but it seems to me that Titanium Dragon has been the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have confused Puedo with someone else. Striking until I have time to review the relevant articles fully. You should also look at GamerGate and related articles. Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What Trytofish said is true, I haven't edited either the talk or article pages of Zoe Quinn/GamerGate at all. I have been commenting things related to feminism/MRM, but very rarely done actual article space edits. To be honest, you probably just support bans for editors whose point-of-view you disagree with. I think it's evident from some of the other support-votes too. --Pudeo' 12:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for mistakenly including you, but one mistaken, unsupported allegation does not justify you making another evidence-free claim. You should step away from this issue if you cannot refrain from making broad, unsupported claims about the motives of numerous other editors. WP:AGF, please. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gamaliel. If there is something specific you'd like me to see at GamerGate, please provide a diff. I went through the entire edit history of the page and the talk page, and looked for revdeled edits. Although Tutelary made many edits, none of them appear to have been revdeled (again, I don't know about suppression/oversight). But, again, I do see Titanium Dragon having been revdeled. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Claiming to be a woman while posting misogynist comments. [7] Edit warring to restore inappropriate misogynist image. [8] then joining gender gap group. —Neotarf (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Cleavage is not misogynistic and . . . wasn't the whole discussion about the image? Seems like it was put there by a critic literally illustrating the problem with a ridiculously tactless decision by a Signpost writer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I do not know if this person identifies as trans-sexual so it is best to be careful here, if they don't though which the editor in question gave no indication in this case then I understand why it would cause others to be upset. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

About those two diffs, [9] does not seem to be a problem to me, but [10] does. For me, that makes a third problematic diff. And I've already pointed out that there does not really seem to be a problem at the gender gap page – although I am starting to think that there may be an issue with talk page reverts. Perhaps there should be an editing restriction against reverting in talk space, other than self-reverts. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The person who started the thread on Jimbo's talk and posted the image did it to criticize the usage of the image here. I don't think that is a serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't, TDA? At this point, I deeply regret supporting your bid for Arbcom. I won't make that mistake again. —Neotarf (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are suggesting a site ban because someone restored an image of boobs in a discussion that was about said image of boobs and claiming the image of boobs was misogynistic. I find that more silly than serious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You should read that whole thread, TDA, there's a lot more to it. But of course we won't be able to discourage women from joining the project by just posting a link to a disputed thumbnail image. In order to convince them that Wikipedia is just a bunch of predatory neckbeards who want to interact with them with only one hand on the keyboard, you have to actually re-post the image at a larger size, on a talk page with 3,169 page watchers, and make locker room comments about it. And above all, just keep arguing and reverting, after the image has been removed multiple times by multiple editors. —Neotarf (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess locker room talk has gotten a lot more tactful than I remember . . .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't read the edit summaries, didja. Or the in-line comments you can only see in edit mode. Hmm, I see you have typed the word "boobs" three times...—Neotarf (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I read the summaries and saw the in-line comment too. How many locker room conversations have you heard exactly Neo? Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion of boobs, then perhaps you should go to my talk page. There you can feel free to talk with me about boobs all day.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose So we can't out anyone here but if someone else does the dirty work we'll take it at face value and ban people on the say-so of someone who has a blog about wikipedia. Why not just hand the editors over there the mop? If you want to ban someone do it on the merits, not some low rent horseshit from some random website. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the administrators over there have been handing in their mops lately, interpret that as you will. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban only. At an article I was helping help build, Tutelary removed well-sourced content. In my experience, that is one of the clearest indicators of activist editing (please take note of this, administrators, so you can start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy). However, when I opined on the talk page that I thought the section was fine, Tutelary ceased objecting to it. So, I think it's ok for her to continue editing the topics she takes an interest in, EXCEPT for BLPs, because with BLPs there is just no room for activist editing. People's lives are at stake. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Tutelary does have a problem on talk pages with NPOV can affect her interpretation of sources. That said, I've not seen anything bad faith and I've not seen an active agenda pushing on mainspace. A short BLP topic ban may let her cool her boots but I think a civil explanation of what she's doing wrong, why its wrong and how to do it right would go a lot further to solving the problem. SPACKlick (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support With the additions they made to Zoe and Anitas pages, plus Tutelarys support of The Fappening articles, I find it hard to believe that this person respects the women whose articles they edit. I would suggest a BLP ban, or at the very least, one for the articles for women, as this editor seems to have no desire to break WP:BLP for articles with male subjects --109.148.125.223 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is further evidence that Tutelary understands how WP:BLP works but only chooses to enforce it when it concerns men [11]. I am sure that a BLP ban for the articles of women only would suffice here --109.148.126.200 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was holding off posting this but I really think admins should see this link where a user called Tutelary acknowledges hacking a persons computer and stealing information [12] - you can read one of the images linked here [13]. Tutelary themselves has wrote an article on this website here [14], so I would say it's likely they are the same Tutelary. This is pretty crucial, as often editors email each other using links provided in the user space, a medium which would allow a user to spread malware through email attachments. For an editor who edits in politically charged areas, this could cause problems in the future --109.148.126.200 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Hardly any evidence, people are often wrong in BLP, they happen to add just anything. I would just hope that this proposal would enforce Tutelary to learn some more. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on site ban. People calling for her to be banned for editing based on political beliefs is absurd. Anyone is allowed to freely edit as long as they don't force their views upon other editors and be disruptive. I support a short topic ban on BLP per SPACKlick's proposal above. Wikipedia isn't a political arena. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 18:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support per SlimVirgin. Her analogy is apt, and appropriate. Site ban massively preferred. Topic ban (from everything BLP related, not just BLP articles) at the very least. Begoon ^talk 18:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban, per precedent of the Essjay controversy. In case you don't recall, Essjay was a highly trusted user that pretended to be a professor of theology to gain advantage in editing arguments. I have been convinced by the evidence presented by Nw on Wikipediocracy that our User:Tutelary is a male pretending to be a female to gain advantage in a "war against the feminists" on Wikipedia. I can't link to the evidence myself (an earlier support was removed by Tutelary and later oversighted on request from Tutelary although it didn't link to any personal information) but it is convincing that our Tutelary is the same Tutelary who writes about being "a guy" pretending to be a "a girl" in order to insert RATs, specifically Darkcomet. Our Tutelary added information about Darkcomet to our Remote administration software article.[15] It is convincing that our Tutelary, former User:Ging287 is the same Ging287 who complains about the "gyrocentric POV" on Wikipedia. Our Tutelary then claims to be a woman to defend posting a large bosom on the main page.[16] Nothing wrong with holding political beliefs, but per the Essjay precedent, pretending to be a woman to gain advantage in editing disputes is ban worthy. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment for anyone a bit confused at what happened there, Tutelary removed a post which linked to his activities on Reddit and elsewhere. If that's not allowed, I'll just quote this one (bear in mind that he is still pretending to be female on Wikipedia) "The exploit ONLY works for Yahoo messenger, sorry I didn’t mention that. But it’s good for pretending to be a girl, all it takes is, “Hey, wanna see me naked? <3" and you've got another slave.". Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, I am a female and I consider it harassment to continue to refer to me by male pronouns. I am a girl, and I'm going to respectfully ask that you refer to me as such. And where did you get that quote? I'm a bit confused by it, namely the terms of 'slaves' and 'exploits and are you supposing I said it somewhere? Tutelary (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK - to be clear, are you clearly stating that you are not the person on those two external sites with exactly the same username as your previous one here, and who is interested in exactly the same issues, with exactly the same viewpoints, on those forums as you are on here? If so, how do you explain that astonishing coincidence? I will be quite happy to apologise and withdraw if you can do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer if you don't provide the names of the sites. But please don't link them here, but say their names. I can do my own sleuthing to find the account links. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the title of this section is "Wikipediocracy doxxing", perhaps I can suggest you read their article and the comments on it? Oh hang on, I can see from the above postings that you have actually read it. Which means you do know the names of the sites. Here's a fact for you - we're not idiots here Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not read the comments since the first day because they were all constantly making salacious and offensive comments about me and my supposed off site connections. Plus, as I mentioned within the 'it should be noted' section my heart pressure was spiked and my heart was pacing every single time I thought about it. It's still bad right now, but manageable. I figured that if I continued looking at the article and subsequent comments I would have panic attacks. So I didn't. I did know about Reddit but not the bit about Hackforums. I have accounts on neither. Also, Is that why everybody is getting their pitchforks? Because there's somebody with the same name as me on Hackforums and Reddit and think it's me? Oh, and because I had that sandbox article? Well I think I can cut this straight right now. I began to write that article because Hackforums is one of those 'underground' hacker forums that constantly gets well-deserved flak when actually written about in RS, yet hasn't had an article as of yet. I also found it somewhat stupid that people would register on it and brag about their illegal activities, and they deserve what they get coming to them. Anywho, I never actually submitted it because I talked to the protecting administrator (who fully protected the title because members of the site were subsequently spamming the site which was obviously not notable at the time on Wikipedia) who said the article was not up to par. The only reason it was on my radar even is because Miss Teen America got hacked by a member from the forum and googling 'Hackforums wikipedia' came up nothing so I wantd to write the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Reddit user Ging287 discussed this revert on Reddit 5 months ago with another Redditor, who complained that that edit reverted an addition he had made. Redditor Ging287 said: "Hello. I was the one who reverted your edit. It was due to the specific wording that you attempted to use." At the time, Ging287 was Tutelary's user name here. More such parallels between Ging287's discussions of Wikipedia on Reddit and Ging287's/Tutelary's edits here can easily be found. Andreas JN466 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this Reddit post, where Redditor Ging287 claimed ownership of Tutelary's edit here, has now been deleted on Reddit (though an archive copy is available). This seems like another remarkable coincidence, and I do not believe Tutelary's comment above, "I have accounts on neither", was truthful. There has been some discussion of this on my user talk page. Andreas JN466 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously baiting editors to restore the diff link for the quote so that you can have their answer oversighted again and maybe have them blocked? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a loaded question, like 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' I've done nothing of the sort, but it appears that since Black Kite is the one that proposed this whole thing, it should be a given that I should understand their position, including where I supposedly said something. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the two accounts was on Hackforums. You know, the one you're writing a sandbox article about. User:Tutelary/sandbox/Hackforums. By complete coincidence. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you deleted the comment that contained the diff for the quote. Then you had the comment and the diff oversighted. And now you innocently request that someone tell you where you said that stuff about pretending to be a woman. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're confused by the term 'slaves', User:Tutelary, you should read the excellent explanation of that term added to Wikipedia by User:Tutelary here. Andreas JN466 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I really just forgot about the article since talking to the protecting admin and just let it be. I don't remember things forever, especially things I wrote 3 and a half months ago. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you write above your first name is Danielle? The user Tutelary on Hackforums actually uses the same name in one thread. Not the thread he writes "I am a guy" in. Uses the last name and everything. The same last name you use in an account on a Wikipedia-related site that I guess you will admit is you. Weird coincidence, huh? --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, I had asked for clarification, so thank you for expanding on it here. At this point, I can pretty much see what is going on here. I don't know if what it says at Wikipediocracy is true or not, but I'd speculate that the odds are greater than 50% that it more or less is true. What neither Black Kite nor anyone else has been able to provide are diffs of Tutelary actually adding BLP-violating material to mainspace pages. So, for the sake of conversation, let's just suppose that Tutelary is, hypothetically, a horrible person in the real world. When people who are horrible people in the real world come to Wikipedia and act disruptively, we sanction them for the disruption. But if we were to ban every Wikipedia editor who is a messed-up person in real life, based on who they are in real life and not on something that can be documented by diffs here, well, there would be a lot fewer longtime editors here. And if we ban them for not being who they claim to be, well, I claim to be a fish, but I don't make disruptive edits. I do see some things that Tutelary has done that merit some kind of action, but I don't want to base it on WP:ASPERSIONS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Black Kite, but for me, I'm not asking Tutelary be banned for being a horrible person in the real world, just on Wikipedia. I'm asking Tutelary be banned for writing "as a woman I say X", multiple times, in editing discussions where being a woman clearly gave cachet, when it seems Tutelary's not a woman ... (and was expressing an opinion counter to that of most women in the discussion). That's basic disruption of Wikipedia, and it's what Essjay controversy was about. Women have it tough enough on Wikipedia, that having "a guy" pretend to be one of them to disrupt discussion is pretty bad. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

^^^This. We want to remove the gender gap? Well, remove people playing juvenile impersonation games to undermine those efforts. Simple. Begoon ^talk 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

GRuban, you raise an issue that I care about very much. But if I parse what you said, you object to Tutelary gaining cachet based on what may well be a false persona, and to a lesser extent to Tutelary "expressing an opinion counter to that of most women in the discussion". I hope that it's obvious that we shouldn't ban editors for expressing unpopular opinions, with respect to that last part. As for the main part of your concern, I'm in favor of some editing restrictions in talk space, but I think that there is little likelihood of "cachet" going forward, and "cachet" is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Editors are free, going forward, to assign Tutelary's opinions the same value they might give to a male editor's opinions, instead of a female editor's opinions – and I hope that you can see the pitfalls of even treating those opinions differently in the first place. But, again, I do note that there are talk space problems, noting also that everything cited below by Cúchullain is also in talk space. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying that someone who is known to use sock puppets to comment 5 times in a discussion under different names shouldn't be banned because from this point forward editors would be free to ignore 4 of them. We should and do ban people for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and we did ban Essjay for pretending to be a professor of theology in arguments where that matters, and we should ban Tutelary for pretending to be a woman in arguments where that matters. Discussion is very valuable for us. I have nothing against someone expressing an unpopular opinion, (you'll notice I didn't weigh in on the bosom discussion!) but when that someone says "I'm a member of group X, so my opinion is extra valuable", and they're not, that's just as fundamental disruption as WP:SOCK: "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus". It's just the same if they wrote their opinion 5 times under different names, or if they claimed to be a professor of theology in a topic where that would matter. It's a ban-worthy offense. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that your analogy is flawed. A sock-er gains multiple !votes, and that's very disruptive. Someone who says "I'm a member of group X, so my opinion is extra valuable", is only disruptive to the extent that other editors accept as true that claim of extra value. I edit, for example, many neuroscience pages and it just so happens (so I claim!) that I've been a neuroscience professor in real life. But, even though I just said that here, I never say that in talk page discussions on those pages (except one time when I declined a request to comment because of a COI). That's because I don't care if some editor is a Nobel Laureate – if they make a bad edit, I'll revert it. And if a schoolchild makes a good edit, I'll support it. This isn't the same thing as Essjay, because Essjay parlayed the misrepresentation into advanced permissions. And, in fact, you haven't really proved that Tutelary isn't a trans woman. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

!votes? There was no !voting in the bosom photos discussion, there was merely a decision - should we have a photo of a bosom on the main page? And since arguably the main issue there was "is it offensive to women?" - the voice of someone who said they were a woman was easily worth 5 who said they weren't. Same for joining the Gender Gap project - the voice of an editor claiming to be a woman is easily more valuable in getting more women to join than any number of people who don't claim to be women. Sure, we haven't "proved" Tutelary isn't a trans woman; but we can hardly do a DNA analysis. We have proven she's a troll, who happily claims to be "a girl" to install RATs, then says she's "a guy". I think that's plenty indicative she's a similar troll who claims to be "a girl" (this time quoting her above!) to disrupt Wikipedia. See SlimVirgin's analogy of someone claiming to be black when joining a racial diversity project. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the analogy is WP:ASPERSIONS. If it makes you feel any better about my position, I do support restrictions on Tutelary in talk space. Sincerely, I really do care about making Wikipedia a more welcoming place, but I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban (or a fallback to feminism and BLP ban) per Essjay controversy. Pretending to be someone who you are not for the benefit of winning debates and pushing an anti-feminist POV does not engender trust. Although oversighted, the evidence is fairly clear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Per a request by Tutelary, I will edit my comment to say that I find this user highly untrustworthy due to off-site behavior. This behavior has manifested itself on Wikipedia as POV-pushing and disruption, some of which is plainly in this thread itself. Continued, stubborn insistence of innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is perplexing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Given the seriousness of BLP articles here on Wikipedia is there a way of matching up the IP address used on the other sites with the one used here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban or site ban for Tutelary. Here are all of the diffs that have been presented in this wall-of-text in which Tutelary has added BLP-violating material to Wikipedia articles: there aren't any. But I would support a BLP topic ban for Titanium Dragon, who has made enough such edits to justify the sanction. And, I would support an editing restriction on Tutelary, forbidding reverts (except self-reverts) in talk page space, because everything where Tutelary has edited badly really consists of that. And I think we should also caution some of the supporters in this discussion about WP:ASPERSIONS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. Edits like this BLP violation are just symptoms of a much wider pattern of inserting, or advocating for inserting, poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of living women. Though individual edits and comments generally avoid violating the letter of BLP, discussions like these[17][18][19] show a clear tendency toward inserting negative material about living people based on questionable or unusable sources. Even if we assume good faith about Tutelary's intentions (which is a big assumption at this point), they clearly lack the competence expected of editors dealing with highly sensitive BLP topics, and they take up a considerable amount of other editors' time and energy. It simply shouldn't be so difficult for Wikipedia to channel problematic editors away from topics where they can cause serious damage, whether it's towards topics where they can be productive (through a topic ban), or toward another hobby altogether. On another note, it's also time to look into sanctions for Titanium Dragon and editors who have been disrupting these articles recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that I shouldn't have the obligation nor the will to report another administrator's decisions up for review? Are you saying that in the terms of that I think wider input should be sought, I should not do a RfC? And to the fact that I 'lack competence', I do not, and that is plainly a personal attack. CIR is cited often when a user does not learn after an incessant amount of guidance, help, among other things, that is not the case here. The two that you cite are months and months old and appear to be only be useful in this discussion because there is shant a shred of recent evidence that I've been disruptive other than that misinterpreted diff. It's plainly obvious of that when you have to cite a RfC that was done when the dispute was still fresh, and a review of an administrator's authority and BLP policy. The diff of me restoring the talk page comment was actually a misinterpreted; I had the impression that NeinL had a problem with specific portions of the comment and that it was salvageable overall. I reverted only once. Indeed, in the next diff, you can see that I removed what I thought NeiNL thought was objectionable and then NeinL reverted again with further clarification and I did not revert again because it was evident that it was not salvageable. Tutelary (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Making a few problem edits and comments and then improving is one thing. Making the same problem edits again and again, over the course of months, and across multiple articles and forums, as you've been doing, is a serious problem. This is incompetence at best, if not outright intentional tendentious editing. In neither case should you come anywhere near a biography of a living person again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: - Please note that we actually can go back two revs and see what the content in question was (why it wasn't revdeled, I can't say, but only that particular edit was); the content did not originate with Tutelary, and the content in question was an post about being censored and about how the main gaming journalism websites were biased in their own favor from a third party. The post was probably not the best thing in the universe, but the problem was that some folks had been reverting every attempt to discuss some of the issues involved, which have been, at this point, reliably sourced. Banning them over revving back to something someone else posted, especially given that their reason was "delete the BLP violating information and leave the rest", isn't something I would consider a bannable offense at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoring some's flagrant BLP violation by edit warring is equally as bad as making the violation yourself. Especially when it's part of a larger pattern of BLP issues such as I linked to. What you "consider" carries no weight given your own various BLP violations. Neither of you should be editing BLPs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose site or topic ban for Tutelary; though i have the highest respect for Black Kite and others who have commented or opined here, it simply isn't reasonable, in my view, to say, "Oh, there's evidence, but i'm not showing it to you, just take my word for it". Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't, but if i cannot see it (and, no thank you, i don't care to go searching off-site for it), it isn't convincing to me. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 22:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Er - it's been posted, deleted, and oversighted. What do you suggest, Lindsay? How shall we show it to you? --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Lindsay, we can't show you the evidence because every time someone presents any it gets oversighted away (Tutelary's adherence to policy improves remarkably when it suits Tutelary). The evidence that Tutelary has behaved inappropriately on BLPs is all above and in Tutelary's contributions. The evidence that Tutelary is an agenda-driven POV warier rather than a misguided newbie relies on analysis of their comments elsewhere on the web, and the evidence that they are not who they say they are was posted by third parties to Wikipediocracy. It's not difficult to find, but people who don't care to explain themselves to us mere mortals won't allow it to be posted on the wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, are you really doubting the oversight team here? Oversight is important to the wiki as personal information should just be left to be discovered via page history or even be left on the page itself. Oh, and I've heard of administrators who today only use their administrative actions to read revdeletions, make a post a month to keep their mop, and Oversight even protects against those snooping eyes as well. If you have a complaint, you can address it to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee. But do read WP:OVERSIGHT, in which one of its purposes is to protect privacy. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with both those processes. You forget, I was elected as an administrator to protect this project form people like you long before you created your account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • I've done a bunch of revision deleting on those pages, and I don't have oversight powers, so those revisions are still accessible by mere mortal administrators like ourselves. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. So, the police have found that a person's behavior may be problematic, but the police is not the prosecutor and the prosecutor is not the judge. Based on the evidence so far, first make a strong case that Wikipedia has been edited in an inpropriate way, if this is found to be the case let's discuss with the editor to make sure this won't continue. If this fails, one can start to think about sanctions to protect Wikipedia from problematic editing by the editor. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a community site ban based only on evidence provided on Wikipediocracy. Wikipediocracy should not be considered a reliable source. If there is non-public information available that User:Tutelary has in fact engaged in gender misrepresentation, then ArbCom is the appropriate authority to impose the ban. To repeat, I oppose any action based solely on information posted by an unreliable web site whose purpose is to attack the Wikipedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Robert McClenon, the information is quite public. It consists in public posts, made by what is evidently the same individual, on hackforums.net and Reddit. There is no need to involve Wikipediocracy at all. Andreas JN466 23:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that gender misrepresentation does deserve a ban. I just don't see that the evidence of gender misrepresentation is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that the main BLP issue has to do with Zoe Quinn. So many of the edits to Zoe Quinn have been either redacted or suppressed (a non-admin cannot tell the difference) that it is difficult to determine who the offenders were. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert, as one non-admin to another, you can see somewhere above where I went through all the edits at Zoe Quinn, and (at the page, not the talk page), none of the revdeled edits were by Tutelary, but quite a few were by Titanium Dragon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban per SlimVirgin. Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for a number of reasons, but mostly per Tryptofish's analysis of the situation. First, temporarily ignore all of the accusations of Tutelary being a man and pretending to be a woman, and look at their contributions to Wikipedia. If another editor had the same set of contributions to Wikipedia, without any of the gender impersonation issues, would you be supporting a BLP ban or a site ban for them, based on those contributions alone? Probably not. I haven't seen diffs of anything so extreme that a ban is required. Second, the gender impersonation issues aren't provable, nor are they a valid reason to ban anyone, even if they were proven to be true. There is no Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from misrepresenting their gender, therefore there is no policy-based rationale to block someone for it. It's certainly not something that I would do myself, nor would I encourage others to do it, but that doesn't mean that I need to force my beliefs/principles/values on other people. If you get off on telling people that you're an 89-year-old blind albino Icelandic princess when in reality you're a 23-year-old dude living in your parents' basement, then go for it. This is the internet; there is never a reason to trust someone's claims about themselves. Finally, I oppose a ban based on off-wiki evidence that can't be posted on-wiki because the evidence itself violates Wikipedia policies. Such a ban would be a reward to those individuals who spend their time scouring the internet to expose the personal information and identity of Wikipedia editors with whom they disagree, and it would only encourage them to continue doxing other editors (maybe it'll be you next time). Doxing someone can be potentially traumatic and can potentially affect the target’s life, their family, and damage their livelihood. It should not be tolerated on- or off-wiki, and it cannot be rewarded. Exposing someone’s private information is an extremely disproportionate reaction to the transgressions that Tutelary is accused of. I believe that Tutelary has gone through enough, and I believe that this event is likely more than enough to cause Tutelary to behave in an appropriate manner, should they choose to continue editing here. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  "There is no Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from misrepresenting their gender [...] If you get off on telling people that you're an 89-year-old blind albino Icelandic princess when in reality you're a 23-year-old dude living in your parents' basement, then go for it. This is the internet; there is never a reason to trust someone's claims about themselves." Wikipedia "is an entertainment, an annoyance, a distraction, a put-on, a reading experience, a performance, a series of ironies, an inversion that you do or do not get. At times you might read excerpts from these texts in the news and you might take them—at your own peril—at surface value. Which any college English freshman would warn you not to do. And which any graduate student in literature would laugh at you for doing. Ever onward, mate. Andreas JN466 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  I had never seen that before, but it is quite apt and I enjoyed it immensely. "Wikipedia is not reality and nothing happening on Wikipedia—or 'behind the scenes at Wikipedia'—is real. So get the fuck over it." Thanks ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad it amuses you, Scotty--but what Qworty is saying, of course, is that we should wipe our asses with the BLP policy. "Not real": we're talking about someone who for years abused Wikipedia to settle old scores. Ask those people how not real it was. I would hope that an administrator here would take these matters a bit more seriously, since BLP violations, unlike what that "writer" had to tell us on his soapboxy userpage, are not victimless crimes. Andreas, your point is well taken. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2014‎ (UTC)

• Support siteban pr Jayen466 and SlimVirgin, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - have not seen demonstration of any strong problems with editing by Tutelary. Claiming real life credentials for something that the users are not including gender, occupation, degrees, race, ethnicity, age, residence, etc. is wrong but it is hardly a bannable offence (maybe deserves a warning). Wiki rules are specifically designed to avoid reliance on editor's claims and the case may be a good reminder for this. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know if I'm ready to vote for a ban on anything--but I find Tutelary's editing incredibly problematic. Right now I really doubt their competence, and this after teasing out a couple of diffs on Cunt and some chatter on the talkpage, including quite insulting remarks and an attempt to evade--Gobonobo knows what I'm talking about. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see a competence issue there. That thread is a perfect example of what Tutelary and Tutelary's mates have been doing with considerable success at the gender gap task force: transparently specious "argument" and unfounded opposition to frustrate and demoralise genuine editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose especially per Count Iblis's comment below, and those by Alex Bakharev, Tryptofish, Robert McClenon, and Scotty Wong above. Some folks here clearly wish to silence (via bans/blocks) or WP:Censor editors with whom they strongly disagree (the underlying motivation here). Some are willing to blatantly ignore WP policies to achieve that end. That intolerance of intellectual diversity, and efforts to curb free and open discussion, reveals WP:NOTHERE. This is not what WP is about. WP has never been about who someone is, it is about what they have contributed to the project. Memills (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean your kind of "intellectual diversity" and the editing that got you topic banned indefinitely from all men's rights related pages and discussions? Haven't you been arguing that those your consider "gender feminists" and supposedly "feminist" sources should be excluded as RS? Tutelary defended your contributions in that topic area like your problematic BLP edits in Michael Kimmel's BLP where you kept adding negative commentary to the page based on an opinion piece in an unreliable men's rights journal. Don't get me started on the role Tutelary played in enabling disruptive, POV driven editors in the men's rights topic area. By the way, please let me know when that ArbCom case you and Tutelary discussed is on the way. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As usual, it is stunning to watch you misrepresent facts, eschew accuracy, and lob ad hominems in an agenda to silence editors that challenge your POV. Exemplifies the very point. And, it is not lost on the editors here who ask: "Where are the diffs? They're aren't any." Memills (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see any evidence of disruption here on WP, where are the DIFFS supporting a similar request? Unconvinced there is a problem, sorry. And banning on the basis of a wikipediocracy article investigating the off-wiki identity of an editor would be a terrible precedent. Cavarrone 13:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Are you crazy? No. Strongest possible oppose. I don't see a single diff of any disruption. We're going to start banning people for someone at wikipediocracy posting something about her? Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The difs in question are oversighted on Quinns page --109.148.126.200 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Incredibly strong oppose to this discussion as if let's say that she DID pretend to be female, that shouldn't be even able to be used to gain any sort of advantage in a content dispute or any dispute. If I said "As a woman I think my opinions are more important", I don't get how that even boosts my hypothetical actual position on anything. You can't BAN people based on Wikipediocracy postings! IT'S A BLOG! If a blog isn't a reliable source for articles, how is it a reliable source for a site ban? You can't ban people based on off-wiki issues! The points in question is "fraudulently claiming to be a woman" (claimed by an UNRELIABLE source), "off-wiki activities", and "BLP disputes". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "fraudulently claiming to be a woman" can't be in any way, shape, or form, a BANNABLE offence at this time! Who determines that he's a woman? A blog on the internet? Or Tutelary herself? Plus, the arguments advanced in favour of using this as a bannable offence state that she used her position as a woman to get advantages in discussions. How is that possible? The fact that you are a woman shouldn't have any bearing on any discussion, so the point is moot, unless somebody else took that into account in closing discussions, in which it is that person's fault. Off-wiki activities can't have a bearing on your contributions, as you should only be judged in a discussion by whether your position is backed up with reliable sources. She could be a militant feminist advancing the killing of all men off-wiki and I'd be fine with her complying with all policies and being consensus forming in discussions. The so-called "BLP disputes" are disputed themselves, by other editors on this page. The only way there could possible be grounds for a ban is in the area of BLP disputes. That should be the discussion we're having, and according to the strongest arguments, Tutelary is in the right. Other people just call her a misogynist and expect that to win on the sheer number of !support votes. Too bad that Wikipedia isn't a vote. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess if Tutelary got banned for his involvement with misogynistic Reddit discussions, you might be the next one looking at a ban. Oh, no, I guess not because you deleted your account last week, didn't you? Did you think no one would notice? Kaletony (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both site and BLP ban at this time, mostly per Tryptofish. We should not be using what may or may not have happened on other sites as fodder for bans here. I.e., If an editor is a good candidate for a ban, then the appropriate evidence must come from Wikipedia diffs. I also suggest that this thread be closed before it wastes anymore of the community's resources. (This has been going back and forth for more than five days now, and no clear consensus will emerge from this thread) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• My problem is with what Tutelary has been doing on this site. But I agree, there isn't a concise, coherent and persuasive argument supporting that position in this page - It's there if you follow the right links, I suppose. But I've got promises to keep and don't have time for whak-a-mole right now. So, unless something comes out of left field in the next day or so, I'll support closing this as unresolved. (And maybe setting up a broad RfC on anti-women behaviour here. But later.)

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Take it to Arbcom As it appears there is "private information" (in the Wikipedia sense) and there appears to be more than one off-site kefluffle going [20] that maybe further being pursued on wikipedia, Arbcom is the place to sort this out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Protonk. On the Internet, nobody knows that you're a dog, or a male. Any statement concerning themselves by anonymous editors should be taken with a grain of salt. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

* Support site ban - Tutelary's obvious dissembling should make it clear to anyone with a clue that he has been playing you all along. If I were him, I would be more concerned by the very real prospect of the police knocking on his door than with continuing this charade on Wikipedia. Kaletony (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• lol: there's an old interwebs adage: "don't feed the trolls". If you don't know who's feeding the trolls in this situation, it's probably you ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban , else BLP topic ban. (revised - nah, site ban it should be) More than justified. Volunteer Marek  07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As @Mr. Stradivarius: and @Tryptofish: noted above, none of the article space revdels were by Tutelary. Of my own, as Strad noted, they weren't made in bad faith, were indeed sourced (though some folks weren't happy with some of the sources - we had a discussion about them on the talk page, as was recommended by one of the ANIs about the article), and were written "mostly" neutrally (I did my best, but no one is perfect :P I thought it was alright. I have a copy of it still, if anyone is interested, though I'm not sure how to link to stuff like that easily). It wasn't, as noted, a hit piece on Zoe Quinn, but an overview of what was going on; the central issue is more or less that Zoe's ex outed her as being involved with several people involved in the gaming industry, and all of them got accused of being corrupt and promoting each other and attacking each others' enemies by very angry gamers. At this point, we have far better sources thanks to much better coverage.

I can't speak for all the revdels on the talk page, but a previous ANI noted that they probably were a little bit overboard and probably didn't all need to happen. It is water under the bridge at this point, though, and the concerns were over BLP issues which I think have since been satisfied via discussion on the talk page once some folks (NOT the admins) stopped deleting all attempts at discussion. And I'm sure at least some of the revdels were people being angry on the talk page; given Tutelary's general behavior, though, if they restored any of those (and given the ones that I have seen restored, weren't exceptionally bad, and frankly I see worse every day elsewhere on the encyclopedia) I'm not really worried about it. There were concerns about censorship of the talk page by several folks, and eventually that quieted down after the ANI agreed that discussing these things wasn't a BLP vio because of all the sourcing.

As for the rest of it - Tutelary hasn't seemed overly hostile, and has been quite civil compared to many of the other people who have been involved in editing that article. I don't care what gender they are and have actually been sent stuff which pretty much confirms their identification via Twitter (and then had to explain to said person why, exactly, posting that information was a bad idea, because some folks don't understand the concept of "the problem was the violation of privacy, and that is going to further violate their privacy"). I think they've been trying to improve Wikipedia. I haven't seen evidence of any poor behavior ON Wikipedia. If someone has evidence of actual poor behavior, I'm more than happy to look at it, but I'm not seeing anything all that exciting. Certainly nothing warranting a ban. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Tutelary has demonstrated that he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to enact an anti-feminist agenda that includes trolling the editors at the gender gap task force and making tendentious edits to BLPs and women-related topics. Tutelary's actions fit the mold of a broader campaign of disruptive editing waged by MRAs that reddit, A Voice for Men, 4chan, and the like send our way. Women editors and efforts to address the gender gap are just targets for 'lulz'. This noticeboard's ongoing inability to do anything about it or take action against the editors who engage in this behavior is discouraging. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban - +1,000 btc to Gobonobo for being blunt. The fact that too many admins and editors here are naive enough to fall for the 'lulz' and disruption is beyond discouraging. Tutelary should have been indeffed as soon as the information became known. Any editor that has any clue at all can see what's going on here. It's a pity that we continue to allow this silliness to escalate, like fools. Just the disruption and BLP violations can be pointed to for the admins and editors who don't know what 4chan is. Sigh...... Dave Dial (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question to editors who support a site ban or topic ban: I think that you can see that opinions in this discussion are divided, and it is becoming unlikely that such bans will get consensus (unless new evidence comes out of the sockpuppet investigation). I earlier proposed an editing restriction in which Tutelary would be restricted against making reverts (other than self-reverts) in talk space. If you look closely, all of Tutelary's edits that have come under the greatest concern are reverts of that sort. If the bans cannot be agreed to, would you find the editing restriction helpful, or would you consider it inadequate? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think admins would regret not making the decision for at least a topic ban, it's not like Quinn's harassers have been receiving good press and Wikipedia already has a pretty bad reputation for being misogynistic. It was Tutelary who added the information about the incident to the article against consensus to wait, with plenty of "allegedly"'s for the harassment she received but none for her supposed "sex for coverage". I don't think some people here realise how serious it is to add information about this to a WP:BLP --5.81.51.98 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Admins block, but the community bans. Plenty of us understand how serious BLP is, but we don't ban people because of outside press concerns. I've been asking and asking for diffs of Tutelary adding BLP-violating material to the page (not the talk page), and I'm still waiting. But there clearly are problematic reverts on talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP covers certain talk page edits. It's not "anything goes" just because it's not in article space.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said "anything goes" – and that's why I'm proposing an editing restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. It has been ridiculous to see the Wikipedia gang up on a doxxing victim like this. If you're worried about a misogynistic reputation, then I suggest not going on witchhunts against underage female editors. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Pshhh. What does it matter? If this goes by without admin action, it just shows how clueless admins are. So why would anyone who does have a clue care about more bureaucratic bullshit? Dave Dial (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: no diffs have been provided that clearly show our blocking policy's definition of disruption. As far as misrepresenting one's identity goes, if that were blockable then a huge portion of our users should be banned. By stating that misrepresenting one's identity is a bannable offense, you will be rewarding people for doxxing wiki editors they don't like in order to get them banned. I am sure there are large numbers of editors who misaffiliate their sex, race, qualifications, probably even people in this thread, and I don't want to see witchhunts becoming standard procedures. As always wikipedia should focus on the edit's, and the arguments of editors, and not on their stated qualifications. This isn't Citizendium.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment So, all of the egregious diffs that were provided have been revdel-ed, and now some people are basing oppose !votes on the idea that no refs were provided? People seem to be opposing based on basic ignorance of the situation in more recent comments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We can still see that diffs have been revedeled (not the same as suppressed/oversighted), and none of them in mainspace have been by Tutelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a "non-mainspace" exemption for problematic BLP edits? If they're using the site to spread damaging claims about BLP subjects, it doesn't matter where they do it, talk page, noticeboard, wikiproject, whatever.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In such cases people can sometimes cross the line due to heated discussions, the proper way to put a stop to that is by first issueing a warning that BLP must be respected also outside the editing of articles. In principle, we are here to help editors stick to the rules we have here and if that doesn't work within the margins of errors we can tolerate, we need to impose restrictions. If people say that they can already tell that this editor is up to no good, then we don't need to preemptively act on that assessment, the outcome of the normal process to deal with editors who misbehave and continue to do so despite warmings will yield the same outcome anyway. So, no need to build a Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the regular justice system is good enough. Count Iblis (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like it's post-warnings, post-admin-block. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"all of the egregious diffs that were provided have been revdel-ed,"

I have no idea if a diff is egregious without seeing it. I don't trust the judgement of a site where saying things like "So-and-so has been subjected to misogynist harassment" qualifies as "an egregious BLP violation"...AioftheStorm (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support site-ban. Tutelary and I have been debating about Skyler Page, where ironically he has been removing information about Page's sexual assault accusations. It seems a little strange that he took the the total opposite side on this debate then he did with Zoe Quinn. What bothers me is not that he disagreed with me, but the way he went about it. I reverted the page twice in 24 hours and said that it was the last time I will revert it. He reverts it 3 times and then has the nerve to warn me for edit warring. I am not saying that I wasn't edit warring, but he was just as guilty of edit warring as me, if not more guilty. I only reverted it twice and said I was stopping there while he reverted it three times. Also he bought up discussions he claimed showed that there was consensus to not include the accusations on Skyler Page; however both discussions were about not including it on Clarence (2014 TV series) and one of them only involved him and one other user. Overall, this seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. JDDJS (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JDDJS, while I don't think the material in question should be added to Skylar Page, it is indeed distressing to see Tutelary fighting so hard to keep it out, considering his devotion to adding much more poorly supported negative material into articles of women.[21][22][23]--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As someone who was active at the Zoe Quinn article during the time that most of the revision-deletion happened, I didn't find Tutelary to be disruptive. I may not have agreed with their opinion, but for the most part they were good about not violating the BLP policy. The only two lapses[24][25] (admin-only links) were restorations of comments by others on the talk page. I would say that these restorations were problematic, but not problematic enough that they couldn't be addressed by discussion.

  As for other evidence, the revert at Jimbo's talk page was maybe not in very good taste, but it wasn't a BLP violation, and I don't think it violated the talk page guidelines either. Above, Cuchullain claims that Tutelary shows a pattern of inserting, or advocating for inserting, poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of living women. I think that the links that Cuchullain uses to back that statement up ([26][27][28]) show that Tutelary has, in the past, advocated for inserting such material. However, I don't see any actual insertion of problematic material in article space, and in my recent interactions with Tutelary on the Zoe Quinn page they have been a better judge of what constitutes a source acceptable for a BLP than is evident in those earlier discussions.

  Based on the evidence I have linked to in this post, I think that site-banning or topic-banning Tutelary would be an overreaction. I have more sympathy for Tryptofish's proposed talk-page restriction, but I personally doubt that it is necessary. Just the fact that this discussion has occurred will likely make Tutelary be more careful about talk page reverts in the future.

  Now, of course, there is off-wiki evidence involved in this incident as well, but we aren't well-equipped to deal with that kind of evidence here on ANI. The outing policy prevents us from linking much of the evidence directly or from discussing it in detail, so it can never be all that clear what the evidence is that we are talking about. And when we can't be sure that we are all on the same page about what is supposed to have happened, it's hard to say that we can find a meaningful consensus about it. If off-wiki evidence is going to be taken into account, it would be much better to bring this to ArbCom, as they have procedures for dealing with material that could violate people's privacy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that that's an excellent analysis of the situation. I'm inclined to be persuaded that my suggestion of an editing restriction is not necessary, especially since the editors who are (metaphorically, not literally) calling for Tutelary's head on a plate are making it clear that they will settle for either the head, or nothing less. At this time, a checkuser has indicated that the SPI investigation is going to take a while, and I'm still keeping an open mind in case the results might force a reevaluation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Concern. Tutelary's behavior as I've seen it and others have described it has been questionable and I figured it was a matter of time before that alone resulted in a ban, so I did not think it necessary to comment. However, in the last day or so I've had a growing concern about the larger issue of their allegedly being a minor who works on sexual topic articles and discusses sex online with adults. According to a 2011 Village Pump discussion - Wikiproject Pornography and Minors: Proposals and Discussion - that sort of thing is against Florida law, and maybe more states (and countries) by now.

It's one thing to not know someone is a minor. It's another to have a strong allegation that someone is a minor being widely discussed. Individuals, no matter how unknowing, who later engage in discussions about sex with that minor might be put in jeopardy. Allowing that alleged minor to post really starts setting Wikipedia up for federal/police surveillance and a federal/police sting. (Consider all those ambitious prosecutors out for big head line busts.) And then one has to deal with the snitches from on or off Wikipedia who might be looking for evidence of such 'crime'. Just something to think about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• • You are using a failed proposal to disallow minors of editing pages related to the Pornography project, as a concern about someone discussing about sex. Please don't mix the two concepts. It is not illegal to have a discussion with minors about sex. Please also be careful in your wording, things like "engage in discussions about sex with that minor" have a completely different possible meaning than what I hope you are trying to say. But in any case, you may be concerned as much as you like, but please don't use unrelated (and failed) proposals to support your concern. Fram (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to a backwoods Florida grand jury... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Next time you believe something violates Florida law, don't pretend that your believe is something supported by a Village Pump discussion. Combining scare-mongering and false arguments to authority are not a good recipe to come across as a genuinely concerned editor. Fram (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Geez, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? Frankly, I have no idea when discussions of sex with a minor become obscenity or child abuse or child pornography in the law of what state or the federal government. And I bet a lot of others don't either. Obscenity#Child_pornography has a definition sufficiently broad to make one wonder. Child_pornography#Sexting might be broad enough to include words and not just images. Maybe this is an area that needs more coverage on Wikipedia and in some relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I bet a few people here have to think back to interchanges they had with Tutelary that might be questionable in some government officials eyes. Maybe I even do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did find Online predator had a bit more. "Chat rooms, instant messaging, Internet forums, social networking sites, cell phones, and even video game consoles have all attracted online predators." So I guess the issue would be proving one was not an online predator looking to have sexual discussions with a person known to be a minor who discusses sexual content on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your replies indicate that on the contrary, I wasn't harsh enough by far. Your links to "child pornography" and "sexting" indicate that you really have no idea what you are talking about here (or that you do know and are trolling). It would be in your own best interest if you withdrew and dropped this whole line of reasoning completely. Fram (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I freely admit ignorance of the issue. Feel free to tell me and anyone else who might be confused the best place on Wikipedia to get guidance. WP:Editor assistance? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Everywhere but a topic ban discussion on an individual editor for unrelated reasons. You can try WP:VPP. Considering that the proposal you linked to, which was much more focused than sexuality in general, was soundly rejected by the community, I don't think you will get much support, certainly not when you continue to mix "discussing an article about sexuality" where minors may be joining the discussion, with "child pornography", "sexting", and "online predators". If you have any evidence (or strong indications) of actual online predating happening, you can best take the advice you may find in Wikipedia:Child protection. Fram (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Tryptofish. Whatever Tutelary is in real life, or whatever political or social opinion he/she holds is irrelevant. I have not seen any evidence presented of bad edits which warrant such a sanction. I have read the Essjay controversy page and that does not seem to apply here, by a long shot. Nobody has accused the editor of lying their way to a paid position. And of course, the use of off-site material to convict people here is troublesome. In any case, I am sure a bunch of people will be watching Tutelary's edits like a hawk from now on. Kingsindian (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people here really cared about the paid position bit, particularly since it wasn't even WMF or in any way wikipedia related.

The concern here on wikipedia, was IMO (and also how I read the article) primarily that editor concerned used their fictitious claims to support their editing here. While many also felt the claims shouldn't have had an influence, this doesn't negate the fact they may have, and that the person concerned appeared be using them with that intention. That obviously has a serious effect on wikipedia.

There were also some concerns about lying to a reporter. That also affects wikipedia somewhat since it reflects badly on wikipedia and wikipedians, and means people may be reluctant to trust wikipedians; and of course we too may have wrong info if we are relying on reliable sources based on such lies.

The second one obviously doesn't apply here, but the first one does. (To be clear, as I emphasised below I'm not saying the claims are fictitious since these relate to identity issues so are much less clear cut. However I find identifying in a certain way you wouldn't otherwise solely for the purpose of advancing one's position equally troubling.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I am agnostic on the underlying issue, but I wanted to point out that if this person is banned, we're setting a precedent applicable to other situations. In the discussions on COI guidelines and the new Terms of Use on paid editing it is often pointed out that editors cannot engage in precisely this kind of sleuthing to ferret out COI. If this Tutelary is banned, we would be saying that it is OK to ban a person based on sleuthing, which implies that it is OK to identify paid editors and COI editors through similar methodology. Are you sure you want to do that? Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment My feelings are nearly the same as GRuban. In particular, I would emphasise that I don't care how Tutelary identifies, nor do I say there's anything wrong with them identifying in one place in one manner and identifying in another place in another manner. The problem begins when it appears their identification is intended solely to game the system rather than for other reasons (e.g. genuinely feel that way, to protect their privacy) and that when this combined with all the other evidence both here and elsewhere suggests they're not here to build an encyclopaedia.

  Oh and while I don't think we should generally penalise people for stuff they do elsewhere, in this particular case there IMO needs to be consideration of the allegations suggesting misusing others computers. While it may be difficult to know if these are simply idle boasts, if they are true this has implications for us due to the risk the same may be tried here.

  However while I personally support a site-ban or any other sanctions proposed, I'm not willing to do so here because I'm uncomfortable sanctioning an editor based on material (no matter how strong) that we cannot discuss, and they would have to allow open discussion to repond to. For this reason, I feel the case needs to go to arbcom. As much as I dislike wikipediocracy and such doxing, it's difficult to ignore the implications I raised earlier in a case as significant as this.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  Edit: I've struck out portions of my comment which I'm no longer confident of. I sincerely apologise for any offence cause. I didn't look that well in to the case, since as I mentioned, I do not believe we can come to a conclusion here on wikipedia given that a fair amount of the evidence was outside of wikipedia and not anything Tutelary wishes discussed here. I now appreciate the evidence isn't very clear cut (in particular, I've seen suggestion of identification in cases where it didn't seem to matter before it seemed to be an issue anywhere and other stuff which have given me pause for thought whereas I was previously under the impression the idenfication elsewhere was always clearcut different from here).

  However given the sensitivity of the issue, I should have taken greater care and can only apologise again. I still think that it will be helpful for arbcom to look in to this, particularly given the hacking allegations. (And either way, this is a good example of why. I obviously should have just said to send it to arbcom. Unfortunately, I let my desire to send a clear message about unacceptable behaviour overide that without even properly looking in to the case.) I'm fine with my struck out comments being removed point blank, but suspect it will be more confusing and I don't think I said anything which wasn't unfortunately already mentioned.

  Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Where I differ from you is that I don't believe that an inquiry of this kind conducted behind closed doors as necessarily superior to one that is conducted in the open. If we don't allow doxing, how is it permissible to utilize the fruits of doxing that has taken place outside of Wikipedia? I've seen situations in which people have attempted such sleuthing for COI-identification purposes and been threatened with blocking. Yet here we have the target being considered for banning. Could the COI discussion have been moved off-wiki for identification purposes, and then back on-wiki to take steps against he editor in question? There needs to be a consistent policy on dealing with off-wiki doxing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate there are connections, I'm personally not that interested in the COI issue. Frankly, I've never entirely agreed with the far harder line against COI we're taking recently (you must disclose in certain circumstances) and basically stopped following the discussion when it became clear that's where it was headed.

Ultimately, I'm not sure if it's useful to get in to long arguments about whether open or closed discussion is superior. The point is that there are many reasons why a person may not want such open discussions about their personal details. All the evidence suggests Tutelary does not wish for such open discussion in this case. Since we can't discuss this evidence without talking in depth about what it says, and preferably linking to it, and since Tutelary can't reasonably respond without permitting people to do so, an arbcom case would be better here.

As I mentioned, I'm not sure what's going on in the COI space but I presume even there it's recognised that we can't resonably ignore information suggesting a serious problem, no matter our disgust as the process used. In some cases, even if the information was obtained illicitly (e.g. by hacking), if it's serious enough it can't resonably be ignored (as happens in real life). I would also hope there is a recognition of a difference between public doxing, which unfortunately happened here; and privately gathering information which is sent to arbcom where it can then be considered with the person given the opportunity to respond without anyone other than arbcom knowing of it come what may. (As mentioned, the person could chose for this to be a public discussion if they desire, with all the implications thereof. I do recognise arbcom hasn't always been a safe pair of hands with info in the past which is unfortunate, so people may consider that.)

While I'm not saying we should encourage such behaviour, I find it unresonable to suggest people are forbidden from searching for info on a person. It's surely something people do all the time both for editors here, and for others in life. I've been done it on occasion for years, for contributors I admire, contributors I have disagreements with and even contributors I myself have little direct experience with. I usually have sympathy when I find a wikipedicracy thread or encyclopediadramatica or whatever, although sometimes it does seem the person made silly decisions even if this doesn't justify what happened.

Either way, I don't think you'll get consensus that I'm wrong or contributing to the problem by doing these searches for personal interest. And I've never intended to use this information for anything and AFAIK have never done so. However if I did happen to find information suggesting a serious issue from a simple search, I would probably have sent it to arbcom and I'm not going to say (and doubt you'll get consensus) that would be wrong.

In a case where a person needs to do much more careful searching and analysis, like I'm pretty sure was needed for the Tutelary case, I do agree it's concerning, even if the info is only going to be sent to arbcom. But the point is I don't think there's a clear boundary between a simple search for personal interest and an intrusive investigation.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussions concerning COI policy/paid editing have fizzled out, but when they were active there was much discussion over "sleuthing" of all kinds to uncover COI and a general consensus that it was abhorrent. In fact it was trotted out by paid editing apologists as a reason to not strengthen COI rules (that there would be the very kind of sleuthing we're seeing here). Re offsite sleuthing to uncover COI, I can recall one specific case that came up on one of the noticeboards and backfired badly on the person bringing it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but as I mentioned, I'm not, and I'm not sure anyone here is encouraging sleuthing to uncover anything anyway. I'm more interested in what we do when information was discovered, perhaps fairly innocently, perhaps not. As I've mentioned, this is a complicated issue but considering the possibilities, I don't think it's resonable to suggest any off-site search which happens to find something, regardless of the reasons for the search (whether it was a fairly innocent search or it was sleuthing) and how it was handled after this info was discovered, is abhorent. Actually I think we already recognise this to some extent. If someone has posted a link to their website onwiki and it still exists & they haven't removed the info, it's not generally considered outing for someone else to repost it. So no one is likely to sanction an editor for outing for posting the website, even if the editor wasn't even aware it was posted before. They may be reprimanded depending on the case and there could also be sanctions for harassment etc, again depending on the case. There isn't even likely to be any reprimand if the person knew it was posted before, but only found this out after the search. (Again harassment and other issues could still come in to play depending on how the website is used.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - the editor has done nothing to justify a ban. Instead, blocks or final warnings should be issued to transphobic editors who are defending the WP:OUTING of a minor, and are harassing the said minor by dismissing her WP:IDENTITY. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that Tutelary is a minor? Do you imply that Tutelary is trans and that everyone who supports a topic/site ban is "transphobic"? What evidence do you have? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed if that is the claim I take great offence. While I didn't support a ban here, I did say I personally supported a ban. Yet I went to great pains in my answer precisely to avoid any such implication. Even for those who didn't, it's likely some share similar sentiments they just didn't want such a wordy comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is from the Wikipediocracy blog post that is being used as evidence against Tutelary.

1. How do you know that Tutelary is a minor?

The Wikipediocrats cyberstalked the kid and found "written and photographic evidence which suggests that [Tutelary] is in fact a young man attending a high school in [censored]".

2. Do you imply that Tutelary is trans

The blog claims that Tutelary initially identified as male, and later as transgendered, before identifying as female. This pattern is not unusual among transgendered women who were assigned the male gender at birth.

3. and that everyone who supports a topic/site ban is "transphobic"?'

No, I did not say this. But referring to Tutelary as "he" (which many have done) when she self-identifies as female is transphobic. Using the allegation that Tutelary has previously identified with other genders as "proof" that she is a fraud of a woman is also transphobic.

Of course, it is possible that none of this is actually true, and that the bloggers made everything up.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You believe Wikipediocracy that Tutelary is a minor but you don't believe them that Tutelary is a man pretending to be a woman (to advance his POV and get access to people's computers)? Why? Didn't Wikipediocracy present evidence for the second claim and none for the first? Who are the many editors who knowingly referred to Tutelary as he? Transphobia is the dislike or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. Are you insinuating that Tutelary is transgender and that people support a site/topic ban because they dislike transgender people? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, allegedly, claims to be transgender, and WO are disputing her identity. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. In addition to my concerns over doxing, I don't see sufficient basis for banning this person for life. Editors that engage in this kind of misconduct should get an opportunity to reform. I don't like the way this originated and I don't like the way people are piling on here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

But who's proposing a ban for life? Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of talk about a site ban. But I'm against a topic ban too, or any other action against this person (just to be clear). Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't claim to understand the Quinn story, but if you want somebody banned you should have to come out with clear diffs indicating misbehavior here, not outing/opposition research. I have philosophical problems with the main charges here. To begin with, we have the peculiar situation where many editors are absolutely adamant about rejecting transphobic attitudes that criticize people who pretend to be a different sex by clothing or partial cosmetic surgery (indeed, it is objectionable even to say they are pretending) yet we are supposed to join a veritable lynch-mob when an editor is caught pretending to be another sex through the filter of online conversation. Riddle me that and come back. I also object to what seems like a suggestion by SlimVirgin and others that feminists ought to object to photos of breasts. I think feminists should be free to take on a variety of political positions, especially those compatible with the activities of FEMEN and those of activists in New York and Canada who have won their right to dress (and undress) in public the same way men do. My position on cyberbullying is that the only plausible way to oppose it is to give those subjected to it some extra latitude, bearing in mind that they are under a microscope so we are hearing more than the usual representation of misdeeds. I have seen something like this happen before with Fae, a far better editor subjected to far worse behavior by bullies, and Wikipedia badly failed him; I hope this time we can set a precedent to do better. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If a user is violating BLP, and can't be taught the error of their ways, they will be subject to a topic ban or other sanctions. Off-wiki speculations about an editor and so forth cannot legitimately form the basis of on-wiki sanctions, relating to disruptive editing. Either the editor is being disruptive or not - the rest is hot air. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC).
  
• Support site ban We are here to build an encyclopedia, not look at this rubbish. Op47 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban based on these vague, political, cobbled together charges. Wincent77 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Oppose= 32 / Support = 23

WP:NOTAVOTE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted

That the people voting for 'support' have -not- substantiated their claims of my apparently disruptive behavior nor other allegations. Yet they keep mentioning it as if something -did- happen. Yes, I got doxxed, and I got a less than pleasant response, some of the people commenting here on this very noticeboard even implicating that I deserved it. The apparent 'disruptive' behavior (along with gross doxxing) was pointed out at Wikipediocracy...with exactly no diffs at all. The only thing that came close was the link to my user activity, which cites that my highly edited pages are evidence of 'dispruptive' editing. Again, there are no diffs or other on site evidence that points to such. Additionally, the people commenting here have not substantiated their claims either, indeed, Black Kite even stated Given the extremely convincing evidence posted elsewhere which implies that he/she knows there's no onsite proof that I've been disruptive. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. You'd be whining even harder if somebody posted the evidence on the wiki, and then we'd have to oversight it all and waste even more of everyone's time. If I was in your position right now, I'd go and write a beautiful, properly sourced, neutral article that had absolutely nothing to do with Zoe Quinn/GamerGate to prove that I could be trusted to edit in keeping with the values of this project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But that's not what's happening here. You !voted to support the topic BLP ban without a single shred of a diff or evidence on wiki that I've been disruptive. Are you basing your !vote on Wikipediocracy's post where they freakin' doxxed me? And I really wish I could, my heart has been on pace for a couple days now and my blood pressure has spiked, I've been crying and getting emotional as of late and it's plainly obvious that it's Wikipedia that's causing it; even exacerbated by you attributing my concerns to just 'whining', and probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. Tutelary (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be a lesson learned; do not wage campaigns against BLP subjects via a pseudonymous Wikipedia account, or else external forces may act to strip that pseudonymity away. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been exposed, elsewhere, for the liar and misogynist that you are. You just don't belong here. Sorry if that doesn't fit neatly enough into the wikirules for you. As for: "Uh, it is all explained offwiki. What happens offwiki stays offwiki." No. Not in Qworty's case. Not in yours. Why don't you just try to preserve a shred of dignity and go away. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil. WP:UNCIVIL 72.89.93.110 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be hilarious were it not so embarrassing that we're entertaining a ban proposal on the basis of evidence which, if placed on wiki, would be oversighted away. Can someone just remove the fig leaf and post the article here? Otherwise I'm forced to ask (as a good citizen) what evidence do we have that Tutelary has misrepresented their identity? Obvious you know what the evidence is and I know what the evidence is, but how on earth am I to take a ban proposal seriously where posting the incipient piece of evidence would lead me to have my contributions oversighted or my account blocked? Protonk (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a shortcoming in the Wikipedia bureaucracy...similar to how identifying conflict-of-interest editors can rub against outing concerns...but one that shouldn't prevent the project from doing the right thing if need be. "I can't link it here, therefore I cannot consider it" is hardly a compelling defense. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It just makes the whole thing asinine. To be clear, I think someone should cowboy up and actually link the piece so we're not just salaciously suggesting that editors google correctly to find a blog that most of the participants in the discussion have already read. And I think the nature of the topic can lead us to forget just how fucking malicious the article actually is. Read the Excrement will happen section and tell me that's anything besides shitting on someone for not leading an appropriate public life. Questions about Tutelary aside (and I think there's an unfortunate parallel to the specious claims from assholes about how "Gamergate is just about journalistic integrity" to our claim that we're all just so worried that Tutelary passed as a woman), there's no defence for that shit. None. And we shouldn't be supporting it here. That's not some bureaucratic inconvenience, it's an expectation that you should be able to write articles on wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymously without some shitheel telling everyone your name, location and how much you like MLP fan fiction. As I mentioned above, I was outed because like TD I wasn't careful with the use of "protonk" between disparate forums and because WR didn't like my opinions about the BLP policy. We can reassure ourselves that there's a stronger "journalistic" imperative at work than merely pissing off some person with time on their hands and an axe to grind about wikipedia, but we're not making a strong case for that by laundering those claims in service of a site ban. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First, anyone that knows how to search on the interwebs can find the pages in question. One would think in order to be a prolific Wikipedia editor, searching the internet is 2nd nature. Second, we should have a policy based on cases like this, and the many that have came before it. Trolling or pretending to be someone you're not is not new on the webs. BBS boards and Usenet were/are full of that sort crap. Editors should ask themselves if they want that type of behavior to become prolific on this project, without any consequences, because of some circular reasoning about rules. Lastly, of course the editor should be topic banned at the very least, and probably site banned. I would like to see better rules on this project in dealing with this type of situation, no matter who the editor is. But until we do, I guess ad hoc reasoning and common sense should overrule circular reasoning and being forced to look the other way because of ....tongue in cheek pointing to rules. We aren't stupid, are we? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is, I think the notion of "writing articles on wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymously" is getting to be a bit of an outmoded ideal. For a lot of years that has shield a lot of nefarious deeds in this project. Let's put it this way; if a journalist at a reliable source pens a piece on GamerGate or Zoe Quinn or Anna Sarkeesian, that piece has a byline. An actual person has attached an actual identity to their words, and if there is something factually wrong or controversial or anything, Quinn et al can at least point to that journalist and say "hey, that's not right" and offer a rebuttal to a living, identifiable person. What recourse does Zoe Quinn have when someone known only as "Tutelary" accuses her of infidelity and ethics violations? Or "Titanium Dragon", whose contributions to the Quinn article were so egregious that dozens of his edits had to be oversighted. IMO, people like these two speak as they do about others because they do so under a fake name, just a handle on an internet forum. Strip that away, and have them post something that can be traced back to them personally, by name, just like any media journalist, and you may find that they will choose their words with a bit more care. I'm sorry that you yourself got doxxed by the old WR, but that crew, while there is some overlap with WO, was a very different and very nasty beast that attacked people they simply didn't like. WO is more of a vigilante, an Oliver Queen of the Wiki-sphere. The "Excrement" sub-section was a bit of a low-blow, but y'know, when adults are obsessed with tv shows written for 10yr-old girls, I really don't have a lot of sympathy. Being a teased Brony isn't a civil rights issue. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

About using information from other sites: there have been precedents with the Arbcom I believe, with the Phil Sandifer situation, and with the Ironholds and Keifer Wolfowitz case, that off-wiki evidence could be considered in Arbcom cases, but anything with identifying information had to be presented by email. I also seem to remember some kind of policy, which I can't seem to find at the moment, that prohibits posting something that can damage someone's computer. If someone is claiming off-wiki that they are posing as a woman in order to convince users to download something that will introduce a trojan virus into their computer in order to get access to any porn images they may have stored in their cellphones, at the very least, someone should examine that individual's contributions to see if they are safe to leave up. —Neotarf (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

While several people supporting the ban have posted diffs I do think they should have been presented when the ban was proposed. One of the key features of evidence is that it should be evident. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few diffs [redact, has dox links] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the key features of a ban proposal is that people who are likely to be interested should be notified. Has the gender gap project been notified? I believe Tutelary and Titanium Dragon have both paid them a visit. What about the other talk pages where they have been editing? ——Neotarf (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Notified Gender Gap project. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm noticing my two edits are being rev-deleted yet my comment on here remains? Can anybody explain why revisions are being deleted (mine in particular), or is it an effort to get rid of dox links like Anthony had stated above? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure why this is being called "doxxing". Tutelary's real name has not been mentioned aither here or elsewhere, merely posting made by him at Reddit and hackforums. This, as far as I am aware, is not either doxxing or outing. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious as to what's up with all the rev-deletions. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So am I, and I've asked the admin concerned for an explanation. What was rev-del'd was simply links to comments made on external sites. No personal information was mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Doxxing: "publishing personally identifiable information about an individual". You don't consider posting (atleast a supposed) picture of a Wikipedia editor personally identifiable information (and studying place)? --Pudeo' 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"... although our standards of publishing prevent us from releasing certain personally identifying information about potentially underage persons." By your own definition, what Wikipediocracy did with Tutelary is not "doxxing". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be silly, a picture clearly showing one's face is personally identifiable, especially given that the university name was released. ("Does anyone know this student?"...) As stated on Mike_V's talk page, the oversight was reviewed and approved by two different oversighters. If you disagree, you should email AudCom. --Pudeo' 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be hallucinating. There is not and never has been any mention of a university or the name of any other institute of learning on that page, and the page does not and never did contain such an image as you describe (see the editor's note). Andreas JN466 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the school, it was just on state level. However, it did contain a personally identifiable picture. The editor's note in fact states they removed the picture. --Pudeo' 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be accurate about this. The post did not contain a picture. The editor's note says, "An earlier version of this post contained a link to publicly viewable photographs (mirror selfies) of Ging287, which he uploaded to an image sharing site five years ago when a teenager. The link was removed upon request by a Twitter user." Andreas JN466 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Earlier versions did contain photos, they have removed it. I have an archive link from when they did. I also am sickened by the fact that they still consider me a male, when I've made it quite freakin' clear that I am not. It's insulting and harassment. Also, it wouldn't be able to be linked anywho for it contains dox information of another Wiki editor. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, we all saw the post. There was a link to a photo page, but not the photos themselves. Andreas JN466 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please double- or triple-check that, Andreas? I read the article fairly soon after it was posted and saw no photo of Ging, but perhaps it was taken down early. Tutelary, could you please email me the archive link? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

100% positive on that. Andreas JN466 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary just emailed me the archived version of the Wikipediocracy blog post and it did not contain the photo/s in question. It contained a link to another site that hosted photos. That link has since been removed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthonyhcole. For your own safety, I would suggest you check your computer for trojans, as there is a user Tutelary on hackforums.net who uses the same name and surname that Tutelary has used on Wikimedia sites, and who explains at some length there how he installs Remote Access Trojans on users' computers by getting them to click on links, open e-mail attachments and so forth. Better safe than sorry. Andreas JN466 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding. Link? (I will run a malware scan. Thanks.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

He is definitely not kidding, and you better use an updated version of Malware Bytes. At the very least. PS: I moved your post so as to keep the thread continuous. Dave Dial (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lord. I just saw the IP post #above. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dave Dial or Andreas, I've just re-read the links in the IP's post #above and can't see any corroboration for the claim that "Tutelary acknowledges hacking a persons computer and stealing information." I admit I'm very technically ignorant and may well be missing something, but could one of you please explain what those linked pages say about breach of privacy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Try this link, they explain in detail how they do it [29] --5.81.51.98 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 5.81. I think I'm getting it now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I just indef'd Doxelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Whether it's Tutleary or someone pretending to be, I offer no opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Would a possible sock check be worth looking into? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes. If a checkuser were to determine that it was really Tutelary making that post on Jimbo's talk page, that would change me to supporting a site ban. But it could also easily be a so-called Joe job. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) And it would be worse because Tutelary welcomed Doxelary on talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The welcoming is less a matter of me welcoming a sock (I only have one Wikipedia account) but more a fact of some minor OCD going off. Two red links in a row just annoys me so I welcome them; I get rid of that annoying feeling and I welcome a new contributor to Wikipedia. Win win. Tutelary (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, why did you hardblock the user indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE? What did the user do wrong in any context of disruption? Additionally, you revoked talk page and email access, which is specifically prohibited per WP:HARDBLOCK unless there is evidence of disruption on those avenues; which there doesn't seem to be. Tutelary (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear nobody is saying you have socked but given how it is connected it should be looked into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point though I see no harm in checking, you are right it could be a wrong tree but it is just another red flag going off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 is right here. Someone spoofing a user name only to contribute an edit to discuss that user? You (tutelary) don't see how that could be disruptive? When it's your own user name? We don't need pseudo-twotelary's (or knowledgekid88's or knowledgekid89's) running around, I don't think.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have my assumption of good faith and to the fact that 1. They could be asked to change their username. or 2. I'm not sure of a site wide policy that bans impersonation of very close usernames (in this case I think it was intentional as googling 'Doxelary" doesn't come up with anything, probably lack of good imagination and decided to use my name but change up a letter) and 3. Hardblocking email and talk page when there is no abuse in those avenues is specifically prohibited per WP:HARDBLOCK. I see HJ Mitchell not responding to my query yet editing other pages...admins are to be accountable. Tutelary (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A sock check on Doxelary would be apt given the individual's expressed familiarity with Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy. I highly doubt it is Tutelary. GamerGate people are discussing this all over Twitter, 4chan, and Reddit. One of them, perhaps one who has a past here, could have easily popped in to comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading usernames are disruptive and distracting, regardless of origin. If The Devil's Avocado suddenly appeared to participate only in this thread, my opinion would be the same.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am tempted to start an SPI on this; I have seen stranger things before than a bad hand account. Even if the account isn't Tulary there is a chance that it is one of the usual suspects --Guerillero | My Talk 04:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And I was more than just tempted. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this should clear up this loose end if there is any. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking note of some editors referring to "the usual suspects", it might perhaps be helpful for them to comment on that at the SPI, but in a specific manner, rather than leaving it for the rest of us to guess about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We should only consider the edits he made to articles here. If assume for argument's sake that all the other allegations are correct, then that's a perfectly acceptable tactic one may use to get a point accross. We can strongly disagree with the point being made, but it's a tactic that has been used many times, often with positive effects. Take e.g. the Sokal affair, or James Randi letting a few of his apprentices pretend to be psychics so that his criticism of the parapsychology field would finally be taken serious (and it indeed worked). If a group of people is right on an issue and Tutelary joins that group, misrepresenting himself and attempting to act as an agent provocateur, then nothing bad can happen. Being right makes the group immune to its positions being debunked. Instead of condemning such actions, we should embrace it. Count Iblis (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I made the assumed that Tutelary is a male only for argument's sake without me personally taking a position in this dispute. Since Tutelary has made it clear that she is a female and she did that also personally to me when she objected to me using "himself" to refer to her above , I need to make clear that unless proven otherwise, Tutelary should be considered a female as that's how she identifies herself. She asked me to change "him" into "her" in the above posting, but I don't think I should do that because above I refer to a hypothetical Tutelary who really is male if one assumes that her critics are correct. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the misogyny that's the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you before. Don't call other editors misogynist without good reason. Please be civil. WP:CIVL 72.89.93.110 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edit where you said: Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it.? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between calling out on abusive behavior and throwing epithets like Joseph McCarthy. --Pudeo' 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you calling an editor Joe McCarthy? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing to the absurdity of Eric Corbett, a total non-misogynist (though frequent equal-opportunity uncivil dick head) being labelled a misogynist and dragged to "arbitration" for frankly speaking his mind at the gender-gap task force, while the seriously misogynist Tutelary and Tutelary's concern-troll mates all-but extinguish the task force by drowning it in their oh-so-civil "men's rights" word-salad. Classic. Just perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's better to stick to the on-Wiki problems. Things like editing disputes, tendentious editing, harassment etc. etc. What Tutelary does elsewhere is neither here nor there, it can only be used as supplementary evidence. If I harass Jews on Wikipedia but in some of these cases you could consider that to be borderline cases of harassment, then me posting on Neo-Nazi forums may be relevant evidence in an ArbCom case to bolster the case against me. But you can't turn this around, a Neo-Nazi can in principle be a good contributor to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Tutelary and friends with their anti-woman agenda and endless specious crap arguments swamped and trashed the gender gap task force. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Godwin? But let me use your analogy this once: In principle, yes. But not if they made unconstructive edits in civil rights activists' BLPs and stressed their supposed ethnicity ("fellow black person here") in community discussions about racism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who Eric Corbett is, but take it up with him, not un-related individuals. Peace. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If disruption at the gender gap task force is the main problem then let's just focus on that problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just close

Anyone else feel that this all manufactured trolling from 4chan and reddit? All "sides" that have created this appear to benefit from publicity whether it's an obscure indie game developer, washed-up hollywood actor, or single cause advocates looking for attention. I see all the political hot-topic buzzwords being hashtagged with the "controversy" as if they are tied (hint: hacking Apple and privacy violations has no connection to gaming or misogyny or feminism unless your trying to troll those that feel strongly about those topics on 4chan or reddit). Wikipedicracy extended the trolling to WP. Given the reputation of 4chan and reddit and the level of discourse - I'm calling shenanigans and we are all being trolled to pay attention to something that is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of people. Don't feed the trolls. Stop, close and ignore. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, dude? If you can't see the connection between misogyny and gaming, you obviously haven't been paying attention because there's been volumes written about it lately. You think that Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian wanted to have misogynist bile endlessly spat at them just so that they could get more publicity? Those "men's rights advocates" on Reddit aren't trolling - they actually seem to believe that vile crap. Editors who hang out in those forums are bringing it here. Wikipediocracy just exposed what has been getting worse for quite a while. This issue has become a festering sore and will only get worse if it isn't dealt with. Kaletony (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "dude", I see a connection between 16-18 y/o boys that define their view of relationships/girls/sex somewhere between Hollywood fantasy and porn - and the industry that caters to it (Hollywood, porn, gaming). They also cater to their views on violence and crime. The boys act it out on reddit and 4chan, and yes, they are trolling (successfully) if you think "men's rights" is anywhere near reddit or 4chan. Nor is there any non-trolling feminist areas on those sites. I also wouldn't use pathological terms like "misogyny" to describe preformed views expressed by adolescents. These "issues" being flung across twitter are akin to the activists that opposed SpongeBob SquarePants on the basis the cartoon sponge was "gay" and the various "debates" that sprung up. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

MeMills is topic banned from all men's rights related pages and discussions. They are neither an adolescent boy nor a troll. SPECIFICO was just handed an interaction ban with a prominent female editor. They are neither an adolescent nor a troll. Even if your opinion were correct, why would we ignore adolescent trolls? Some editors here are trying to maintain neutral articles about these subjects - why should they have to deal with trolls and zealots? And what difference does it make if someone is trolling by taking an extreme postion or if they honestly believe it? It isn't the ideas that are the problem here, it's the actions. And the actions speak for themselves. Troll or not, people like Tutelary need to be shown the door. Kaletony (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You are missing it. Topics whose notability is derived from reddit, 4chan or wikipediocracy are simply not notable. It's trolling. There is a difference between administering editor behavior here vs. giving voice to trolling from over there. The fact that you equate what happens on reddit, 4chan and wikipediocracy as notable discourse on feminism, misogyny or men's rights is rather disturbing. None of the items you mentioned is related to each other. For that reason trolls, who come here to fight for/against Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian because reddit or 4chan ridiculed them or harassed them is trolling - and unrelated to editor behavior here. Women are harassed all the time and that is a general issue but reddit isn't a particularly different place that deserves special attention. Your local courthouse has public records of every order of protection and it isn't news or noteworthy and they are worse than what goes on at reddit or 4chan or wikipediocracy. Those sites are the adolescent version of IRL harassment and threats. Being on reddit or 4chan or wikipediocracy doesn't add to their claims or notability but if we feed it, it will surely grow. That's all they are known for - adolescent trolling. Conversely, actresses that are already notable that had personal photos stolen is a real issue outside the echo chamber and they had notability prior to the act. If you knew how many photos were stolen from non-celebrities you would realize that the reddit angle is meaningless. In short, editors that bring trolling from those sites in the form of increasing eyeballs to those sites should be dealt with swiftly and the articles dealt with just as swiftly. Editors that behave badly in general are already taken care of. They are unrelated issues as the bringing reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy here is trolling. Your conflation of Specifico/CMDC interaction with anything other than Specifico/CMDC and specifically related to CMDC's gender is a gross mischaracterization and understanding of that interaction ban as well as being unrelated to this discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If you think the things they talk about on Reddit, 4chan and Wikipediocracy have no overlap with Wikipedia then you must wear blinders. Both about those sites and about Wikipedia. Maybe you honestly do think that it's just kids playing around. It isn't. Kaletony (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"The things" they talk about are too broad a characterization to say they don't overlap. Your connection of CMDC/Specifico to this discussion are an example of the problem of feeding trolls. It appears from your argument that because reddit speaks like adolescents about women and feminists and that it is therefore simply an extension of WP's discussion regarding women editors and feminists and all discussions regarding women can be framed in terms defined by reddit. That is not the case as reddit has no notable views on women's issues or notable views on wikipedia. CMDC/Specifico isn't even remotely related and you've offered no connection other than an observation that one editor is female. Reddit doxxing is the internet version of writing a girls address and phone number with "for a good time call Jenny 867-5309" on the high school bathroom. It's very disconcerting and serious to the girl and the school and provides plenty of juvenile gossip and drama as well as serious discussions of harassment at the school appropriate for adolescents but is not notable. Stealing personal photo's and publishing them is a crime. The current high-profile theft case in the news is notable for WP because the subjects are notable, not just because they are salacious or prurient. Salacious and prurient photos are stolen/published all the time, even among adolescents that live for salacious and prurient, and are routinely prosecuted/punished without even a whisper in the news or Wikipedia. But adolescents that have not developed their own identity and live in a world defined by idealizations/stereotypes because they have an underdeveloped sense of self and others, as all children do, is not the place to look for adult characterizations on interactions between various groups. A fourteen year old gamer whose only real-life "adult relationship" with a women comes from a torn out and sticky page he got from his older brother is not the starting point for complex adult discussions on misogyny, feminism or women (nor is their strategy for winning battles in violent video games a starting point for foreign policy). And while a 14 y/o may not be able to distinguish his relationship with that torn-out picture and a mature adult relationship (or his fantasy relationship with Katniss Everdeen with an adult relationship), adults can, and should. Those sites offer no real insight into anything other than the minds of juveniles and transferring it here only makes WP more juvenile. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to disagree? Now you're arguing with me about things I haven't even said. Maybe someone else wants to explore your theories about adolescent boys, but I don't. Kaletony (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Dude", I thought so too. And then you started to argue about "what I think" that I've never thought nor written. Apparently you want Wikipedia to document encounters of non-notable trolling by adolescent boys. We don't need to explore or document any of it, even your pet interests. --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Ignore" may work for those who can forget about this matter once it disappears from this page, but it won't help the editors and admins who have spent many hours struggling with these articles and the barrage of new editors. I've never had to use revision delete so many times on a single set of articles before, which should give you an idea of the seriousness of this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: why have you not used sanctions for "biographical content" problems. The rest of us cannot read what you revdel. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am considering issuing topic bans against particular editors under these sanctions if the irresponsible behavior continues, especially since the drama mongering on this board makes it unlikely that it will be able to seriously address this issue. I've already blocked one editor for 24 hours and had to warn another. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I mean "ignore" the topic, as in sanction editors that are flocking here to "cover" reddit, 4chan and now wikipediocracy as if this is the permanent repository of whatever drama they created in those sites. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree that closing this now wouldn't be productive, 4chan is considered by many to be the cesspool of the internet now that it appears that they are involved some action needs to be taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The EU should impose sanctions on reddit, 4chan, and wikipediocracy for stoking unrest on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• As much as it would be very nice if all the nastiness on "teh internets" would pack its childish self up and go away, the obvious reality is that we still have some very serious unresolved issues here on Wikipedia, and consensus has not yet been reached. At the very least, we need to keep this open until the SPI investigation is resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary may be a false flag person created by Wikipediocracy to try to change our policies here

While I'm of the position that we should assume that Tutelary is for real, address her as a woman because she self identifies that way etc. etc., when we consider imposing restrictions we need to consider all the possibilities here including those that when taken seriously may be insulting to Tutelary. There is the real possibility that someone at Wikipediocracy has created an account named "Tutelary" on different forums who behaves in a politically incorrect way, including here at Wikipedia. When that online footprint is made, that person with his regular moniker then starts a discussion about this "Tutelary" on Wikipediocracy, who he claims to have stumbled into and some research he did uncovered that he is not to be trusted, yet Wikipedia looks like tolerating this person. The goal is then to get this person blocked without going through the regular processes here on Wikipedia. A precedent is then set where evidence posted on Wikipediocracy alone is sufficient to ban someone here. The real target may thus not be Tutelary but someone else against whom Wikipediocracy has a weaker case (or just to have the precedent set for the future if this is ever needed). They would then be holding back until Tutelary is banned here. They will then post the evidence about that other case and we may then end up acting on the Tutelary precedent. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing less plausible than this, is that you were being serious when you said it. moluɐɯ 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary created his account here January 7th 2012. He made no edits until October 27th 2013, but doesn't really start editing regularly until February 2014. Hmmm, no edits for almost two whole years after creating the account? That's kinda odd. When does thsi false Wikipediocracy trail start? Kaletony (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaletony (talk) created his/her account on 13 September 2014. But when does Katetony's real trail start? Perhaps this sockpuppet investigation will find out. Memills (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.' I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but it should be interesting if the SPI can find out. Memills (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit. KonveyorBelt 00:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if trolling, or... Tarc (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• In the Manning ArbCom case you demonstrated that this is easy to do. You didn't do what you did to subvert the outcome of the case and you made public what you did after the end of the case, but in principe you could have done that. Any system that is not governed by strict rules and principles where subjective judgements, people's gut feelings etc. play an imporant role is vulnerable to be subverted by agent provocateurs. That's why my point is that we must not deviate from the fundamental principle that people should only be banned based on clear on-Wiki disruption. Whether or not Tutelary is really an agent provacateur isn't the point, just that for all we know, this could be the case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  I would like to throw out there that Tutelary is actually the MediaWiki software, having gained sentience. I mean, we don't know this *isn't* the case, so we should consider it just in case. moluɐɯ 22:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, we can actually rule this out on theoretical grounds, see e.g. here :). Thing is that on the internet it's child's play to create the cyber equivalent of Operation Northwoods. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  That's not fair. My theory is exactly as plausible as yours. moluɐɯ 20:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• As long as we're going here, I suppose it's worth pointing out that Count Iblis' argument relies on the controversial claim that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy aren't both operated by the NSA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Do'h.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• [30]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion as to whether this rather convoluted scenario laid out by Count Iblis is correct, but I agree that relying on material posted outside of Wikipedia can be problematic and should be approached with caution. Remember too that if this kind of evidence is to be used to ban people, it can also be used in lesser situations such as COI investigations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• My mind, is blown. What an intense idea! Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• In college I smoked so much marijuana one time that I thought David Bowie was god and that he was communicating with earthlings through the track structure of certain greatest hits albums. I encourage those inclined to adopt convoluted theories to keep the hell away from Colorado. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• How do you know the chinese aren't really the ones behind this, @Count Iblis:? Intrepid #GamerGate supporters over at the GamerGate wiki have uncovered evidence of wikipediocracy's shadowy connections to a chinese spy ring. 146.185.183.119 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• If I may intrude in a discussion for which I am woefullly underqualified. When I looked briefly at one of the "Tutelary" posts at Wikipediocracy, my first thought was, well, how do we know that's truly the same person? Anybody could register at Wikipediocracy with the name Tutelary. We all know it's not at all uncommon for people to do worse things under the cover of Internet anonymity. I once caught my son posing as a girl to get closer to girls online (he was about 13). To me, one thing speaks screams in favor of this theory: Tutelary seems like an intelligent person; why would an intelligent person, seeking to mislead us at Wikipedia, go to Wikipediocracy and blow their cover? Like we'd never discover that? Talk about implausible. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Three ways this can end

1. Tutelary is banned for any of the above offense ad everyone goes on their way.
2. This discussion closes as no consensus in which case editors would either apologize to Tutelary or just ignore all that has happened and move on their way.
3. Tutelary is found to have done no wrong doing in which case editors would apologize (At least I hope) for everything that has happened.

No matter how you look at it based on how much feedback this has gotton I doubt that Tutelary will come out of this unscathed somehow, something to think about regardless of the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Either an innocent person has been dragged through the mill at Wikipedia ANI because of a blog at an external site or, if information above is to believed, a beginner 'black hat' hacker, with extremely poor 'OpSec' (Operational Security) has been easily doxed and offered up to Feds on a silver platter for alleged use of RATs, and is facing the sharp end of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because of it. AnonNep (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm saying the following partly in the context of this part of the discussion, and also partly in the context of the subsection above, about the scenario of a false flag. There is a checkuser investigation going on now, and we should let that go ahead and see what it tells us. Until then, I think that we need to keep open minds, and regard offsite accusations with due skepticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Which CU investigation do you mean? This one or this one? -Thibbs (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I was unaware of the second one when I wrote that, but now that I am, they are obviously interrelated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that someone is going around claiming to be female and making use of that deception to gain advantage, if that is what happened. But there are a lot of people who claim erudition, ethnic background and other traits to gain advantages in discussions, and there is no way of verifying what they say unless they provide verifiable personal information. It's one thing for an editor to refer to himself as a female, a physicist or whatever, but people who believe such claims assume the risk that such claims are false or distorted. Perhaps another possible outcome is to educate people on that fact. I don't like the witch hunt atmosphere promoted by this kind of offsite sleuthing, and we have to weigh whether that is more harmful than the misconduct alleged. Tutelary has already been punished by the publicity. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well one thing is that the user could stop saying "as a woman..." to win content disputes and start relying more on references --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Even better, to disregard any such statements by anybody unless their real identity is both verifiable and relevant to the discussion. That's just basic Internet common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you addressing that to? Myself? Other users? Admins? That would be wonderful but it's unlikely to happen. If somebody says "as a woman, I have no issue with a cropped photo of Power Girls breasts being the sole image on her article" then they are clearly using their supposed identity to win the content dispute --5.81.52.138 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was making a general comment. The question is not that it's bad to be deceptive, but whether Wikipedia can or should "outsource" investigations to uncover deception, as in effect is happening here. What I'm suggesting is that we should judge what people say by the quality of their ideas and not the unverifiable statements they make about themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary

The plot thickens.

An SPI concluded that user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. Diff. User:Kaletony has been indefinitely blocked. How many other sock accounts this person has is anyone's guess. Memills (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And thickening it even further, please compare [31] and [32]. We obviously have a case of good hand, bad hand socking here, and clear disruption of this ANI discussion. I am about to strike out all of Kaletony's edits here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and now that we have that cleared it is looking less likely that Tutelary socked. In the event that Tutelary did not sock the decision I see rests on the other evidence provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Without getting too WP:BEANSy, there is another possibility, so let's please let the SPI process run its course. But I hope that you are correct, and if that turns out to be the case, a lot of the arguments for a ban are going to look weaker and weaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that all of the original concerns about Tutelary had nothing to do with sock puppetry? That issue was completely tertiary to the discussion. The concerns were about what Tutelary was doing with their single named account vs. what people believed they were doing on completely other sites. The suspicion about a possible sock only developed because a name popped up that was very close to Tutelary's, but that happened after all the arguments for a ban were being discussed. The SPI cleared that one situation, which is nice, but it has nothing to do with the doxxing issues. An SPI can't "clear" Tutelary about anything to do with the original issues. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It can do one of at least two things. It can turn up further reason to be concerned about Tutelary, or it can discredit some of the arguments against Tutelary. (I realize, of course, that there is no way that it can discredit all or even most of those arguments against, although anyone who came to this discussion with good faith concerns about misogyny and who might understandably object to aspersions being cast on their good faith concerns because of a possible SPI result should consider how aspersions arising from an external website might look when the shoe is on the other foot.) I hope that editors who favor a ban, based upon the original issues, realize that a consensus for such a ban, based upon the original issues, has not occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But a clean SPI relating to a single sockpuppet case has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the arguments against Tutelary that were discussed. By a light-hearted analogy, if the original charge was "someone stole a cupcake" and then somebody shouted their car keys were missing, and we did a search and found who took the car keys, it doesn't prove or disprove anything whether the person stole the cupcake. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it bit clearer that any SPI would only help discredit a single specific argument that Tutelary was a particular sockpuppet. That's it. I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

None of this is about the user creating a sockpuppet during the ANI process. How could a user be brought to ANI about something they do during the process. It's about the gaming of the Wiki to promote a sexist ideology and breaking WP:BLP rules --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess some of them don't realize that a consensus has not occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoever shouts consensus first wins, don't you know how Wikipedia works? --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The two SPI investigations have been closed and archived. Whoever Kaletony/Doxelary was, it was someone who was trying to disrupt this situation, and it definitively was not Tutelary. So I think one thing that is clear is that this entire case has had an awful lot of interference from people outside of Wikipedia, from start to finish, some of it based, apparently, in good-faith concerns about eliminating misogynistic content, but a lot of it just ugly and disruptive. Another thing that is clear, at least to me, is the complete absence of evidence here of Tutelary having added BLP-violating material in article space. This ANI thread might as well be closed now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points, Tryptofish (talk).

" ...whoever Kaletony/Doxelary was, it was someone who was trying to disrupt this situation..." There is currently a sockpuppet investigation to investigate whether Kaldari was "that someone." Memills (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any closure until the TBAN/BAN discussion is determined. The focus is on Tutelary, not Kaletony or Titanium Dragon. Tutelary's fate needs to be determined one way or the other before the discussion can be satisfactorily closed. KonveyorBelt 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant about closure: determine consensus and close. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? It's obvious too many editors are too naive/ignorant to understand that allowing an anti-feminist MRA advocate pose as transgendered, join a task force, disrupt processes, insert numerous BLP violations, and then use the Chelsea Manning case as a protective coating is very much a net negative to the project. Too many well meaning editors want diffs that can't be provided. Either because of 'outing' or because they have been rev del'd for BLP violations. The process is a joke. Hold on a minute while I look the other way as some dude is yanking my chain. Who did it? There are only two people in the room, but I can't accuse the other guy because he's wearing his Chelsea invisi-cloak. Dave Dial (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am neither naive nor ignorant – nor insensitive to concerns about anti-feminism. It has become abundantly clear that the "diffs that can't be provided" can't be provided because they do not exist, not because they were revdeled. Perhaps too many editors just want to be able to ban editors whom they dislike. I can think of quite a few other editors whom I happen to dislike, in fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh......smh. Dave Dial (talk) 6:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

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

Titanium Dragon's topic ban

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

---

• I hesitate to say anything that will delay the bot from archiving this, but I think that it should be noted that Gamaliel has topic banned Titanium Dragon from the Quinn/Gamers pages under the BLP discretionary sanctions (a decision with which I personally agree). I doubt that anything else is going to come of these discussions, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will close this discussion soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I just want to point out that I did not start this new sub-section. Someone else added the header later. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hatting inappropriate material. If Devil's Advocate wants to make these serious charges stick, they are encouraged to start a separate thread. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, the sanctioning admin, Gamaliel, is WP:INVOLVED up to his nose and shouldn't be issuing any sanctions in that topic area. Seems there is a lot of that going on in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC) That is a serious accusation and I ask that you either substantiate that or strike it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Being involved purely in an administrative role is entirely in line with policy. Making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, on the other hand, is a patent violation of policy.--Cúchullain t/c 18:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'll say two things again. I agree with Gamaliel's sanction, and I hope that this discussion will be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Sure Gamaliel, I mean, I could point out the extensive contributions you have made to discussion (not merely removing comments you consider BLP violations but challenging multiple arguments), but I am sure you would write off some using some mealy-mouthed interpretation of the policy, but there really is no getting around comments such as these: [33] [34] [35] [36]. Gamaliel is taking sides in the dispute and using his admin tools to further the interests of that side.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure how you are defining "extensive contributions", but two of those links aren't even to the article talk pages, and the two that are are probably half of the things that I've actually posted there. I spend most of my time on those articles rev deleting and warning, not discussing. These links are me 1) providing two RSes that were being overlooked in the discussion at time 2) objecting to TD's repeated use of an offensive pejorative in talk page discussion and suggesting an alternative wording for him to use 3) thanking a user for his excellent work in attempting to explain and enforce RS and BLP on the talk page, but not for any edits or positions that he has made or taken 4) suggesting that the community topic ban TD for behavior that would continue and escalate, leading to my topic ban. What is missing from these links is any evidence that I am "taking sides in the dispute", unless that side is the one that says Wikipedia articles should say what reliable sources say and that you shouldn't make up shit about living people and post in on the talk page of their article. I don't know a damn thing about gamers and gaming culture so the idea that I would take sides in one of their disputes is silly. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate, I gave you a barnstar last night because I believe your thoughtful rewrite of the Gamergate controversy article made a significant improvement on a very thorny article. Does that make me an involved supporter of your POV? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Those are the "extensive contributions"? Talk about grasping at straws.--Cúchullain t/c 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) No those are not the extensive contributions to which I was referring, I am just including the things that are clearly suggestive of a POV. I mean, I think actively disputing the reliability of sources and challenging claims disputing the reliability of other sources to the extent that Gamaliel has on the article talk page is problematic overall since it is very hard to separate his actions and comments from that of non-admins engaged in the dispute, but I just singled out the edits that I think are most suggestive of a particular POV on the issue. His statement that "Any discussion of GamerGate supposedly being about 'corruption' should note the reliable sources pointing out the complainers' complete disinterest in actual corruption" is clearly partisan in nature. That he praises an editor on one side while calling to ban some on the other side, including Tutelary whose editing has so far not been seriously challenged as problematic with cited evidence anywhere in this discussion, points to someone with a POV on the issue taking part in the dispute. Admins should not take action in such cases.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) First of all, it's absurd to say that Tutelary's editing "has so far not been seriously challenged as problematic" when you are complaining about my post about Tutelary in an ANI thread about Tutelary's problematic editing. Second, I don't believe "actively disputing the reliability of sources and challenging claims disputing the reliability of other sources" is an accurate description of my participation there, which is the occasional chiming in to say things like "Brietbart is a shitty source in any article" and "no, we can't dismiss the entirety of the news media because you think they are biased". In regards to my "corruption" remark, I only pointed out what the reliable sources were saying, I didn't advocate any particular edit or way of using those sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so it's not taking a position on an article to say that we need to take into account what the reliable sources are saying. Were I terribly concerned about the appearance of impropriety, I would have worded my comment about corruption differently, but I'm not terribly concerned about appearances. Mostly my lack of concern stems from knowing that people will accuse you of whatever they've made up their mind about regardless of the actual facts. You seem to have decided long ago that I am untrustworthy, based on your comments on Wikipediocracy and the fact that last year you accused me on this page of deliberate deception because I misremembered what particular Kennedy article I posted a comment about eight years previously. Now you've decided I'm taking sides because of a flippant remark. If we're going to talk about bring a POV to the table, we should talk about yours. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC) REALLY Gamaliel? Mind if I point you to the the fact you deleted an 1000-word comment on the GamerGate-talk page of mine because an +- 20 word line you didn't like because I referenced an certain hashtag you falsely accused of being 'bashing a certain food chain'? You're up to your neck into POV-editing (I just noticed the closed Delete-talk too). I've got an account here, but because of the verbal abuse I've received from a couple of people here (including a couple of false accusations of being an WP:SPA and wikipedia-talk page stalking) I'm quite hesistant to log into Wikipedia now, especially now I notice the admin noticeboards are populated way too often by the same people who attempt to hijack the GamerGate article (and currently have done so judging by the conspicious lack of some previously used RSes) and other articles. 85.113.249.206 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC) A "certain hashtag", eh? You mean I wouldn't let people use the talk page to repeat a slut-shaming slur against the subject of the article. I enforced this prohibition with everyone on both sides of the issue, and the evidence is the complaints all over my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC) It is not absurd as this whole discussion has been a farce from the outset. No one has presented any evidence against Tutelary that would warrant any action. That you were so quick to get on with the farce, in light of your other comments and actions, strongly suggests you have a vested interest in the outcome of the content dispute in which you have participated and thus are involved.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) So my "POV" has now escalated to "vested interest"? Still waiting on the evidence. I suspect in a few days you will accuse me of being one of the guys who slept with Zoe Quinn. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC) It has not escalated as the whole issue is that you are too involved and I have provided my evidence already. I could point out that you only seem to challenge and threaten people on one side, while people on the other side are showered with praise for their work on the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Again, flatly untrue. My talk page is evidence of bitching at me from both sides, while a single barnstar posted on the talk page of a single editor is your sole piece of evidence for my "showering" of praise for one side. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Gamaliel has contended that he is not involved, but is being impartial. The evidence suggests otherwise. Gamaliel feuding with PseudoSomething over sources: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. Mind you, Pseudo appears to be the third editor Gamaliel was suggesting should be topic-banned. The feuding also concerned Breitbart, which is one of the few major news outlets providing a sympathetic perspective on GamerGate. Gamaliel made some pretty hostile commentary about the outlet, which is not surprising given Gamaliel's admitted Democratic leanings as contrasted with Breitbart's more Republican leanings. Gamaliel's dismissive comments regarding allegations of corruption in gaming journalism as a focus of GamerGate has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating because of the entire context: [45] [46] [47] [48]. You see one of the editors directly challenged Gamaliel's neutrality and an IP editor that challenged his sources by pointing out inaccuracies in the reporting or opinionated dismissal of legitimate concerns regarding conflicts of interest was reverted for "attacking journalists" the IP supposedly disliked. One thing Gamaliel states above is that his talk page shows evidence of both sides criticizing him, but the only evidence I can find of that is this exchange: [49]. Which shows exactly one editor generally seen as unfavorable towards GamerGate and one who was favorable to GamerGate complaining about Gamaliel's actions. However, the complaint concerns numerous edits by Gamaliel removing references to the "Five Guys Burgers and Fries" term that was being used to refer to the allegations about Quinn when there were efforts to suppress discussion of the controversy on various online forums. Gamaliel reverted multiple editors using this term by absurdly calling it a "slur" and a "BLP violation": [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Far from being bombarded with hate from both sides, he gets praise and affection from the anti-GamerGate side for banning their opponents: [55] [56] [57]. His actions as both an editor commenting on the talk page and as an administrator using his tools or position have exclusively favored anti-GamerGate positions. That he also offers encouragement and praise to the most active editor in slanting the GamerGate article towards a hostile POV on the subject is just further evidence of his favoritism and his partisan adminning.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC) That's because it is a slur. It's a third-grade-level slut-shaming slur which has no place in a serious encyclopedia and Gamaliel should be applauded for his persistence in ensuring its removal. We have no obligation to repeat and amplify anonymous forum gossip and doggerel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC) You are not the most objective commentator on that matter, which is kind of the point. Please see these mentions in reliable sources: [58] [59]. It isn't slut-shaming or a slur. More of a joking way to discuss something when discussion was not being allowed. The term is a legitimate point of discussion on the talk page and removing it from discussions is not appropriate nor supported by BLP.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic-ban. There is considerable evidence that NPOV of the article is seriously lacking and at least he should contribute on the talk page. There are also serious BLP violations in the article about the portrayal of so-called "gamers" that hasn't generated any redactions. Titanium Dragon's contributions are not disruptive. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic banned user continuing to edit at Gamergate controversy

User:Titanium Dragon was topic banned by User:Gamaliel two days ago, but he has again started editing the article and Talk page, apparently because "it is going to be appealed". Can something be done about this? Woodroar (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed that bans were hard-coded. I had spoken to Gamaliel on his talk page about it, and noticed that I still had the ability to edit the article, and had assumed he changed his mind. Apparently I was in error, and such bans simply are not hard coded. The edits have been reverted. I'm sorry, I have little understanding of how such things work mechanically; I had assumed there was a system in place to bar people from editing such articles, but I suppose I can see why that would be difficult now that I think about it, as category tags only go so far. I shan't do it again. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

user:NeilN has explained things a bit better to me. That being said, I have a question: @Tarc: has been topic banned from things having to do with transgender issues, and part of the whole GamerGate mess is the fight that Zoe Quinn had with The Fine Young Capitalists, the former accusing the later of transphobia. Does that mean he shouldn't be working on those articles as well? Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice deflection attempt there, but no; that's be like a prohibition on editing Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil just because a person in the book/movie is a drag queen. Quinn's critique of the FYC over their transgender rules does not make this a transgender topic, but I'll refrain from commenting further on that small aspect of this (and to my knowledge I have not) just to be 100% in the clear. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Woodroar was correct to bring this violation to the community's attention, but now that Titanium Dragon has corrected his mistake, which appears to have been made in good faith, I see no reason to block and suggest this section be closed lest it get sidetracked into unrelated issues. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon has violated their topic ban yet again, immediately after acknowledging they know exactly what the ban entails. Enough's enough.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is from Gamaliel's talk page in discussion of this very ban, because I feel that the ban was made in error because the material in question is found in reliable sources which had been previously noted on that page (several of which are presently or have been used as cites by the article). Surely you can discuss being banned from something with the person who banned you on their talk page? :\ Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to appeal your ban and it does seem that is what you are doing on Gamaliel's talk page. See WP:BANEX for a list of exceptions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that the user in question has once again posted unsupported accusations about living people in the process of appealing their topic ban. I have redacted the claim and strongly suggest that it is counterproductive for you to make unsupported accusations about living people when appealing a topic ban imposed because you made unsupported accusations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

He was plainly referencing this article in Cinema Blend. It does not explicitly identify Quinn, but she and her associates are the ones they are talking about. This claim of doxxing was apparently made due to Quinn responding to a tweet from her PR rep Maya Kramer that contained the TFYC guy's Facebook account. Although the offending tweet appears to have been nuked you can still find traces of the conversation between Quinn, Kramer, and another individual. This connection to Quinn is made explicit in GameRanx. Suffice to say, TD knew Cinema Blend alluded to the doxxing, but did not remember that they left the identity of the culprit unclear. From what I can tell, this is typically where he runs afoul of BLP. He fills in the blanks with stuff he already knows without realizing the sources do not explicitly state what he is stating. Of course, I don't know what he said in these other instances since the evidence has been shredded by various involved admins.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So he was misusing and misrepresenting the content of reliable sources to present his personal opinions about living people because he didn't like what was actually found in the reliable sources. Good to know we agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that he filled in the blanks in his head and thought that the sources explicitly said it when he really just knew what they were talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

...which is precisely what is prohibited by WP:SYNTH — we don't allow people to synthesize from multiple reliable sources a new claim not explicitly found in any one of them. The fact that the only reliable source directly addressing the issue intentionally omitted Zoe Quinn's name is significant. It means the only reliable source directly addressing the issue made an editorial decision not to make an explicit claim about Quinn's involvement. If the source didn't make that claim, it is absolutely prohibited to build a chain of primary sources and use them to make inferences about what the reliable source might or might not have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying any "synth" or "unsourced" statement was inadvertent due to him actually knowing what sources are talking about yet not processing that they did not actually say what they are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as necessary to worry too much here about alleged topic ban violations on Gamaliel's talk page at the moment, unless they're so egregious that they require immediate attention in which case it should only really happen after the material has been oversighted or at least revdeleted (or alternatively by privately alerting an admin). While of course, any admin could block Titanium Dragon for topic ban violations, when they occur in a stated attempt to appeal the topic ban on the issuing admin's talk page and the issuing admin appears to be actively engaged in the discussion, unless said admin asks for help, it's probably best to let them deal with it, notifying them if there's something you think they may have missed. It looks like Gamaliel has already warned TD to be careful in what they post, in particular to focus on the appeal and not in engaging with other contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was he topic banned? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Because he kept posting material that violated WP:BLP and had to be expunged from the pages' histories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Flushed down the memory hole? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is seen as having some authority, you can't use it to slander living people, or make wild accusations about what may have happened in their private lives. You can, for instance, imagine what would happen if somebody wrote an article about you in the style that editors like Tutelary and Titanium Dragon were hoping to write for Zoe Quinn. Many people would take it seriously, even though the whole GamerGate thing looks like a mad conspiracy from the outside. That is why we have these sanctions --5.81.54.129 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But the article already appears to slander living persons like Adam Baldwin. I don't see how discussing which sources belong in an article, on a talk page, violates BLP. You are being WP:UNCIVIL by implying Tutelary or Titianium Dragon are some kind of bully or egregious BLP violators, when let's remember they were both doxxed and the Wikipedia community is voting to *ban them sitewide* as a response.

Seriously. Your reaction to editors getting doxxed is "lets ban the victims!"? Hello? Earth to Wikipedia? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon was doxxed long before the GamerGate shit happened. Don't conflate the two events. And Adam Baldwin is mentioned once on the article as having made it a hashtag and then not mentioned, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon was doxxed on 9.07 as a reaction to the "GamerGate shit". Whoever did it was trying to intimidate him and other editors from contributing to the article. And it is downright horrifying to see the perpetrators enabled and encouraged like this. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was actually not aware that the doxxing occurred because of his participation in the GG pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat worrying to see Gamaliel topic banning someone when they are making reverts like this one with an edit summary of "Anyone trying to get this article neutral will get their edits reverted: BLP" where the mention of the [redacted] hash tag is treated as a BLP violation, and very WP:BITEY reverts like this one where the newbies only error was not to post at the bottom of the talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Just to correct you here, the "anyone trying to get this article neutral" bit was the section heading, not a comment from Gamaliel. He did make other comments that I pointed out in the collapsed section above that you can examine. I agree that he is too involved in the subject to take administrative action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're damn right I'm treating it as a BLP violation, because it's a slur directed at the subject of the article and Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for such slurs. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

How is that a slur. A slur is a bad word. Acknowledging the presence of a hashtag or phrase on a TALK PAGE isn't a freaking BLP violation. How can you discuss an article if you are threatening to ban people for DISCUSSING what to put in the article? If it's a slur why are people like Adam Baldwin being associated with a movement the wiki article describes as anti-feminist and deeply misogynistic? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a slur. In the past week, it's become plain to see that Gamaliel, Rylong, and NorthBySouth are White Knights for Zoe Quinn -- who shouldn't even have a Wikipedia page to begin with, being that she's as notable as belly button lint. At best, she deserves an inclusion in the GameGate Scandal page and nothing more. Anyhow, luckily for me, my editors from the media outlet I work for have given me the go ahead and write an expose on the whole mess. Users from Wikipedia who decided to make this a non-neutral story will be on blast and my guys will stand behind me after I do it. That's only part of it. I am appalled with this whole situation. I don't believe there's a media blackout so much as the media is not giving everyone the whole picture in this regard. I'm even more horrified with the McCarthy-esque tactics displayed by Wikipedia. TitaniumDragon didn't deserve to be banned just because Gamaliel, Ryulong, and NorthBySouth are going against Wiki policy to keep the full story from seeing the light of day. It's disgusting. I watched a Wikipedia editor (who actually WROTE a policy one of these clowns were violating) get browbeaten over his knowledge. The three guys in question are bullies and nothing more. I encourage anyone and everyone who fights for the truth to keep fighting over this article so that it's finally neutral. TabascoMan77 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you contact me via email with your press credentials, you can interview me for your expose. As a professional journalist, you are of course aware that no reputable publication would run such an expose without contacting participants from all sides of the issue who are willing to be interviewed. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Daily DDT at FanSided is a particularly professional or reputable publication. 146.185.140.187 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't work for The Daily DDT at FanSided. Oh, and I'm not asking for an interview, Gamaliel. I don't need it because it'll just be more pro-Zoe spew. Your actions on this board...they kinda speak for themselves. A good "expose" doesn't need your personal words. They just report and nail their target to the wall based on what you've already done. Big smiles! TabascoMan77 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed at the level of journalistic integrity on display in your comment. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabascoman77, are you one of the people who were attempting to bother me all evening on Twitter? Also, you should recognize that Titanium Dragon was not banned because he was attempting to push a pro-GG agenda. He was banned because he kept making statements concerning Zoe Quinn that violated WP:BLP which is mentioned throughout this fucking thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No. And, I've heard the WP:BLP excuse. The thing that TD already explained was being misused because you guys don't understand what it is. I have a Twitter and if I wanted to bug you there, you'd know because my username would make it fairly obvious. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Indef Block for USER:Tabascoman77

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

---

I believe the words cited directly above provide reason to issue an indefinite block, as it directly is attempting to create a chilling effect within the articles in question as well as here in this ANI. User will be notified immediately after this is posted. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User Notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the user also advocates disruption to make a point at the articles in question. Also against policy. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Indef block on what basis? This is the second example I see on this page of some editors trying to make Wikipedia into a battleground with other websites. You don't ban editors for criticizing the Wikipedia community. Kelly ^hi! 09:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. On what grounds? That I said I was going to write an article (on another site not even RELATED to Wikipedia) about the Zoe Quinn White-Knighting and blockade of the McCarthy-esque behavior and blackout of neutral information found on Wikipedia? ZOMG YOU JUST PROVED MY ENTIRE POINT. Thanks for that. This is why I've stopped using Wikipedia. You guys have gotten so weird. It's like you think you've got your own little government and can hit people with some sort of stick from afar. REALITY CHECK: I haven't done anything to warrant a "block". You have no power. If you block me, I will appeal it and your goofy asses will STILL wind up in the expose article, detailing this sort of bullying behavior. TabascoMan77 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds? Simple, as I said above. User is attempting to create a chilling effect[[60]] through threatening an expose after denying actual journalism (aka actually interviewing both sources), further "encourage anyone and everyone who fights for the truth to keep fighting over this article so that it's finally neutral" is calling for individuals to disrupt the articles to make a point. Not to mention his fun filled personal attacks at my user page[61] and general battle ground mentality. Also just because you don't want me on your talk page, that doesn't include mandatory notifications such as discussions at ANI. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? Encouraging everyone to write a neutral article is "disruptive"? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means... TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing repeatedly against policy and concensus is disruptive and tenditious behavior. Further It has been repeatedly shown that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT does not work as an appropriate venue for attempting to protest actions. Maybe you should read policies, it might make it less embarrassing for you. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything on Zoe Quinn or GamerGate, genius. I don't apply. I simply said I am writing an article for my news outlet, criticizing Wikipedia's editing policies in regards to the current GamerGate fiasco. I am entitled to do such. If you don't like this, then complain to my editor after you read it. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a difference between criticism and threats designed to create a chilling effect. Any offsite comments designed to create a chilling effect that also contain personal information about Wikipedia editors fall under the policy WP:OUTING. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Tivanir has a point, but the chilling effect started at the beginning of this month with the Wikipediocracy article, and instead of take a strong stand against WP:OUTING, the Wikipedia community started a vote to ban the victims. You yourself commented on their article, and I don't get why. They obviously don't like you, and they don't deserve any attention or encouragement at all. They're bullies pure and simple, and the best way to deal with bullies is by starving them of attention. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and my usual approach over the years has been to ignore offsite bullies and trolls. This time I couldn't resist tweaking their hypocrisy. Gamaliel (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using any form of Doxxing in my article. Sorry if there was some misunderstanding there. The article is about Zoe Quinn, GamerGate, the media's portrayal and the Wikipedia community joining in the media's non-neutral approach. If there's any "chilling effect", it's what IP Guy said: you have a non-neutral Wiki article, a website (in Wikipediocracy) which reports on Wikipedia's mistakes who, for some reason, has decided to decided to ignore [redacted] then Dox Titanium Dragon because Doxxing is selectively cool and only accepted when it's against somebody you're opposing. How come nobody's condemned the Dox against TD here? Is it because it went against the guy who's been trying to make the article neutral? And is the new thing banning those who support the people trying to make both sides heard? In any case, none of this will go anywhere. I'll just write what I have to write and we'll all go on with our lives. TabascoMan77 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many people condemned Wikipediocracy's doxxing. I condemn it. Note that TD was topic banned by me for repeatedly doing what you just did, making serious unsubstantiated allegations against the subject of the article. Neither talk page of that article or this page are forums for airing such accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, was that the same one where an Al Jazeera article couldn't be used because "it had no byline"? Or was that the one where NorthBySouth wouldn't use a source because WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT? Or was that the one where he NorthBySouth tried to dictate BLP to an editor who helped write the policy? Or was that the one where -- you know, I'm just gonna stop there and say that TD had a pretty good gripe. TabascoMan77 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That editor "who helped write the policy" (or claimed to have done so under a different account) also said that allegations against living persons are perfectly fine as long as they're quoted by someone, which is absolutely false. I'm not sure if you are familiar with our BLP policies or just feel that they go too far, but they exist to at least partly to protect the project. Editors who repeatedly post unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons need their editing privileges curtailed. It's really that simple. Woodroar (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? So, the source in question is not allowed on Zoe Quinn's page to back up the argument because of BLP because it's not a "verifiable source"...but it's totally allowed here?[[62]]? That's WEIRD, man. Just weird...heh. Once again, it's WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT on full display. TabascoMan77 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not being used to make allegations of criminal activity against a living person at The Fine Young Capitalists article. In fact, it's use is consistent with interview/primary/SPS guidelines, and statements that could be seen as controversial are backed up with reliable third-party sources. Woodroar (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, as long as they don't use the part of the interview where Rappart says that Quinn was a problem, the interview can be included but, if anyone tries to use the part where Rappart questions Quinn's motives and intentions, it's not ok? So...it's WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT then? TabascoMan77 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I'd support an indef block quite yet, but Tabascoman77 should probably be aware that threats to "out" editors count as personal attacks. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess you could run an expose based on usernames alone, but I'm honestly not sure that would have much of an effect. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If anything he should be blocked for attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground and becoming a disruptive single purpose account to focus on the GamerGate garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This just in: WP:NOBODYCARES. Love the hyperbole, though. It's like Argument Steroids. TabascoMan77 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Never mind, Support. I was kind of hoping he'd at least behave himself in this discussion. Unfortunately, the combination of a) continued threats, b) general incivility, and c) attitude that he cannot possibly be wrong is not helping his case. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So let's see: this thread has gone from being about an editor who may have been pretending to be female to being about an editor who is pretending to be an investigative journalist. It's getting tiresome, and far past the point where there is actually a dispute to be resolved. I propose starting an office pool on how long it will take until this ANI thread is closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I truly don't care if he is a journalist or not. People shouldn't be attempting chilling affects, trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, make personal attacks, attempt to out, adopt a battle ground mental state, or fight for the "truth". The user has managed to show they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh noes. So scared. Seriously. There may be tears. Keep editing the article until it's neutral, folks. That's what this place was supposed to be about. It's obviously not. The rules have been bent by these guys to no end. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Way to reinforce exactly what I am providing diffs for. You hit rock bottom and you are starting serious excavation. WP:ROPE doesn't even need to be considered at this point, that is apparent. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to intimidate me and threaten blocks because I am criticizing the methods of Wiki editors on a news site not related to Wikipedia, be my guest. But, be warned, your little "blocking" escapade will fall under WP:Bullying, WP:Harassment, and also violate WP:Civility. Other than that: sorry that you don't agree with the tone of the article I am writing. I have, not once, threatened to out anyone, personally. I can (and will) use user names. As such, the only person who is giving themselves enough rope is yourself, each time you continue to push for a block just because you don't like an editor. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you honestly believe you have a leg to stand on since all of my comments have been linked extensively to different policies feel free to open up an ANI. Bringing up what I believe are policy violations for the site isn't bullying, I am not following you to articles so it isn't harassment and while I could be a lot more civil I am not the one that has devolved into personal attacks. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bringing up what I believe are policy violations...". And there's your key defense. I haven't broken policy. And you are in violation of WP:Civility, as per your own confession about "being a lot more civil". You guys are in Lynch Mob Mode here. Seriously, it's time to just back off and walk away. TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes everyone brings up what they believe are policy violations. Its up to an administrator or the community to actual agree and take action or abdicate the individual after that, as unless they are egregious WP:BLP concerns or similar it is uncommon to see unilateral action. You have violated NPA multiple times by alluding to me being a simpleton or derogatory use of the word genius. Further just about everyone on this entire site could stand to be more civil, as I have yet to meet anyone that could not be more calm about situations. And please if you really want try a civility block since precedent states that individuals can be grossly uncivil with no action. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So I violated NPA "multiple times" by calling you a "simpleton" once? Also, you falsely accused me of "editing against policy and consensus" when I wasn't even editing anything...so...yeah. Your "policy violations" accusation is ridiculous as is the block request. Really, it's time to walk away.. TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

NPA 1 [63] NPA 2, specifically "I haven't edited anything on Zoe Quinn or GamerGate, genius" uses genius in a deragatory fashion. Also I stated you advocated per WP:ADVOCATE that others disrupt the articles to make a point, to change it to your POV. Thats essentially calling for others to disrupt the project, even if you never edit the article directly, which is overall disruptive to the project. I view that as falling well within the boundries of the disruption policy spirit if not in the letter of the policy. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Last time: I already explained that I didn't make edits as you claimed. You said that I did. You were wrong. Secondly, I didn't advocate disruption in order to change the article to reflect "my POV". I said to fight to make the article neutral. That's not disruption, that's a plea to the Wikipedia community to do what this website is supposed to be doing: presenting objective and neutral pieces for readers. If "fighting" includes intense discussions FROM BOTH SIDES to get this policy goal achieved, then so be it. You need to end this charade. Stop twisting things so they fit your accusations and stop putting words in my mouth, Tivanir2. Your attempts to get me blocked are retaliatory in nature and violate BLOCKING#NOPUNITIVE. I have enough WP:ROPE to push an ANI for WP:Harassment and believe me when I say that I really don't want to do that because I really don't have the time or energy to put either of us through that. So, it's time to stopbeating a dead horse and I urge you to walk away. TabascoMan77 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support a block as clearly not here to collaborate. His bluster above that he hasn't done anything to warrant a block and will appeal it (to whom? (to the courts? is that a threat?)), combined by saying that he has stopped using Wikipedia (if so, why is he blustering?) is one of the stranger responses to a block proposal that I have seen. I would support either an indef as not here to contribute or a preventive block to keep him from building the case for a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Another stupid lynch mob attempt. Trying to block someone indefinitely for saying they will write a news article criticizing the behavior of other editors is not exactly a good idea. Labeling him a GamerGate SPA when he has not even edited the relevant articles and has made more contributions to the article on V than here is even more ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Yet another stupid attempt to live up to your user name and enable trolling" would be an accurate description of your response. Points for the hilarious "lynch mob" hyperbole. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yup. Thanks for that, Devil. Now, can we please close this stupid Topic Ban thing about me now? Oppose, FWIW, even though I really honestly don't care but, when in WikiRome... TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• 'Block ASAP This guy is no obviously more a journalist -- professional or amateur -- than Pee Wee Herman, and the 7th-grade "clever" attempt to game the WP:NLT rationale is laughable. Just pull the trigger on this clumsy trolling and block him already. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• I call for a counter block on Calton for violation of WP:Civility. You can't block me because you don't like me or because I am critical of Wiki Methods. Move along. TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• I hate to respond to this sort of crap, really, but, yeah short block, I dunno, a day or two I guess, just to get some bandwidth back from the nonsense. Begoon ^talk 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody even know what this is about or are we just making block/oppose remarks because reasons? I said I was writing an article (away from Wikipedia) that will be about the entire Quinn affair and that it will be critical of WP for failing to make the Quinn article neutral (as it should be) and I also called on the WP Community to fight to make it neutral, not biased, not POV -- NEUTRAL. Now, I'm being threatened with a block because somebody doesn't like the fact that I said this stuff? Wow. WP:BLOCKING#NOPUNITIVE, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:BULLYING...I can't even believe that WP has become this way. "Don't say you want it neutral and don't be critical of Wikipedia or else you'll be blocked." This is ridiculous. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I truly don't know how to break this to you gently, so here it is: we're bored with you now. Enjoy the rest of your thread. Begoon ^talk 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, blocking because reasons, then. WP:BLOCKING#NOPUNITIVE was all you had to say. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"to make it neutral, not biased, not POV -- NEUTRAL." This suggests another problem to me: you claim that the version of the article you support is neutral, whereas the alternatives you disagree with are written with a POV. You have no evidence for this idea whatsoever; please provide some. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The mere fact that APG Nation is not considered valid because part of it actually serves to tell the truth about what Quinn did is just one thing. As Woodroar tried to explain, the article is, apparently, only allowed if it isn't critical of Quinn. The fact remains that APG's interview really is notable and you cannot, in good conscience, say that it CAN be included in TFYC's own Wiki article because it's positive but NOT include it in Quinn's article because it might make readers think she's not made of gold. As was pointed out, to do so would be accusing APG of fabricating the interview with TFYC and we both know that's not the case. Yes, there are references to Eron Gjoni posting what she did -- but the article doesn't go into any real detail as to what Gjoni even wrote except to say "he wrote about her". Gjoni's testimony IS relevant, considering what GamerGate was all about in the first place. There's even Wiki User "NorthBySouth" who says, "We don't care who she slept with," to which Titanium Dragon pointed out that it doesn't matter whether or not HE cares about -- it's relevant. Again, the objection, "I don't care" is WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. The rest of the article paints Zoe as victim -- which she is, when it comes to the horrifying level of harassment she suffered. However, as "GamerGate" deals with alleged corruption in video game journalism and there is evidence that Quinn had some very close relationships with journalists at those outlets, all that seems to be missing. So, as I said, the article is non-neutral and I am not the only one who thinks that. Keep all the other stuff about how 4Chan harassed her and bullied her and how she's a feminist and fighting for the common woman. That's all good stuff. Post the OTHER SIDE, TOO. My other suggestion was to delete the Quinn page altogether because she isn't notable past being a regular, everyday programmer, and put her in the "GamerGate" scandal page instead. But, again, everyone's got their armor on and that won't happen. So, the article is biased and non-neutral. TabascoMan77 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

TFYC can say what they want concerning themselves but their statements regarding someone else cannot be published on that other page. And unless you have proof of your accusations against Quinn in your post, you should redact it lest it be expunged from the record entirely for violating WP:BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you're willfully ignoring the context of that discussion. "We don't care who she slept with" because the reliable sources don't care either. The reliable sources used to support this article mention one and only one of the allegations as significant and of public interest: the allegation that one relationship created a conflict of interest with a journalist. That allegation has been disproven. The reliable sources have ignored Gjoni's other claims, presumably concluding that none of them amount to anything more than a lover's quarrel. The fact that those sources have ignored them means that we, too, ignore them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: you can include a Cracked article written by Zoe regarding other people -- but you can't include TFYC in an interview, talking about somebody else? Is that really how this works? And I'm not deleting any accusations against Quinn. Eron Gjoni wrote an expose, accusing Quinn of sleeping with a writer. [64] And he DOES have evidence of it on his own blog, which we can't include because it's SPS. Saying it here isn't publishing it as a fact. Stop deleting this. Do me a favor and stop swinging the WP:BLP bat. It's not a bludgeon.

And you're now choosing to ignore APG's interview and Adam Sessler's own Twitter where he admits running away with Zoe Quinn. That SHOULD count since you used the same rationale to justify including Cracked as a source. TabascoMan77 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is for discussing behavioral/misconduct issues. If you have editing concerns, it'd be best to bring those to the talk page of the article in question. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the Cracked article Quinn wrote isn't used at all. And your mouth is still writing a check your ass can't cash when it comes to the stuff you're spewing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh...yeah, it is: [65] Also, watch your language. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a good idea. Go away and write your article (which frankly no-one will care about) and stop wasting everyone's time here. WP:NOTHERE is pretty wide-ranging, and someone is going to click that button fairly shortly. I hope that's clear. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Wasting everyone's time?" I'm only here because I was called out to respond to some arbitrary bullshit "indef block" for no reason other than suggesting Wikipedia be neutral and you're here telling me that I'm "wasting everyone's time" and I should just stop defending myself against violation of Punitive Blocking? And Uncivil to boot, regarding the upcoming piece. Considering the site has tens of thousands of hits a day, I kinda question your dismissal. Just saying. Here's a better idea:Pick a lane. You can't call me for an indef block for no reason, then suggest I should leave and just let it happen. I WOULD help edit the Quinn and GamerGate pieces but I am frustrated with the lack of neutrality and the blocking of any piece that tells the other side of the story. It's easy to say WP:NOTHERE when you're discouraging a 50-50 article. TabascoMan77 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No-one here actually believes you're here to "improve" the GG articles, apart from, like a number of accounts that have suddenly miraculously reactivated themselves since the semi-protection was put in place, to push a particular POV. And it should be fairly clear by now that isn't going to happen. So, as I said, your best chance of "telling it like it is" is to write your article, because it's irrelevant to Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah! You're accusing me of sock puppetry? That's cute. Check my history. I've been with Wikipedia long before GamerGate or Zoe Quinn. On top of that, I haven't even touched the Quinn and GG articles. So the fact that you're using language like "you're pushing a particular POV" is completely confusing to me. But that's not a surprise. TabascoMan77 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Did I say you were a sock? No. I merely pointed out the undeniable fact that you have returned to Wikipedia after a significant break from editing to concentrate on this article, like very many "old" accounts. That part is simple fact. As for "pushing a POV", one only has to read your contributions. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything in particular? I might remind you that we were all green Wikipedians once. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Above, I suggested an office pool, to guess when this ANI thread will be closed. Now, I'm just suggesting that it, all of it, be closed. We're long past done here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles

I'll keep it as short as possible. Two editors, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner are harassing Boris Malagurski-related articles, mostly the article about his film The Weight of Chains. Even though these articles are very well sourced (not many articles on Wikipedia have so many references per sentence), they've expressed their dislike and anti-Malagurski bias very directly several times, and are now ganging up to discourage those who actually want to help contribute to Wikipedia in regards to articles on the matter. For standing up for neutrality, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, his friend and on his payroll, accused that I just want to praise him and his work with no criticism, while my main objection is that negative criticism should be well sourced, and that well sourced facts and positive critique shouldn't be removed. In essence, I would like neutrality.

However, whenever I list reputable sources that support any claim, they always jump to say "No consensus!", and thus any serious editing can't be done. Most recently, after I added information and quotes from a review from VICE (magazine), Bobrayner quickly reverted it [66], again citing "clearly no consensus to add this" (not a word dropped on the talk page from him). When I even expanded a review to include more negative criticism of the film, but argued that blog posts can't be considered as reliable sources for criticism, again the screams of "no consensus" to remove the blogger's rants. Pincrete keeps canvassing ([67]) and Bobrayner gladly jumps in whenever needed. This is starting to get very annoying. I've lost my nerve once and engaged in an edit war, I don't want to get into that kind of communication anymore, I would like to see what is it that has to happen so that I can peacefully edit and collaborate with those who didn't come to Malagurski-related articles with an agenda, but with an honest wish to contribute in the spirit of Wikipedia. Editing here was fun when I started, but if I have to argue with people whenever I add reliably sourced content that fulfill Wikipedia criteria, I'm out. If pushing POV, manipulating, canvassing and getting away with it just because some articles are less popular than others is the essence of Wikipedia, please let me know so that I can make my decision on whether to stay. Thanks in advance, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Question from Pincrete, may I ask the time-frame in which this is likely to be heard? I ask as there a very large number of diffs to assemble to answer this properly. Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that anyone will respond. However, if you keep it brief, you'll have a much better chance. Few people will read an excessively long post that details every minor transgression made by an editor. I would suggest you try to keep it to the length of UrbanVillager's post (or shorter). I skimmed over the article's talk page (and a few others), and I'd suggest that you two could probably benefit from content-related dispute resolution, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, a third opinion, an RFC, or asking WikiProject Film for unbiased input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a long complaint about a small part of the problem. Let me try to condense the broader story, for the good folk of WP:ANI.

• UrbanVillager is a single-purpose account whose only work is to promote Malagurski, an obscure filmmaker. Tellingly, UrbanVillager writes promotional content about Malagurski's work before information is actually released to the public. Articles on these films have, historically, contained only positive content - and impressive lists of awards (some of which are impossible to reconcile with real-world evidence), and UrbanVillager will automatically revert anyone who tries to fix it. Just look at the history of The Weight of Chains]. Normally I wouldn't bother much with mere spam, but Malagurski's films make some radical claims about recent Balkan history, and UrbanVillager has tweaked content to suit those claims.
• The combination of promotional editing, misuse of sources, and radical views on recent Balkan history, can lead to angry comments by various people, although I've tried to remain civil. In a previous attempt at dispute resolution, UrbanVillager insisted that several editors - the folk he has diligently reverted over the years - are all conspiring to malign Malagurski. It's difficult to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
• The latest problem is about some reviews of The Weight of Chains. UrbanVillager has spent years adding positive wording and removing negative wording and reverting anyone who disagrees; that's his job. In the last few days, two different uninvolved people (Psychonaut (talk · contribs) and EdJohnston (talk · contribs)) had warned UrbanVillager for editwarring and for "making unilateral changes"; UrbanVillager did it again; I made a single revert, because there was clearly no consensus for UrbanVillager's wording; so UrbanVillager tried asking EdJohnston for support, and when EdJohnston disagreed, UrbanVillager started this thread instead.

bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Response from Pincrete Bobrayner has expressed very succinctly the broader issues, so I will focus on recent events and UrbanVillager's user behaviour, which is, frequently abusive, wilfully perverse, and shows no meaningful engagement with the guidelines or values of Wikipedia (I can provide MANY examples of personal abuse, several of racist abuse many of wilfully perverse behaviour or wilful mis-quoting, but do not do so here for reasons of brevity). I believe this ANI is little more than a smokescreen by UrbanVillager, to hide his own behaviour and to retain WP:Ownership of these pages.

Firstly, I ask that the recent talk page be read (to the extent that you can endure it), collapsed section here:-[68]. This is talk over less than 2 days (9th-11th Sep) about the 'Criticism' section, of the article. The background is that only 4 days before, both UrbanVillager and myself had been warned against making ANY non-consensus changes to this section of the article (or to one disputed word). On the morning of 11th September, I posted a clear statement that UV's proposed changes did NOT have my consent, and did not appear to be RSs either, here:-[69] nb para 3 of changes panel, 'Where this discussion has got to … 90 minutes later, he replied here:-[70] nb end of para 1 of changes panel 'So, the review goes in the article.' … some 3 minutes later, he made this edit:-[71] which he claims in his edit reason, is 'as per talk page' . This was not ONE controversial edit, but the complete rewriting of the entire section.

When challenged by EdJohnston, later that day, UrbanVillager made the minimum reverts explicitly demanded by EdJohnston, but retaining ALL of the material, which he had sought to insert that morning, some of which - he had every reason to know - was factually wrong about a reviewer whom he wished to disparage, content which he certainly knew did not have consensus. It was at this point that Bobrayner, made the change he did, though I had already approached EdJohnston, asking permission to do so.

UrbanVillager's opening statement contains two - very telling - 'errors', firstly he links to the VICE magazine Wikipedia entry, not to the actual 'review' which I expressed strong reservations about here:-[72], (which one gets to via the VICE site here:- [73] … click on 'details'). Can somebody correct me if this does not appear to be an ad, which is - at best - quoting from a review. Even if I am wrong, was I unreasonable to ask for more than 12 hours overnight between its first suggestion and agreeing to its insertion? Secondly, (on line 4 para 2, line starting 'rants), he says Pincrete 'keeps canvassing ', and he links to HIS lengthy characterisation of the event on the talk page, not to the 'crime' itself here:-[74], (or fuller picture here:-[75]), as for the word 'keeps', I ask UrbanVillager to supply a single other incidence of me making (what could be construed as) inappropriate contact with ANY editor.

I could say much more, the above is a record of only a few days, and not the two years with which I have been (on & off), involved with this page (and to a lesser extent its satellites), any slice of which reveals behaviour by UrbanVillager, which is - at best WP:Wikilawyering and - at worst, intolerable. I am mindful of the need to be brief, so I finish with a simple request, I ask that - as a minimum - UrbanVillager be banned from all Boris Malagurski pages for a period, which will give him the opportunity to prove that his commitment really is to the integrity of Wikipedia, and not to his 'chosen special subject'.Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• A 'broader' point not made by Bobrayner, is that UrbanVillager also creates and contributes to 'Malagurski' pages on either 3 or 4 other Wikipedia sites, from memory, these include German, Greek and Serbian Wikipedia … I will supply proofs if wished.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I hope you don't mind, I've inserted my 'Statement' before your post below.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a look The Weight of Chains 2 (now at AfD) and noted it said that production was continuing into 2013. Turns out that was copyvio from [76] - a page archived 3 days before the article was created with the copyvio. Which led me to look at the creator's talk page - User talk:Kepkke which has number of copyvio warnings on it - editor also never seems to communicate, let alone deal with copyvio warnings. No comment at the moment on UrbanVillager. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Kepkke - too much copyvio. Left him/her an explanation of what to do to get unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, what you have spotted is only the 'tip of the iceberg' of copy vio. Almost the entire synopsis of Weight of Chains, is a copy/paste of various versions of the film's website, or press pack, any meaningful attempt to change it has been obstructed for over two years. We have been 'allowed' to correct the more grotesque errors of grammar or meaning (factions, not fractions, critique when criticim is intended, etc.). Little more.Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the copyvio, I have long been concerned about the waves of sockpuppets and meatpuppets editing in this area. For instance, Bormalagurski = TheWriterOfArticles = WikiMB = KOCOBO = Bože pravde. UrbanVillager and Cinéma C both share the same hallmarks of sockpuppets - first edits are made very quickly, first turning their userpage into a bluelink, second turning their talkpage into a bluelink, and a minute later diving into a controversial article to revert somebody. Personally, I'm confident that Bolonium is meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet (although on ja.wiki Bolonium was blocked as a sock of Staka, who is in turn blocked on Commons). Joy set out this sequence of socks:

• Bormalagurski - September 2005 - September 2006
• Bože pravde - September 2006 - March 2009
• Cinéma C - March 2009 - September 2010
• UrbanVillager - September 2010 - today.

But regardless of that ancient history (checkuser would be stale), UrbanVillager's 4 years of promoting Boris Malagurski is a problem in its own right, when it involves article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. If UrbanVillager would just chill out a bit, I don't think it would be such a problem. On the talk page, I saw Pincrete offer to compromise, and UrbanVillager flatly rejected it. I'd say, try an RFC to develop a stronger consensus on the talk page. In the event that someone disregards consensus, come back here and request a topic ban for the offending party. So far, it looks to me that it won't be Pincrete that we see brought here next time. As far as canvassing goes, I'd say that it's best to post an unbiased message on a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:FILM; this avoids the impression of canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

BobRayner's FINAL sentence above is the key one for me, 'regardless of ancient history … UrbanVillager's 4 years of promoting Boris Malagurski is a problem in its own right, when it involves article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, and so on' . While I understand Bob's frustrations, any evidence of 'puppetry' or COI, is almost inevitably going to be circumstantial (I have no opinion on the matter). However, evidence of abuse of guidelines, personal abuse, and abuse of procedure (of which this ANI case is just an example), is NOT circumstantial. Only yesterday - during a time that UrbanVillager is presenting himself here as the 'victim' - the following interchange took place :-[77]. … note, much of the content of The Weight of Chains 2, was deleted 13th Sept for copy vio, as were several paragraphs from The Weight of Chains main article, for the same reason,- ie almost 4 years after The Weight of Chains received its first copy vio warning here:-[78] Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. But thank you for reminding me that something needs to be done - I propose a topic ban for UrbanVillager on the subject of Boris Malagurski, broadly construed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'comedy' continues … UrbanVillager, who says 'Pincrete keeps canvassing' , had the following interchange yesterday :-[79] (from, where UrbanVillager 'pings' Diannaa, 'Diannaa, would this be OK'). This is such an inept and overt action, by UrbanVillager's standards, that I am puzzled as to his motives. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC) … … nb minor correction to Diannaa, Diannaa says on the prev. diff that it was Pincrete who removed the 'VICE review', it was actually Bobrayner. added by Pincrete Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Postdating this so it doesn't get archived into oblivion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And, speaking of a waste of time - I just noticed Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20140915. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The user Kepkke was blocked a few days ago for copyright violations. This user was previously active in the Balkan topic areas, but I don't recall perceiving him as particularly problematic. Oh well. Anyway, oddly enough, I received an e-mail from an anonymous user today (whom I've never heard from before) telling me that they think that new user RichardWilson78 is Kepkke. The dates seem to roughly match, yet the pattern of editing isn't identical - the new user seems much less timid. It could be an escalation of a grudge because of the block, or it could be an arbitrary accusation, but given the edit warring the new user has been involved in, I'm erring on the side of full disclosure and mentioning it here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at two recent edits, Bobrayner deleted [80] large areas of text with no justification, giving just the pov assertion "not a reliable source". And here is Somedifferentstuff doing exactly the same, with the same lack of justification [81]. These editors should not have remove referenced content in this way. Their talk page "justifications" are equally weak. There is no need for "consensus" before inserting referenced content. The Vice Raindance Film Festival review and, even more so, the Gregory Elich review that were deleted by Bobrayner, to me seem acceptable as sources. I do not see any properly presented discussion in the talk page about why they should be excluded, all I see is are attempts at productive discussion being hammered by some editors, along with repeated (since almost day one of the article) allegations of sockpuppetry or vested interests, but with never any attempt to take these allegations further (they seem to be there just to disrupt and to close down any discussion). The article's current wording also has a lots of weasel in it, it even has that classic, the unspecified "some critics". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, the Elich, which you say is an acceptable source for inclusion in the 'Reviews' section of a film article, 1) is an interview between somebody IN the film and the director, it does not pretend to be a review of the film … … 2) the interview is already used as a reference in the article (inserted by me). So yes, nobody disputes it as a source for what the director and one of the 'cast' say about the film, they simply don't consider it an independent RS review.

The VICE is currently at RS noticeboard, at the time of writing NO ONE there has come to the conclusion that it is a review, they have all said it is an advert, and it isn't in VICE magazine anyway, it is simply on their website and has no name creditted to it, merely 'VICE STAFF".

There have been NO allegations from me EVER of any editor being a sock - HOWEVER at least twice today UrbanVillager left posts on WoC talk about ME being a sock - bizarrely, I am supposed to be a sock of an editor who has never been banned and who UrbanVillager acknowledges I spent a long time interracting with two years ago when I first started editing (but as bobrayner says earlier, you can't reason someone out of a belief they never reasoned themselves into).

There IS a need for consensus BEFORE inserting material, referenced or not, when the editor in question has been specifically warned the week before against making changes TO THAT SECTION without consensus. The onus for 'properly presented discussion' surely rests firstly with those who wish to insert material, but it is difficult to see what 'properly presented discussion' there COULD be for justifying an interview between two participants in the film as an independent film review.

The 'weasel words' you refer to were actually inserted by UrbanVillager in November last year. I was not editing on WoC at all at the time (for over a year). Of the other 3 involved editors who wrote that section, one has since retired and two have been permanently banned for abuse of multiple accounts.

I don't think we are supposed to turn this ANI into a battlefield, however, I felt obliged to correct your errors. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that "no consensus" cannot be used to exclude valid content, and issuing "warnings" that anything new in a section first needs consensus is not a position that is sustainable. The issue should be whether the source is an acceptable one, but that sort of discussion seems absent - in the talk page there is too much entrenched absolutism (for example, your own words: "The discussion is over because I say there's nothing more usefull to say"). Saying here that "it is not a film review" is irrelevant: the article section is about critical responses, not film reviews; and the source, Monthly Review, while coming at issues from a predetermined standpoint, is a longstanding publications of some stature. The onus is also on those wanting material removed to justify that removal - just stating "no consensus" in an edit summary is not justification. I didn't say that you had made accusations of sockpuppety, but that such allegations have been thrown around the article's talk page since almost day one. Please accept my apologies if my wording inadvertently implied that you had made such accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

However, Pincrete, this looks (and rhymes) rather like someone implying sockpuppetry: [82] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I believe your first involvement with the 'Weight of Chains' page was yesterday, also (I think) we have never 'met' before. This ANI is looking at allegations (made against bobrayner and myself), of long term behaviour. For these reasons, I hope you will understand why I think it would only 'muddy the waters' for me to respond to you here. I'm sure the ANI will take note of your observations, and if they think them relevant, ask me to comment on them directly. Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made one edit to the article (adding a fact tag against that "some critics" wording I mentioned earlier), and until yesterday I had never heard of this film. I noticed this thread on this noticeboard and decided to have a look. And after looking I feel that your interactions on that article have been very heavy, you and other editors have been really slamming down on the attempts by another editor to add content. I don't actually know whether that content is any good - but I do feel the methods you have been using effectively close-down any chance of constructive discussion, which is not the way things should be, and which is also guaranteed to annoy and antagonize UrbanVillager and make his responses equally unconstructive. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I am going to ASK you to strike-thru or delete your posts here. You also have MY permission to, at the same time strike-thru or delete my replies, including this one. If you wish (and if I have time), I will communicate through your or my talk page, however, at the moment (probably unintentionally), the effect you are having is probably not constuctive. I will not respond to ANY further posts HERE, not out of discourtesy, but because this is not the place. Thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would I strike through my posts (or any part of them, given that even my accidental implication that you might have made suggestions of sockpuppetry turned out to be correct)? My words addressed the issues raised by the complainant. I don't at all like the title of his complaint, but I think that the core of his complaint - that editors have been "ganging up" to exclude content, and have been using invalid methods to do it - has some substance to it. I am basing much of my opinion on my belief that what I wrote earlier is correct: that just repeatedly saying "no consensus" cannot be used to exclude otherwise valid content, and that issuing "warnings" that adding anything new into a section first needs consensus is not a position that is sustainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield said "Bobrayner deleted large areas of text with no justification, giving just the pov assertion "not a reliable source".". I should point out that this content & source was rejected at WP:RSN. Few people would consider that "pov"; with the exception of UrbanVillager, for whom any edit is vandalism by definition if it tones down his promotion of Malagurski. Some examples: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]
For instance, if somebody says that ""Kosovo: Can You Imagine?"'s prestigious "Silver Palm" award - something he has repeatedly emphasised - was actually one of 76 Silver Palms awarded in the student films category of a hitherto unknown filmfest, that's definitely vandalism, as far as UrbanVillager is concerned. If somebody replaced "Official selection for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"" with "One of thirteen Serbian films selected for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"", you'd better believe that's vandalism too, just as much as the words "film student" are vandalism if they appear anywhere near Malagurski's name. UrbanVillager is always reverting "vandalism". Even airbrushed resume on the website that Malagurski's mommy set up for him had words like "intern" and "telemarketing", but our articles - several of our articles - present him solely as a master filmmaker. At some point in the future, the community will be able to fix these widespread breaches of WP:V and WP:NPOV; but that can only happen after UrbanVillager (and socks) stop reverting, or the ability to revert is taken away from them. bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The above comments by Bobrayner should further convince us of UrbanVillager's complaint. Firstly, those large areas of text Bobrayner refers to were deleted within hours of Pincrete initiating the RS noticeboard discussion [104] over one source. No waiting-time was given for the issue to be discussed. Secondly, there has been no rejection of the Monthly Review source because no RS discussion about it has been initiated. Thirdly, of the five editors who have commented to date on the RS discussion for the Vice source, three of them are Bobrayner, Pincrete, and Somedifferentstuff - editors who already wanted to remove the material from the article. The point of bringing things to the RS noticeboard is to get NEW opinions from uninvolved editors, so Bobrayner has no justification in claiming above that the source has been "rejected". It seems to me to be more evidence that UrbanVillager's allegation of editors "ganging up" to exclude content is justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

When several editors disagree with UrbanVillager's edits - not just the editors you've listed here, but also folk like Joy, Potočnik, Opbeith, Peacemaker67 &c - conspiracy is not the most likely explanation, and constant reverting is not the best solution. bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bobrayner's 'conspiracy' post immediately above. At the time I was first accused of being a co-conspirator, I had not even read, edited or 'talked on' 3 of the 4 pages I was alleged to be conspiring to distort. For UrbanVillager to make such a mistake once, might be forgivable, to repeat it on several ANI's therafter (without notifying me) seems somewhat careless at the least, to never attempt to apologise for or withdraw the accusation is … … … well, what we have all (unfortunately) come to expect from him. Here:-[105]. Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrections to Bobrayner … the film he mentions, was one of 14 winners in the Student's films category, one of 76 overall, and after several very long, hard battles by myself and other editors, the text NOW does say 'one of several winners in Student films category', UrbanVillager has never agreed to this change, but has not - so far - reverted it. … … however other 'festivals', do still seem to be of very questionable note-worthiness, and questionably referenced. These include Ann Arbor Docufest,(until recently described as 'Official Selection, 2011 - for "The Weight of Chains" at the Ann Arbor Docu Fest' [106] which when I eventually tracked down the 'long dead ref.', turns out to be a free monday evening showing at the "Cafe Ambrosia':-Ann Arbor Docu Fest: The Weight of Chains at Cafe Ambrosia, with little evidence that this was meaningfully, a film festival. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) … … further minor correction, it was PRODUCER, not Peacemaker who was accused of 'conspiracy' alongside myself and the others Bobrayner mentions. added by : Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC) … … … Also bobrayner, I believe that NO editor has ever wanted to insert: "One of thirteen Serbian films selected for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"", though there ARE two issues connected with this, one is the 'peacocky' use of 'Official selection' (when this is not a phrase used by the festival), the second is whether we are ALLOWED to mention that it is in 'Serbian/Balkan categories that the film has been chiefly shown.

Bob, you were clearly angry when you answered Tiptoethrutheminefield, and didn't choose your examples well. HOWEVER, I wholly agree with your main point, recent examples of what UrbanVillager has characterised as 'vandalism' or 'not constructive edits', include 1) placing dead link tags on links that had been known to be dead for at least two years, tags which have 'mysteriously disappeared' previously 2) removing a statement about a LP, which had been on the page UN-referenced for two years, because I added a 'ref' to it, and 3) restoring 'culture critic', when I had replaced it with 'cultural critic'. above text added to by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction to Tiptoethrutheminefield I've left no agree/disagree 'comment' on the RS noticeboard, I HAVE left a response to your post, (which you might think is the same). I have also invited EVERY editor (whether they seemed to agree with me or not) to leave a post there. Even if you ignore bobrayner and myself, can you not see that the other 3 are experienced, independent editors making rational arguments, based on WP policy and guidelines? … … the first two (time-wise) of these were WHOLLY independent, then BR, then SDS (very recently involved with this page), then yourself, then my comment … if that isn't us trying to get 'outside opinion' in a neutral way, I don't know what is. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, on a simple factual matter, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the text on WoC on the day this complaint was filed, had been inserted by UrbanVillager. The other 8-10 involved editors in the last two years, have managed to slightly amend the rest, (all of it done neutrally, as far as possible). Of that 70-90 percent, a VERY large proportion, is copy-pasted from publicity material created by the film maker, and has NEVER had the agreement of the majority of current or past editors. I myself attempted recently to initiate discussion of the present synopsis, here:-[107], this itself is returning to discussions of two years ago, pointing out that the present synopsis is little more than a 'mirror' of the film maker's website and therefore not only copyvio, but inadequate.

I didn't sign up here as an editor to damage the reputation of public figures or their work, but neither did I sign up to assist them (or their fans) in the creation of vanity pages. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comedy turns to farce, just to note, that while this 'case' sits on the ANI, apparently unnoticed, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to edit the article according to his own tastes, in flagrant violation of just about every known value and guideline and without any attempt at consensus, demanding that OTHER editors should 'dot every I', while simultaneously demanding his own right to edit wholly according to his own wishes, and in clear bad faith. Luckily a newly arrived editor has prevented this from happening excessively. I will post relevant diffs when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)(UTC)

Key issues in this ANI

This section was originally formatted by Pincrete as a series of sub-sections. Reformatted and collapsed the following day under advise from Ricky81682.

List collapsed by Pincrete

I repeat my own opening statement, that it is my belief that this ANI is little more than a smokescreen by UrbanVillager, to hide his own behaviour and 'ownership' of all pages connected to the film maker Boris Malagurski. Rarely, I suspect, have two 'accused' (Bobrayner and Pincrete), been more anxious that the case against them be heard. Collaborative harasment of articles … … Accusation made by UrbanVillager against Pincrete and Bobrayner. Accusation includes persistent biased editing, denying use of legitimate reliable sources and the use of 'bloggers rants' as sources. Repeated Canvassing … … Accusation made by UrbanVillager against Pincrete. Use of single purpose account for promotional purposes … … Accusation made by Bobrayner against UrbanVillager. (supported by Joy) Persistent personal abuse and occasional racist abuse … … Accusation made by Pincrete against UrbanVillager. Wilfully perverse behaviour and misrepresentation of other editors … … Accusation made by Pincrete against UrbanVillager. Disregard for editorial consensus and misuse of procedure, contempt for admin. decisions … … Accusation made by Pincrete against UrbanVillager. Disregard for copyvio and repeated use of 'outlawed' sources … … Accusation made against UrbanVillager. (supported by Pincrete, Bobrayner) Article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, bad faith … … Accusation made by Bobrayner against UrbanVillager. (supported by Pincrete) Possible sockpuppetry and/or COI … … Accusation made against UrbanVillager by Joy. (supported by Bobrayner) Counter allegations of sockpuppetry and canvassing … … Accusations of sockpuppetry have been made by UrbanVillager against Pincrete on Weight of Chains talk page since the start of this ANI, ditto 'canvassing' which Pincrete has several times asked UrbanVillager to withdraw or substantiate at this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE the discussion which follows between Tiptoethrutheminefield and Pincrete concerns the previously formatted sub-sections (ie the content of the collapsed section) Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE ALSO that it is just Pincrete's opinion that the above are the "key issues" in this ANI. Other opinions may differ. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Above 'Key issues' sub-section

Note to readers - all of the above sections, with the numerous sub-headings, were created by Pincrete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I had already explained WHY I added the sub-headings in the para. immediately prior to them. My reason was that this ANI showed every sign of being ignored, I did my best to frame the sub-headings in a neutral fashion and to present the issues/accusations in chronological order in which they were made. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Because of the formatting and lack of signature it appeared as if Ricky81682 had made the post. Your text does not read like neutral to me: making a score or more unsupported serious allegations against an editor is not a good thing to do, even if you present them in the form of subheadings. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies to all if the formatting of the headings led to a mis-attribution. My supposed accusations are dealt with below Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I am happy to remove the sub-headings, (or for you to do so), if their presence is not constructive. You will understand, I hope why I placed them here. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC) This section was 're-sectioned' by Pincrete for clarityPincrete (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Empty subheadings with no information are not helpful. They add to the length of the contents page with nothing there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

UrbanVillager hasn't edited since the 17th. Is there something I'm missing? These complaints were ignored it seems. I'd suggest removing the empty subheadings above. So WP:BOOMERANG time: should we consider a topic ban against UrbanVillager? I'd suggest just to Weight of Chains for the time being. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Repeating what I said earlier - support. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• In case it wasn't clear, I support a topic ban for UrbanVillager as well to just Weight of Chains for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - whenever I have looked, I found nothing of real substance against Urbanvillager, only unsubstantiated accusations that when investigated have been found to be hollow. If the above two editors have found something specific that is strong enough to merit a ban, would they please give some diffs. It is confusing given the scattergun-approach of the accusations made against Urbanvillager, so I could have missed something. I have however found there is substance to back up Urbanvillager's accusations against the two editors named at the start of all this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions against Bobrayner and Pincrete

NOTE: This section heading was added by Pincrete retrospectively to seperate topics as per suggestion by Ricky81682. Pincrete (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Bobrayner and Pincrete? We have seen from them numerous examples of bad faith, as well as blatant abuse by them of concepts like consensus and reliable sources. And some out and out lies too. Pincrete claims on 25th September [108] that "UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to edit the article according to his own tastes, in flagrant violation of just about every known value and guideline" - but UrbanVillager has made no edits at all since the 17th September. Then on 26th September we have the astonishing (and unsigned) post by Pincrete [109] claiming that UrbanVillage is a racist, is a sockpuppet, is running a single purpose account, has a "willfully perverse" behavior (whatever that is), has contempt for administrators, violates copyright, misuses procedures, misuses sources ("outlawed" sources? wtf!), and much more. And all without providing even a single supporting diff! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield please read more carefully, I have NEVER described UrbanVillager as a racist, I have said that he HAS used racist abuse sometimes and I have offered to provide the diffs.

I have NEVER, accused ANY editor of being a sockpuppet. If you look more carefully at the incident you drew attention to above involving RichardWilson78, you will see another editor asked a question on talk as to whether a completely new editor was a sockpuppet. I took the question OFF the talk page and answered 'very possibly' … I defy anyone to look at the actions of RichardWilson78:-[110] and not have the suspicion that puppetry or single purpose editing were POSSIBLE explanations, I hoped that doing this would 'cool down' the speculation. If you do not understand the difference between ACCUSING somebody and answering a direct question by saying 'possibly', perhaps you would tell me what form of words you think I should have used.

I have left NO unsigned posts here. You will see that I tried to be accurate about WHO is making the accusation and who supports it, that is why you will NOT see my name on some accusations because I did not/ have not/ do not make them. Similarly, you will not see other editor's names on accusations that are made by me alone. … … Correction: There is a single brief posting by me,(before the now re-formatted sub-headings) that may have been unsigned. The text makes it clear who was leaving the post, there was no intention to mislead, and I corrected the formatting when it was pointed out to me that it was probably unhelpful. correction added by:Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My phrase on the 25th September post you link to is 'while this case sits on the ANI', (ie since Sept 11th), therefore the fact that UrbanVillager has not edited since Sept 17th, is at best irrelevant. However, would you like me to take you point by point through the 17th Sept edit :-[111], explaining WHY it violates BLP, RS and clearly did NOT have consensus (which you will see if you go to the 'next' diff.). I would add that UrbanVillager's quoting of your name on his edit reason, is a minor example of 'wilfully perverse' interpretation of WP guidelines.

Tiptoethrutheminefield, you are mis-quoting me in almost every particular in your last post. I have tried throughout to be clear, accurate and to not say anything which I cannot support. I have even corrected bobrayner when he was 'a bit carried away' in his choice of examples. I do not take very kindly to being accused of lying, on the basis of such a 'careless' reading of what I have written. However, let us assume that you are right for a moment about ME, how on earth do you justify including bobrayner in this sea of supposed 'bad faith'? Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps since you ask what I mean by 'outlawed sources', these include using IMDb as a source and using Youtube (or other copy vio) as sources, which he continues to do despite having been told by admin that they are not acceptable, nor are sources which are clearly 'mirrors'. … … pps which diffs would you like … I was advised to not provide too many? Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, your formatting makes discussion extraordinarily difficult here. Multiparagraph comments and unsigned subheadings are not standard practice for a reason. Tiptoethrutheminefield, when I said "These complaints were ignored it seems" I meant that accusations against Bobrayner and Pincrete seem to be ignored. If you want to propose topic bans for them as well, by all means put in a new subheading (since it is a new topic that is worth separating discussing) and make the proposal. For all parties, large (multi)-paragraph complaints and responses are going to be ignored as few people are going to wander into this mess. Talk:The Weight of Chains is a mess because editors all around want to spend time attacking other editors rather than actual discussion on the matter. Now, if someone can make a concise one or two sentence idea of the problem and a proposal that should help calm things down, we can try to resolve this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I will reformat the sub-sections into a single sub-section identifying the issues, also leaving a record of my actions. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete must start to provide diffs for each individual thing he alleges. In the above he accuses UrbanVillager of copyright violation by using Youtube as a source, but gives no diffs as proof of this. If this [112] is what Pincrete is referring to, it was decided there was no copy violation and the Youtube link was a valid source. In his above comment he also states "I have NEVER, accused ANY editor of being a sockpuppet" but in [113] he does, using the not very subtle "Rhymes with clock!" as an edit summary. And if UrbanVillager stopped editing on the 17th, why did Pincrete think it necessary to wait until the 25th to say that UrbanVillager was still editing in "flagrant violation of just about every known value and guideline"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, it is now very difficult for me to see any signs of good faith or 'even-handedness' in your posts. You've been an editor for less than 6 months, you have no involvement with the relevant pages. You have withdrawn NONE of the accusations you made about me, apologised for NO mis-quoting. You have not responded to Ricky81682's suggestion that if you want to propose sanctions against me you should start a new section with your reasons. I will leave others to judge which of us is acting in good faith. Pincrete (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete, this ANI case is about you, not UrbanVillager, so there is actually no need to start a new section. The interactions between the various editors on The Weight of Chains article and relate articles seem to have descended into ill-disguised personalized aggression, so I suppose it is not surprising that some of your own aggression is starting to also be directed at me. I have not misquoted you, so no apologies are required. My "accusations" (as you call them) have (I think) been reasonable points presented reasonably, and have always been supported by diffs when required, so there is nothing I feel I should withdraw. It is actually difficult to assess UrbanVillager's place in all of it, such are your increasingly wild and repeatedly unsubstantiated allegations against that editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors than either of us as to whether there was a need for a new section here. You do not seem able to understand the difference between 'has ocassionally used racist abuse' and 'is a racist', you do not seem to understand the difference between LISTING that editors X and Y have made accusations A and B and 'Pincrete is making these accusations'. You do not seem to understand the difference between answering 'very possibly' (off talk), to a direct question with the explicit purpose of 'damping down' fruitless speculation and ACCUSING someone. You have not answered my question as to what you consider I SHOULD have replied to that question. You have shown no even-handedness in commenting on the EXPLICIT accusations made against me on talk by UV. You have 'set yourself up' as the final arbiter as to what is or is not a RS, what WP guidelines are etc.. For all of these reasons I doubt your good faith or wisdom. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC) ps of course 'rhymes with clock' is not subtle, it was a JOKE … … 'Shhhhhhh we don't speak about these things on talk' . Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, you want an example of 'racist abuse', this is not the worst, but it is recent and among the silliest, here:-[114]. (You will note in the edit reason:-Views are not "controversial" just because Bosniaks don't like someone.). The reason that this is 'silly' is because the offending text has been there since 22 August 2012, here:-[115]. I have NO idea, whether the original inserter is a 'Bosniak', I am certain that the 20-40 editors who have not queried this vague, unreferenced claim since, cannot possibly ALL be Bosniaks.

You want examples of copyvio try this collapsed section:-[116], this is two years after I first pointed out on talk that the synopsis is almost entirely 'cut and paste' from the film's website, and almost 4 years after the first copyvio warning. You want POSSIBLE video copyvio, look at the film maker's page and the 'media and lectures' part of that talk and at recent removal history on that and other pages. (I say POSSIBLE, because I am never SURE when it is either legal, or appropriately 'unpromotional' to use video as source - because I am not sure, I tag or note on talk, but do not remove offending material). Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That [117] edit summary is not "racist abuse", it was just an unsupported statement, a claim that a view is only "controversial" under a particular historiography. Urbanvillager was correct to remove that content, and you agreed that it was correct to remove it - "controversial" is a weasel-word at the best of times, and on this occasion it was unsupported by sources yet was fraudulently claiming to have a source. Urbanvillager should be congratulated for removing inappropriate content that had stood unnoticed for two years. The removed content was originally inserted by an editor who only ever made two edits [118] - a single purpose account if ever there was one. This seems to be another example showing the long-term nature of the attempts to sabotage this article. I'd be interested in knowing who placed the faked reference against that "controversial views" claim. The reference being cited by the time Urbanvillager removed the content, http://www.weightofchains.com/about.html, makes no mention of the person having "controversial views". Regarding copyvio, you have not given any diffs. However, if it is this [119], then it is a very strange copyvio allegation - the deleted content consisted of just dates and lists of places: these are facts and facts cannot be copyrighted. To claim copyvio reasoning for the other removed content, the plot synopsis, is even more bizarre - there is no exact wording like it on the weightofchains.com site. Are you or Diannaa claiming that any synopsis will be copyvio by its nature? If so, how does every other film article manage to have a synopsis? I see no copyvio at all in the deleted material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, make your proposal about sanctions against me if you feel you have a case. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps you are quite right, this particular remark is not 'racist abuse', what it is is a distasteful, completely superfluous introduction of race into a subject, when the writer could not possibly know the race of the inserter or the holder of the opinion, nor even less the umpteen editors - including principally himself - who had not queried it in over two years. This is not 'abuse', but introducing race into a subject where it has no relevance, for the purposes of characterising others, is 'racist'. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … … btw, it was very possibly me that placed - what you call - the 'fake' reference in the wrong place in the sentence about Mackenzie, (it should have been supporting his career, not his views) the ref was there for a few days only, following which I tidied ALL the refs in that section. To err is human you know. Pincrete (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, 'Paris is a city' is a fact, 'Truffaut was filming there last week', is a claim. Besides you'll have to take it up with Diannaa and Dougweller and other administrators and editors who've recently removed copyvio from BM articles, because - as I've already said - I'm not an expert. PERSONALLY, I am more concerned with how the use of such material degrades the article, than with the legal dimension. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose. Saying that UrbanVillager is a single-purpose account is a fact, the editor does not edit at all outside of that singular focus. That's not wrong but that combined with the style of editing indicates that the editor may not be here for the right reasons. While I don't think the other editors have been ideal here, I don't think a topic ban is warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

204.17.60.130

This user's edits have all been undone.[120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed

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

---

Not sure if this has been proposed before, as the conflict between the two users is so depressing to me that I haven't been following it closely, but I feel a standard symmetrical IBAN between Carolmooredc and Sitush is needed. I haven't commented before in the conflict between them, as far as I remember. (Unless you count this post where I called Sitush a cunt to make him feel better.) What's pushed me over the edge into the fray is that Sitush is currently writing a BLP about Carol in his userspace. Carol has put it on MfD, Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore and Sitush's responses in that discussion strongly suggest strongly that he intends it for mainspace. A really terrible idea. Please note that I'm not suggesting Sitush is more at fault than Carol in their dispute in general. That's not my opinion, nor am I interested in depressing myself further by going back through the record and analysing it in depth. There's just too much of it. Both users need to take a handful of chill pills and back off. Our standard IBAN, described here would do well, in my opinion. Admittedly, it doesn't say that you're not allowed to write articles about people you're IBAN'd from interacting with, but common sense will obviously include that detail. Policy writers can't think of everything, nor should they even think of everything. Not to go TLDR here, please see my post here on Sitush's page if you're interested in an argument about how writing a BLP about a wiki-adversary is like writing a BLP about oneself (at least, it's like it in being equally unsuitable).

Note: I can't stop anybody from commenting here nor do I want to, but could the people who have already posted copiously in the conflict and would like to tell the world how much it's all Carol's fault/all Sitush's fault, please avoid swamping the thread with the usual back-and-forth? Leaving most of the space for those uninvolved in the conflict would be productive. Of course we'd all very much like to hear from Carol and Sitush whether or not they're prepared to agree to such a ban. That would make the "consensus" thing moot, which would save a lot of wear and tear on all our nerves. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

(ec) Do you think the IBAN should have a fixed time frame or be indefinite? I am thinking that a few months may be enough. Indefinite bans have a tendency to fester over time. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• neutral to weak support There is certainly distraction for editors and admins caused by the interactions between the two. I'm not sure it raises to disruption. I note the issue above with Specifico. Normally when there is one editor involved in many disputes with many different editors, its a sign that the element in common may be the issue - however I acknowledge that there may be a larger political dispute in play and its not so much carol herself who is the nexus of the dispute, but the political position she represents (which is a perfectly acceptable position to be in, to be clear). I don't think the evidence is strong enough to show pure WP:HARASS on the part of sitush so in this instance would oppose a one-way. However, if a pattern continues where everyone who ends up on the opposite side of an argument with Carol gets ibanned, its going to make it difficult for Carols efforts to be seen as legitimate when the opposition has been silenced. (Which is not to say that they may not deserve being silenced). Its a difficult quandary. For the record, I think Sitush's article is well sourced, while some may suspect his motives, saying the resulting article is an attack is not shown by the evidence. However, it would be wiser for him to let someone else write it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, for the best interest of both these editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see any actual issue with Sitush's recent article creation in his personal userspace. As far as I can tell, he's not flaunted it in her face or even remotely tried to point it out to her (I may be wrong, and if I am then this would obviously change to support). Her wikistalking and hounding of him is what's started this most recent tirade, and it is a waste of everyone's time an energy. Let's say I have an obvious hatred towards... User:GoodDay (just using you since you were the last to post) and I ended up writing a well written, neutral, policy compliant article on you because you did something wonderful and became article worthy and notable - what's the harm? There's no slew of hatred in sight there - nor is there anything within the article to suggest that Sitush dislikes her. Going to the extent of an IBAN is over the top here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Concerns In this case I am more likely to support it because I have run into Sitush almost exclusively on administrative forums where he comes to criticize me, my talk page when he "forgets" he's banned, and lately Jimbo Wales talk page and gender gap task force. However, the fact he gave me less than 24 hours after the close of the last ANI regarding wikihounding of me before starting an aggressive form of harassment with this "draft bio" does make me worry he'll start following me to article spaces and causing problems there, while still observing the letter of the law (i.e., no replies, no reverts). As I wrote at the MfD:

As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8)[121][122], urged people to "do some research" on me[123], and even wrote:I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[124]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[125] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[126].

So I leave it up to others' better judgement. (Though I may have to reply to any questionable statements.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Later Note: Sitush has made threat(s) which resulted in an indefinite block and are discussed at ANI: Request review of block of Sitush. The actual text of the threats have been redacted and only partial and unofficial summaries shared by users. Sitush made the threat(s) within hours of angrily denouncing me for thinking that we were discussing a voluntary two-way interaction ban at this ANI(starting at “Indents are weird”). He earlier had written on his talk page “She wants me to avoid her because that would suit her: she "wins" because I'm censored regarding her interests and she has no interest in mine.”[127] Given his attitude that editing is about "winners and losers", I really must ask the closing admin to review the redacted comments to see if they are one more indication that a two-way interaction ban should be imposed. (There are three comments starting at 20:11, September 20, 2014‎ User talk: Sitush) Sitush now has been unblocked in only 24 hours [Later removal as actual unblocker identified and some explanation addedwithout a shred of explanation from the closing administrator, User:Nyttend. I can't rely on others' opinions that Sitush will not continue editing. And thus I must worry he will continuing his harassment of me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol - remember how I told you to stay far, far away from the drama there? And how it seemed like you were soaking this stuff up and feeding on it? This post is a prime prime example of you seemingly grave dancing and playing the victim. Grow up. Aren't there better things for you to focus on at the moment considering that there's no sight of Sitush and you can work unimpeded at the moment? You focusing on this and seemingly providing these "updates" rather than working on editorial content and such is, well - concerning. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, and from all appearances, Sitush made the threatening remark towards Demiurge. There is no reason to believe it was directed at Carol.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, please review what happened down below. Someone else unblocked him, so I closed the section because further discussion was moot. I shouldn't need to explain myself, because all I did was procedural, just like the bot that closes lots of WP:FFD discussions for images that got deleted by human admins. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion. I see there is a sort of explanation now. So I struck both comments. I personally don't care if he continues to edit, I just don't want him harassing me any more. Hopefully that goal will be accomplished one way or the other. Meanwhile I'll be pursuing other means to make sure the comment could not have been interpreted as being about me, since a girl can't be too careful. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I (briefly!) looked over the interaction on Sitush's talk page and don't see any reason for imposing an IBAN that will prevent Sitush from writing and moving an article on Carol Moore to mainspace. The way I see it, the baiting is mostly one way (was the notice that started the whole thing necessary for example?) and this would set a particularly bad precedent. Allowing someone to control who can or cannot write articles on themselves is not a good idea and that's what an IBAN would largely achieve. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This IBAN discussion is not solely about the article. It's about their overall behavior. If you wish to comment on the article, check out this MfD. Perhaps Bishonen can add more about their behavior to avoid decisions based solely on the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately it is fairly clear that the main effect of the IBAN will be disallowing Sitush from writing that article. Like I say above, it is a terrible idea to set a precedent where a negative interaction initiated by the subject of the article dictates who can or cannot write the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I neither support nor oppose the notion of an i-ban here, having not explored the history of the two users in detail, but I have to say that the notion of deciding to write a BLP about a person with whom you are actively exchanging vituperative words in project space strikes me as indicative of incredibly poor judgment. I would expect any experienced editor to be aware that writing about someone with whom you are in a dispute is rife with potential BLP issues. That Sitush apparently saw nothing wrong with his handling an intra-editor dispute this way makes me wonder whether, alongside this personality dispute, there are also issues with Sitush's general judgment about BLP policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that he's writing the BLP could be indicative of poor judgement but that judgement would need to be made when reading the article. As others have stated - there's no issue with the actual article itself. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, no. My point is that the questionable judgment is in starting the article in the first place, because either he was not aware of the many ways his (presumed) bias against someone he's fighting with could leak out into the text without him even noticing, or he did not care about the many ways said bias could leak out into the text. If the article turns out to not be a massive BLP violation, that's great, but it doesn't change my feeling of "What were you thinking to start it at all?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is it simply a coincidence that there are now two active IBAN proposals involving Carol on this page? Eric Corbett 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not really no, users can gang up on other users it has happened in the past here on wiki so I am not surprised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  So who do you think is ganging up on whom in this instance, and why? Eric Corbett 18:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am not going to answer a loaded question and start naming names here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  So basically you're just making it up as you go along. Eric Corbett 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• No because I have seen it before here on Wikipedia. Just like real life it isn't always the case where there is one aggressor and one targeted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - General animosity between the two is obvious. Sitush is quite aggressive toward Carolmooredc in his/her comments and the new "BLP" is hounding in my view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Then your view is wrong, as so often in the recent past. Eric Corbett 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; however, move the article to draft space so that anyone neutral can work on it. As User:Anne Delong said at the MfD though, However, I suspect that the number of editors who have not had negative interactions with Carol is declining by the day. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Anne Delong did not say that. Provide a diff or strike the comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a serious distortion of my comment at MfD. Is there an emoticon for "indignant"? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, Anne, if you didn't mean that; your comment does however read that way. I have struck my comment about you (although I stand by it in general). Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, I read my comment again and don't see your interpretation. I try hard to avoid sarcasm and subtle putdowns in my posts. If I'm against something I say so clearly. In any case, I have expanded the comment to avoid any further misunderstanding. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to draft space per Black Kite, I fully understand why Carol is upset she has had a history with Sitush but unless it is actually Harassment there is nothing much that can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support before this snowballs into arbcom case.--MONGO 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• weak oppose I'm very concerned about what is really starting to look like a psuedo-civil campaign to silence discussion in many quarters here. An interaction ban, especially given the comments focus on one user, would play into that as far as I'm concerned. Intothatdarkness 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Fluffernutter. Let's do a little thought experiment here, for those who read this page often. Imagine I created User:Demiurge1000/Eric Corbett for the purpose of starting to collect sources about Eric for the purpose of proving his notability (I'm not sure if that's easy or difficult or impossible, I haven't looked) and subsequently writing a mainspace article about him. Given the occasional disagreements Eric and I have had, do you think this would be a bad idea, a very bad idea, or just a really really profoundly stupid idea? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Support indef block I have now come to the conclusion this is simply not what the Wikipedia:Harassment says. It says Sitush should be immediately "blocked". I would love to start creating Wikipedia articles on editors I don't get along with, how fun......NOT.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support full two-way interaction ban. Both editors are engaging in hostility toward each other. Sitush is being provocative. Carol's response, while less extreme, is still antagonistic. Carol's argument that she needs to edit the draft is silly. If the draft survives MFD and is moved into mainspace, it becomes the property of the community, not of Sitush, and Carol can then edit it or AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of a 1-way ban imposed on Sitush. This is straight-up harassment and intimidation by one party. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc. Comments like this and this in light of this make it clear who is behaving horribly here, with Carol only reacting from my what I have seen. The only option other than a one-way interaction ban that I would consider acceptable would be a lengthy block of Sitush for harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since it seems Carol can support this I will support this if the "community" rejects the one-way interaction ban. It is better than nothing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tarc and The Devil's Advocate. Just three days ago Sitush called CMDC a prat at GGTF.[128] No one should have to choose between ignoring harassment or agreeing to an IBAN when you're harassed. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see how IBAN is going to help anyone. There is some exhausted conversations, they can be seen elsewhere. But IBAN is not appropriate for a fresh feud. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support The purpose of an interaction ban is to help the encyclopedia by removing a distraction. There is no need to work out who started it or who is right/wrong—however it happened, the editors concerned are now locked in battle and it is unfair on them that it should continue. This is a no-fault iban to avoid an inevitable escalation with a possible result that an army of socks and misguided my-clan-is-better-than-your-clan editors have failed to pull off. If anyone wants exercise, try pig wrestling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There is very little, if any, evidence of hounding. There is some evidence of incivility, but nothing too far beyond the norm. Most of the moderate incivility (like the 'prat' comment and 'idiot' comment) is connected with content disputes, never in isolation. The GGTF talk page is chock-full of far worse behaviour. I have very little experience with policy, but this seems a useless measure to solve the wrong problem. Kingsindian (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Having little experience with policy, maybe you don't know you should prove a point like claiming bad behavior on a wikiproject. I'm sure if he was following you around for a year with such nonsense you'd learn how to come to ANI with diffs real quick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that I made the overly broad comment about the GGTF talk page without any evidence: I was trying to keep my reply brief: it was my opinion after simply reading the talk page, nothing more. But as someone said, "I'm not the only one": see the comments by Newyorkbrad here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This needs to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Far, far too much bad blood already, and this seems to be the simplest solution, if it is implemented. Carol is not innocent, but Sitush could certainly have been a little more circumspect, and starting a Bio at such a time was a bad decisiom. We all make made decisions, though, so nip it in the bud with an IBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I struck my oppose opinion above, these two editors clearly do not get along. I see evidence of disruption, and feel that it would be beneficial to have this ban in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Only a two way ban. I don't yet have criteria for a 1-way ban, but this wouldn't meet them if I did.--v/r - TP 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support A interaction ban from now to Christmas looks good enough to calm down emotions. Both parties are less than friendly towards each other. Birthday party invitations look out of the question. Keep them separated is enough in my opinion. A lock down of the draft article, including withdrawal of the MfD, for the same period, would be good. The Banner talk 14:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any imposed sanction on Sitush, in that implies sanctionable misconduct. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. IBAN has destructive side apparently ignored/unseen/unappreciated by the imposers. It becomes an effective roving topic ban which isn't healthy or even consistent for best ideas in discussions impacting articles to be brought forward and heard. (For a sore throat the solution isn't surgical removal of the throat.) But the mob loves participation to be judge-jury when inconvenienced over any consideration re resultant health of articles, since that is more immediately rewarding emotionally and makes one feel "involved" and "contributing". Blech. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: the concern you bring up is a valid one, but it seems to me that you are pointing out the flaws in this plan without providing an alternative. I don't think there are very many people here who believe an IBAN to be ideal; it does not address the source of the trouble, for one. But it seems the least among evils; if you believe otherwise, shouldn't you provide an alternative? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, don't get me started! 1st, your Q is (unintentionally) a trick Q since it presupposes action must be taken, just what kind. (I question that.) 2nd, the purpose of IBAN according to policy is to stop interactions between two users that are "disrupting the work of others". (I don't see any such claim here. I see only "I'm being harassed!" and "She's being harassed!" claims. That's a different policy, not IBAN. And if harassment is the case as deemed by any admin, then they can do some work and warn or revert and/or block as they see fit, w/o the destructive and draconian IBAN.) 3rd, as much as I don't usually agree with admin Chillum, he asked a worthwhile Q above that has not received any attention or discussion. (There is night & day difference between an indefinite [permanent] IBAN versus having a fixed duration.) For those looking for simplicity in solutions, adding a fixed duration to any IBAN makes it at least less objectionable in my view. 4th, for less simple solution (and outside the scope of venue here), I think the entire administration/enforcement system through admins and current policies s/b be scrapped in favor of whatever replacement system the top 10–12 content contributors elected by the community would come up with. (Which would by definition be a more progressive and healthy structure for the future of the encyclopedia. Why? They already know what the problems are and what the solutions are, and what is best for the development & maintenance of the encyclopedia. And they are too intelligent to get into unproductive scraps. They have already invested so much of themselves into the encyclopedia, they couldn't be destructive to it in any possible way. Such a beehive of intelligence/experience would work things out. But that amazing resource goes untapped in favor of the current archaic, mob-rule, inconsistent and even abusive admin system. [Go figure.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the disruption is fairly clear; two major contributors cannot get into a brawl without collateral damage across the 'pedia. Visit GGTF, for starters, or even here, where people from either "side" have been sucked into the dispute. I agree that currently the admins have less accountability than they should; but otherwise, I feel like you are barking up the wrong tree. What you call mob-like behavior is, IMO, the (fair) price to be paid for having a relatively democratic governing structure, where anybody who makes a policy bound argument will usually be taken seriously. Far better than a cabal. If that is not really the case here, it only speaks to the magnitude of the collateral damage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support I held off judgement for a long time to see if the various actors would commit to moving in non-disruptive directions, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the future voluntarily. Even if this was day one and we set aside all previous history, we would still have editors openly making plans for future metaphorical knife-fights. An IBAN shouldn't be punitive, it should be preventative. I see no other proposal but this on the table that is seeking to prevent further, easily predictable disruption to the project. Some of the earlier opposes were based on the idea that CMDCC shouldn't be sanctioned, but it looks like she now has volunteered for it. I don't think this continuing crusade is a healthy thing for Sitush, as an editor or as a person, no matter how much he may think it's justified. He seems to think he's the fire alarm to CMDCC's fire, without noticing how disruptive it would be to have a fire alarm that actively fed fires. These are flawed and easily provoked editors, and they are both wrong about things. The question is how to best avoid the obvious divisiveness in the future. No one has made a convincing argument that any voluntary disengagement is ever likely, let alone imminent; I've only seen arguments that the other side is wrong and should be stopped by all means. It is a kindness to all humans, them and us, to separate them somehow. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  It is a kindness to all humans, them and us, to separate them somehow. At the barrel of a gun (escalating blocks or site ban)?! Right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  Those consequences seem likely if there's no disengagement, voluntary or not. Can anyone honestly say "Yes" to these questions: These editors have come to stable peaceful terms that will prevent future disruption? These editors won't be engaged in proving each other wrong in a new venue in the immediate future, with bad blood all around? These editors will get there all by themselves? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  A fallacy in your logic is that "getting there" (i.e. peaceful coexistence) is faux and permanently preempted by an IBAN. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  Are they finished with each other?__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  I just want to say that her bio was closed as an attack, how do you go and explain that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  It is an irrelevance, really, now: done, dusted, and the "attack" rationale was a WP:IAR decision. You can't impose sanctions for punitive reasons. I've already explained what I intend to do and I think you need to take allegations of hounding etc with a pinch of salt, as per the criticism of some specific examples given a few days ago (below, somewhere, regarding WT:GGTF). I still think CMDC would pass our notability criteria, plenty of others also thought there was a chance (far more than took part in the prior AfDs), but - regardless - that article subject is not going to appear on Wikipedia any time soon because no-one who was involved in the MfD discussion can reasonable claim to be uninvolved with the subject now. Someone has asked for my sources off-wiki but they've not been given them and I've no idea who they are. I'm disengaging from CMDC voluntarily, with certain provisos as stated on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a formal closure when the time is ripe. So it would be helpful for the admin if Sitush spells out what he means by disengagement and provisos here so the admin can make an accurate determination. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(Indents are weird but I'm not touching them). See [129]. In relation to which, this may be pertinent: TParis was trying to broker something despite their underlying opinion, which does them much credit, I think. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Absent a separate section let me note: RE: Discussion of defacto voluntary interaction ban???[added question marks later in case I misunderstood] I'll note that the diffs above aren't very helpful since they represent a huge thread with many distractions. I believe a proposed solution written succinctly at my talk page helps: Sitush may agree to a two way interaction ban provided that any Arbcom action including filing, commenting on, enforcement, clarifications, ect are exempted. Such an iBan would include talking about each other, commenting to each other, writing articles about each other, reverting anothers edits, and commenting on ANI cases involving one another. Would you agree to those terms if he did?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)'' Does that sound like what we are talking about? (Later note: Yes, sounds good to me personally.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any closer would be assisted by your not-very-subtle attempt to parse Sitush's comment into acceptance of a one-way IBAN. It is what it is and the closer can read as much as the rest of us can. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

[Later note: Paris clearly talks about "each other", not just Sitush.] If you can figure out what he wants from those two diffs, you are much smarter than me. I was just going by the last thing I heard from Tom Paris. So leave it up to the admins. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per SlimVirgin. Sitush and I go way back, so I suppose I'm not all that impartial here (and if I speak out here no one will expect me to close this, so that's good). But I think that draft was not a good idea, and without speculating on who caused what, an IBAN would have prevented that from coming into existence. I foresee further topic restrictions in the future for Sitush's counterpart here, and the only thing that holds me back (and has held me back) is that speaking out in support of an IBAN is taken as a sign that, really, one party has won. But the project will survive even if Sitush cannot defend us from this one editor, if we need defending, and it will remove at least one source of disruption. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have no reason to doubt that Sitush will keep to what he has posted on his user page but CMdc just cannot stop herself even though she has been given some very good advice. [130] J3Mrs (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Opening (or proposing to open) an article on wikipedia about someone you have a conflict with on wikipedia is just weird and creepy. What good can come of it? I have no interest in the history between these two editors, I'm judging only by Sitush's actions, which to me seem highly inappropriate. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose First - this s a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other. Collect (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You write this is a "common problem" and I agree; editors getting peeved at others and following them around around, reverting their talk page comments and casting aspersion upon them. (The bio thing obviously being uncommon). The interaction ban was not my idea. So just for those who have forgotten other options, the common thing to do is first ask for an admin to ask them to stop. (Note to self: better late than never start figuring out who the helpful admins are.) If that doesn't work, come here, and ask for help: a warning or short block might result and hopefully the individual would get the point and cut it out. Because of the ongoing MfD on the bio, I wasn't going to bring an ANI myself. And after the MfD was successful I would have given a grace period to see if the behavior stopped. That's the process I would follow in the future, should the editor in question return. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support a 2-way IBAN because a one-way IBAN on CMDC doesn't appear to be an option on offer at the moment. I wasn't goint to bother to post to this thread but this and this today is the final straw. Sitush has been effectively gone for 4 or 5 days - there's nothing coming from him. Not only does she seem unable to drop it but this is shoe-horning her WP:BATTLE pointlessly. DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Propose one-way interaction ban on Carol Moore (the article)

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

---

Should the article survive the Miscellaneous for Deletion process, I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits - and of course report them to BLPN, etc. I don't want to have to run to WMF every day because and Admin thought I should be prevented from commenting on a BLP that has been put together solely to harass me and waste my time. The present poorly sourced and down right silly stuff would not be taken seriously in any real bio. I have lots of WP:RS and material from the last article --'Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer -- that haven't been used or used properly. (Of course that article got AfD.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose You're not going to have your cake and eat it too. Barak Obama doesn't get to dictate what goes in his article, nor will you. If you're notable, you're notable and an article will be created. You're welcome to discuss potential changes and such on any such talk page of any article that you have a COI in - but you don't get to dictate what goes in it. Further, I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits.. just sounds like you're wanting the ability to continue to stalk his edits and WikiHound him. Cut it out Carol! Drop the stick and stop being so damn dramatic! Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I read that as "I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits to it", which seems entirely reasonable, and indeed is recommended as the first step in Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as there has been significant back-and-forth between the two editors. While the interaction may be lopsided, it's not one-way to begin with and thus a one-way ban does not seem appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I do find it odd that Carolmooredc should be supplying references for an article she want deleting. J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because I want it deleted, doesn't mean I'll get it deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question - Is Carol requesting a one-way interaction ban, or a topic ban on Sitush on the article? As noted above, Carol has no need to edit the draft. If the draft is moved into article (main) space, it becomes the property of the community and is not subject to the IBAN. If the article survives the MFD and survives the AFD, it would be reasonable to impose a topic-ban on Sitush from the article, but the time to decide that is if the article survives the MDF. As it is, I don't know what she is asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually lost track myself. I knew I couldn't edit, but didn't want to be insulted when I posted refs or made comments on the article, hoping that that would be the only place I'd run into Sitush if there was an interaction ban. It looks like the article will be MfD'd both because of numbers and the obvious rationale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

To further answer Robert's question and to move my comments out of place I was advised it was inappropriate:

Comment I have no desire to have anything to do with him and never have had. This is the Interaction July 2013-September 2014. This is just from July 2014-Sept 2014. It’s mostly him following me to say nasty things. Besides the nasty "Disruption of Wikiproject" ANI comments linked above in my "Concerns" section, most recently:

• He kept reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement and I had to go to the Wikiproject Disruption closer ScottyWong to get him to stop.
• Here calls me “idiot.”
• Pops up to object (yet again) to my opening thread; guess I need his permission?
• Admits can’t stay away from a thread (where he bashes me again)
• Says I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum
• Follows typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion to accuse me of forum shopping.
• [Added later, missed a big one] - at this diff. As an opponent of the task force, Sitush writes on its talk page: “This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a “goading prat.”

I have no desire to interact with him. Judging from the Gender Gap task force, they can all take care of themselves there if he starts anything and I can just happily ignore his specific comments, though I might comment on any general principles should others get into them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is a draft, Carol, You know that, you've been told that. A work in progress. Yet again, you are ignoring what others have said when, presumably, it does not suit your purpose to do otherwise. I've already explained that there are thousands of mentions of you, including ones in the past AfDs. I spent most of yesterday researching and, of course, have been doing so on and off for a long time: I tend not to rush into articles that I create and I tend to finesse them, often actively inviting others to help me out. I've invited you to help me out, actually, but you seem studiously to have ignored that, making accusations that there are inaccuracies but not actually providing any examples when asked. You also seem to have ignored the several instances in the last day or so where you have falsely accused me and/or patently misrepresented your own history here on WP. I urge people to read the thread on my talk page, the MfD and the (far from complete) draft itself. And to have faith in Wikipedia's processes of continuous article development involving the entire community. This stinks, it really does. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Interaction bans seldom do any good. Either sanction poor behavior or slug it out somewhere. That said, the "article draft" needs to be speedily deleted; Sitush, you should know better; you are making an attack page, no matter how neutral it looks, CMDC is not a person who is going to pass WP:GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Pending the AfD outcome this discussion could be moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Eric Corbett

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

---

I think a handful of editors have just about had enough here. Most recently these edits here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Notice of relevant discussion elsewhere. There is no way that his comments I can see as being justified towards Carol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is justified either. In the past there have been poor results in attempting to respond to this users lack of civility. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Same. Last ANI turned out to nothing but Eric's been given more WP:ROPE and just keeps adding to the pile of examples of incivility and harassment. Frankly I'd like to see a topic ban and an IBAN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is amazing how editors who consider themselves to be civil can only see incivility in others. I consider that section to be about forum shopping and thought the question asked was valid and the answers less so. J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Intothatdarkness 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that is going to come out of this subsection is another round of "who wants to lose the mop wheel warring over blocking Eric". Unless there is very very strong evidence and consensus, I suggest we nip this in the bud before it just causes another wiki-wide drama explosion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably so, but there's mounting evidence that Eric is "not here" vis-a-vis the GGTF project. However an IBAN might be more easily sustained. Just wish the arbcom would step in and get this over with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Corbett is just being Corbett and Carol is being Carol. CMDC does a good job of baiting Corbett and vice versa. They both just need to ignore each other or else go snipe at each other in someone's sandbox or user talk, and not any of the project or article pages. Before we start talking about banning anyone, I think we need to just ignore them both and not let them drag in the rest of us. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not go out of my wait to disrupt projects and articles he's involved with. It's not my fault if my opinions drive him crazy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As it disrupts the entire project, that's kinda hard. An IBAN would solve it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Only if it's applied to both of them. Intothatdarkness 20:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: Though Eric is the more uncivil party, attacking just about anyone and everyone he dislikes (just look above at his comments throughout this ANI), a two-way ban is fine by me. If someone doesn't start a discussion on it by this evening, I'll consider starting my own. Getting sick of this nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That and his attitude towards ANI even, asking if I brought his name over to "Win a bet" [131] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Coming here/running to mummy is not always a good idea unless you want generate drama. J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There has already been drama, the fact though is that there are some editors here to edit and others who go out of their way to get to others per WP:NOTHERE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Having read the linked section, I see a personal attack directed at Eric, but no personal attacks issues by Eric. I asked on your talk page why you were opening this section. I'm guessing it isn't to ask for sanctions against those attacking Eric, but if not, why not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you?" is a personal attack. True, for Eric, it is rather mild (!). But it is still unpleasant to be the target of. --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Sitush interaction ban

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

---

Sitush is banned from initiating any interactions with CarolmooreDC.

• Support as proposer. Phrased to neatly avoid the usual concern about one-way interaction bans as Sitush has to initiate the interaction. If Carol goes after him without any form of provocation then the restriction does not apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Support indef block - Policy is clear. This is a blockable offense and nothing anyone has stated has demonstrated this was accidental. Point taken...but for the moment I am supporting both. Although it makes far more sense for this ban than both if one is the instigator and the other mostly the victim (although I hate that term "victim").--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Sitush has done absolutely nothing wrong here. He posted on his talk page that he was going to check out her website, presumably for research for the article that he is creating. His editing skills have been called into question, his ability to remain neutral has been called into question, and his integrity. So much bad faith has been flung at Sitush, all because @Carolmooredc: felt threatened and attacked by a page that has previously existed that she has edited. She's claimed to have been outed, however, that's already been rebuked. The common denominator here is Carol - not Sitush. Anyone who's reasonable can see that the actual article in question is A) in userspace and B) BLP compliant. Everyone needs to chill out and stop making this a bigger deal than it actually is. So much time and server space has been used up that I almost think Carol needs a block. But I'm sure someone else will bring that up later. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to say that anyone that doesn't see this the same way is not reasonable? Sitush linked an off wiki site pertaining to another editor purposely to his talk page and that was not OK. His reasoning for the "research" is questionable and the entire situation is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, obviously necessary and the sooner the better. This is way out of hand now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Based on replies from others, what Sitush is doing is not ok. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a check on harassment now that the question has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest form We are not going to go ban everyone Carol can't get along with. This is not Wikipedia according to Carol. If Carol is having difficulty with so many people, eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions.--v/r - TP 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• We already had a discussion about Carol's actions here, the consensus was that she had done no wrongdoing, unless you want to make a topic here and show some diffs that Carol is at fault. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I didn't see the policy where I had to follow the crowd and !vote accordingly. If you please point me toward that policy, I'll correct my vote ASAP. In fact, now that I think about it, why would we even need this vote if editors are not allowed to dissent? I mean, that's essentially what your argument comes down to.--v/r - TP 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• "eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions" those were your words, and I just asked you to provide these "interactions". yes consensus is not binding and can change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• [132][133][134]. Carolmooredc is more wiki-litigious than Apple and nearly every complaint has boomeranged on her until now. I don't know why memories are so short on ANI these days.--v/r - TP 03:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Most of those were not filed by Carol and all but one of those that were concerned the Austrian economics dispute, which was settled in an arbitration case. A recent case, concerning the Gender Gap Task Force was filed by her over a week ago and got bumped up to a still-open arbitration request. This ANI case and the one that resulted in Specifico's sanction, were filed by someone other than Carol in response to actions those editors took elsewhere that prompted concern from other editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just because someone is repeatedly the subject of attacks does not mean that person is doing something wrong to bring on the attacks. No one has identified anything Carol has done to provoke or instigate Sitush beyond responding during arguments he initiates with her. His actions appear to be retaliation for the sanction against SPECIFICO imposed in a discussion where he publicly expressed the intent to start following Carol around.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Your right, Sitush hasn't done anything wrong and the repeated attackful ANI complaints that CarolmooreDC has brought don't equate to wrongdoing on any of her victim's parts.--v/r - TP 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• At least part of the reason for Carol's continued presence on these boards is that she is willing to be publicly involved in Gender Gap project, and as a result has become a lightning rod for anyone with a woman-hating axe to grind. The project was started with the objective of making Wikipedia feel more friendly and welcoming for women. Consider some of Sitush's statements there:

• [135] [Edit summary] stop being an idiot
• [136] ...What a bloody joke. This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present. Why not comment on the substance of the thread instead of acting like a goading prat?
• [137] [edit summary] I've lost track of how many times CMDC has had talk page etiquette explained to her

(not sure what a "prat" is, but pretty sure it's not friendly and welcoming.) —Neotarf (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that's accurate. Carol joined mid 2013. These issues date back to 2011 per my links above.--v/r - TP 04:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your links show nothing going back to 2011. They show she had ongoing issues with Specifico from other editing areas, which was discussed to death in the recent ANI, which was not initiated by her. They show she made comments on a thread about civility in the Palestine/Israel topic area in 2012. They do not show she was responsible for any incivility in P/I discussions. She may very well be scarier than Darth Vader, but your links don't show that. You may recall that Sitush's recent comments about gender on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. —Neotarf (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending Sitush. Nor am I attacking Carol. I'm here to oppose a Iban. Like before, though, I would support a 2-way ban.--v/r - TP 05:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction on Sitush for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that either the "BLP" Sitush started on Carol in his user space is immediately removed, or that it be moved to a more neutral space and Carol is allowed to comment on it. Carol has already requested Sitush to stay off her talk page, but this renewed interest on the part of Sitush appears to be related to his public opposition to the Gender Gap project, where Carol is an active participant, which he now characterizes as a practically fascist regime.[138] —Neotarf (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Carol has consistently made misrepresentations pretty much everywhere. Is everyone who challenges her going to be run through the same gauntlet? Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The "article draft" on CMDC needs to be speedily deleted. Other than that, I disfavor interaction bans in general because they seldom solve anything, either impose temporary blocks on the miscreants (both perhaps) for specific behavior that is a problem for the victim, or else just let them slug it out somewhere. The way I see it, both parties are each clueless about certain aspects of these issues and I see no way this would end well. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: That there is bad blood between the two users is indubitable. However, I see no evidence to justify this one-way sanction. The whole GGTF talk page is filled with incivility and shouting. I should add that I have little interaction with either user, though slightly more with Sitush. In all cases, he was civil and reasonable, even when we disagreed. Also, I have little experience in these things, so take my opinion with a truckload of salt. Kingsindian (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per TP's "Sitush hasn't done anything wrong and the repeated attackful ANI complaints that CarolmooreDC has brought don't equate to wrongdoing on any of her victim's parts", "We are not going to ban everyone Carol can't get along with . . . if Carol is having difficulty with so many people, eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions", and "[she] is more wiki-litigious than Apple..."; TKOP's "Carol has consistently made misrepresentations pretty much everywhere"; and Dusti's "Sitush has done absolutely nothing wrong here." Writegeist (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So where are the diffs, Writegeist? Do you always cast aspersions without them? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per TP. The fact that Neotarf appears to believe that any disagreement with CMDC is because she "...has become a lightning rod for anyone with a woman-hating axe to grind." is possibly (a) the biggest load of facile bollocks I've ever read on Wikipedia, and (b) effectively a personal attack on anyone who doesn't agree with her. Frankly, the GGTF would function a lot better if its page wasn't persistently spammed and canvassed with Carol's latest pet peeve of the day; perhaps it could actually get on with doing what it was designed to do, rather that what Carol wants it to do. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are the diffs, Black Kite, about my latest pet peeve of the day or whatever. Unless you mean complaining that editors opposed to the project keep posting insulting and mocking and harping questions and comments? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, in alternative language, "here's some more canvassing to link you to an ANI I started about someone who disagrees with me". Have you not noticed that practically every section started by you is similar to that? I don't see that happening with SlimVirgin, or Montanabw, or indeed anyone else on the GGTF page. Why is that, do you think? Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In case no one has noticed, the gender gap talk page is now dominated by users who oppose the existence of such a project. The project is dead. I have taken it off my watch list and I recommend that everyone else do the same. —Neotarf (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction on Sitush. Carrite (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP, who has it exactly right. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP Black Kite and Carrite. J3Mrs (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Adding I think Sitush will keep to what he has posted on his user page but CMdc just cannot stop herself even though she has been given some very good advice. [139] J3Mrs (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I find this thread fairly funny because in the SPECIFICO thread, we had people saying Carolmooredc's editing must have problems given the number of complaints and the editor that immediately came to mind was Sitush who's since I spend an unhealthy amount of time at ANI, name I'm even more familiar with (particularly considering the joking Sitush complaint noticeboard). There may me differences here, in particular my impression is a lot of the people complaining about Sitush are new editors. Anyway I think this emphasises a point people have sort of made above even if they are countering each other with it. The existance of a lot of complaints is not itself definite evidence of problems with an editor's behaviour only that it may be worth looking in to. And if evidence of problematic behaviour from one editor is shown, and none from another editor (I'm not saying this is the case here), we should follow the evidence not the number of complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Cassianto^talk 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have yet to see any compelling reasons to place any editing restrictions on Sitush. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any one way sanction Having been a talk page stalker of Sitush for a while, I saw most of this drama, and suffice to say the fault is most certainly not limited to one party. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any one way sanction per the direct answer to my question as posed to Carol. I sympathize but this is surely a two way street here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - CMDC has narrowly avoided sanctions here so many times it's just not funny any more and this thread is just a further entrenchment of CMDC's "victim status". The current hyper-sensitivity with regard to gender issues has allowed editors to be topic-banned or interaction-banned on the flimsiest of evidence; all of them with previous or ongoing disputes with CMDC. At some point we need to take a step back and consider the common denominator in all of these disputes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support  This is the editor who wrote the article that was deleted at MfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose First - this s a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other. Collect (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose One-way interaction bans are inherently unfair: A can talk about B, but B can't talk about A. No. Also, I agree with Collect that IBANs should be for a limited duration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP and Black Kite as well as Collect's comment about 1-way bans and limited duration. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per TParis. - ^theWOLFchild 08:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

I've been out working and am just back home. I'm not agreeing to any IBAN because there is an obvious pile-on here and we've only just been through one. Of the two of us, I'm not the person who keeps getting involved in complicated ANI disputes etc - mine tend to be very one-sided and they are so because I comply with policy. I'm tired and I'm off to bed but as far as I am concerned, this continual hassle needs an ArbCom case. I'm quite happy to submit myself to scrutiny by them but not to submit to this lynch-mob. My reputation for research and for neutrality in article writing is way, way, better than it is for many others. I'll say more tomorrow, elucidating in particular on why this kneejerk reaction (not Bish, but the pile-on) is actually in itself evidence that too many people here have no faith in policy-compliant writing and far too much faith in the power of numbers. And, for the record, I do not "hate" CMDC as someone has said either here or at the MfD (can't be bothered checking right now). She frustrates me sometimes but generally I avoid her and, to be honest, the only person I've ever hated in my adult life has long since moved on and had nothing to do with Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This ain't going nowhere. Discuss the ins and outs of article writing elsewhere, please. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
... as far as you know. Btw, creating a BLP about someone is not a great way of avoiding them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Sitush, your "article" about CMDC pretty much puts you in a bad light. I suggest you just leave her alone; you come across as someone who can't sort out legitimate gender issues from drama-mongering and I can't tell if that is sincere ignorance on your part or if you are baiting CMDC on purpose. So just agree to have that article draft deleted and drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Gender issues have nothing to do with the BLP. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Let's face it, this IBAN proposal would not have happened if the draft had not been created. This is, then, really all about that draft and such fundamental encyclopedic issues as notability, POV etc. Many people are not reading what has gone on here. For example, with regard to the draft, Carolmooredc has made a series of accusations but, as is common with her, has failed either to provide evidence to support them or has been shown to be wrong. She has also run around the boards like a headless chicken, trying to find ways to shut things down. That is what she does and that is why an ArbCom case is necessary. First, she wanted the draft gone, then when the initial views suggested that wouldn't happen, she reversed her stance. Then, when yet more views came in that favoured removal, she reversed it again. She plays this game, time and again but only selectively quotes in diffs when an issue re-arises, skewing the story eg: in this series of claims. The draft is neutral, there have been plenty of offers for her involvement in working on it {eg: in the only section at User_talk:Sitush/Carol_Moore) and the claims that she is not notable seem to have come without people doing much research and without giving the draft a chance to develop (the prior AfDs were split). It has also been said - again, prior to this thread opening - that the thing can be worked upon by anyone even though it is in my userspace. I have no problem with it being moved into the Draft space, although that had not crossed my mind prior to this thread. There has been a massive failure to AGF and a massive assumption about where this thing is going. There seems also to be a massive lack of faith in the communitiy's abilities to improve an article and, frankly, a substantial piling-on. It is noticeable that newcomers to this farrago, such as Peridon and Writegeist, seem to have no problem with it but those who have long supported Carolmooredc do have a problem with it. The notion that a BLP cannot be written about her because of outing issues would in fact prevent us from writing BLPs about any Wikipedian. An IBAN in any form would represent, yet again, the stifling of debate and would favour Carolmooredc even if two-way. I do not in fact follow her round (despite her usual claims of hounding) and I don't even read a tremendous amount of what she writes because I've got better things to do, such as improving the mainspace directly. The IBAN etc proposals above are the result of the draft and of little else, given that my involvement with her is actually pretty minimal. While I was agreeing with her - ca. the Austrian Economics thing - she was happy enough but as soon as we disagreed with something in that case, the shutters came down. From my limited experience of her, she never seems to show any willingness to collaborate unless things are going her way: the grudge is there and she repeatedly drags it up, whatever it may be. We've got the wrong target here and her behaviour will be going to ArbCom, IBAN or no IBAN. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Sitush states that Carol Moore's behavior will be going to ArbCom, IBAN or no IBAN. Does he mean that he requests that her behavior go to ArbCom, or does he mean that he has some mechanism for making her behavior go to ArbCom? I suspect that he is not writing as clearly as he says that he does, and that he only means that her behavior should go to ArbCom. If he has some permitted mechanism for forcing her behavior to go to ArbCom, that would be interesting. I think that he does have a non-permitted mechanism for forcing her and his behavior to go to ArbCom, which is to continue a campaign of harassment until ArbCom intervention becomes necessary; I hope that he does not. I think that his rage is causing him to write sloppily, and would ask that he take a complete break from Wikipedia for a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Sitush thinks he can write a bio with my self-published bio and a few crappy diffs. He says he doesn't need the ones from Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer . And the bio got rejected with them last times. It's a joke. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, another misrepresentation from you? Please show me the diff where I said I didn't need that stuff. The closest I can find is this, which explains the approach that I was taking. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Where your wrote: Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. In other words, I don't need credible refs, when I can find crappy ones and leave this on my talk page for months to bug you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) That's from the diff I gave. You've misunderstood it. FWIW, I don't have access to newspapers.com (Washington Post is there, for example) and cannot see full articles, although I'm aware of them. I was going to pay for a month's sub and have the email from them here if anyone cares to doubt me. I've also asked you for input at the talk page of the draft, given you claim that it is full of inaccuracies etc. You've not responded. Please don't anyone here think that I'm not trying to collaborate etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) In my experience some editors who think they have enough editor/Admin friends who will cover their asses to pull stunts and push buttons that they are never sanctioned for at ANI and eventually these things have to go to ArbCom where they work to get the people they opposed sanctioned, with lots of foul accusations and an occassional diff. Perhaps the purpose of this bio WAS to get me so pissed off that it would lead to MfD and ANIs that would push ArbCom to reconsider the case. They were about to decline it, but now they are thinking twice. This is insanity. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) [Later clarification: In my Humble Opinion] Sitush just admitted here at ANI request that: Carolmooredc, re: this. You've misunderstood me, again. I'm looking at filing a case about your behaviour generally ...I'm not sure whether ArbCom would prefer to roll all this up or not but my intention was a separate case, which will inevitably also put me and numerous other people under the spotlight. - So he wants to push that to Arbitration using the Biography? Aren't there several lesser venues? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Sheesh. Yes, prepare an ArbCom case about your behaviour, not "push ArbCom to reconsider the case", which seems to be a reference to this open request. Your are making massive assumptions and conflations, as I think you are doing here also (Dougweller's page is on my watchlist). As for the editor/Admin friends who will cover their asses, I'm honoured to consider Bishonen among my wikifriends. And they brought me here. I bear no grudges for them doing so. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC) So Sitush is admitting you wrote the bio to start a brouhaha that would make ArbCom take the case? Cause that is what it looks like. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC) That is not what I admitted to. And turning your question here into a statement at the MfD is extremely misguided, in my opinion. Not atypical of your modus operandi, but misguided nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Clarified with In My Humble Opinion, with two diffs. here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Per Wikipedia:Harassment, immediate block is called for

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

---

This seems pretty clear. Carol did not disclose any information on Wikipedia and Sitush attempted to out the editor. This requires an immediate block. This was not accidental and Carol using her real name is no excuse for publishing opposing "research". Opposing can be anything from opposing edits...to opposing the editor. Clear case.

• Block per our policy: Wikipedia:Harassment. Warnings seem good enough for this situation. As complicated as it may seem...it is a lot simpler when you look deeper. Carol did out herself, but requested content that was previously posted and then removed not be brought up on Wikipedia. Sitush posted the off Wiki content to his talk page. She requested Sitush remove it and the editor refused and began creating an article about her.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Mark is intentionally misreading WP:OUTING after I've explained to him what the policy says regarding editors editing under their real name. The policy says "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.". Carol Moore has made her identity known not only with her real name but also identifying herself as an anti-war activist. Sitush has not used this information to challenge her outside of a COI complaint and so it is compliant with WP:OUTING. I explained this quote to Mark, Mark seems to think that despite the policy explicitly stating different rules for editors who identify themselves, the policy for editors editing with a psuedonym apply.--v/r - TP 06:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, Mark's interpretation would allow any living person to avoid having an article created about them simply by registering an account.--v/r - TP 06:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Carolmooredc posted her website in this edit (admin only) and per WP:OUTING, because she never had it redacted or oversighted, it is available on-wiki. Sitush's edit here cannot be outing because she posted it herself and never had it oversighted.--v/r - TP 06:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • • I can't access that diff, so it looks like it *has* been oversighted. —Neotarf (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Far as I can tell from the user rights log, you're not an administrator so I'm not sure why you expect to see it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • So if non-admin can't see it, how is a non-admin supposed to know it is there, in order to request deletion? —Neotarf (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
              • How does she know the edit she made exists? I assume she doesn't have multiple personality disorder, that's how.--v/r - TP 19:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Intentionally? No, but clearly this has now begun to piss you off if you are going to start with such claims. Well....so much for assuming good faith. Oh well. I still hold TP in high regard. Sorry, but this has gotten out of hand and my respect for Wikipedia in handling these situations has dropped, but....that is the way the ball bounces I guess. I have done all I intend to do on this subject. This is in the hands of the community but at no time have I accused TParis of intentionally doing anything wrong. I truly believe they feel as strongly about this as I do and we are both unconnected to either editor as far as I know, but if I am to become the new target...there is no since in my continuing this.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Clearly, the community cannot handle the simplest of issues, such as admins edit warring or the creation of attack pages. For most rational people, the decision is obvious: block the admin and delete the attack page. But this is not a rational website. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Shows how much research you've done, Viriditas. I'm not an admin. This is an example of the sort of kneejerk reaction that is going on here: people are passing judgement based on hearts, not heads. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • You've made a mistake. My comments weren't about you, they were about an actual admin who has been edit warring, and I was comparing two different situations. I know perfectly well you aren't an admin. If there's a kneejerk reaction here, it's your own. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
              • I see, sorry. That misunderstanding would probably not have happened if you had provided diffs. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
                • There's a something a little off about TP's analysis. He quotes WP:OUTING about the admissibility of off-wiki material in a COI complaint context, but Sitush was using the threat of exposing more off-wiki material in general conversation. Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap. One day, I'll post the link to your website on WP and then everyone will understand.[140]. Regardless of motives, there's nothing that indicates that it is specifically a COI concern where he says "Piss off", and I sincerely doubt Tarc's talk page can be considered a "suitable forum" for COI complaints. Saying "I'll post the link" makes it sound like he assumed it wasn't considered generally "on-wiki" (regardless of whether admin-only-access can technically be considered that way). It may be an academic point now, but it's arguable about whether WP:OUTING is satisfied here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Time to close – Sitush made a mistake in creating the draft article. It had some WP:POTENTIAL, and may have some merit as an Ideological Turing Test given its' NPOV. But Sitush would have been better advised to ask for collaboration in drafting it. Given the response to this ANI, it is clear that there is a concern in the community about this interaction as a disruptive influence regardless of which editor is right or wrong. With these thoughts in mind, I recommend giving a warning to Sitush to avoid interaction with CMDC and strongly warn to avoid making any comments that are not clearly in the top two tiers of Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. – S. Rich (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned collaboration. Another person who has not done the research? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree time to close - now that Mark Miller, the editor arguing most strongly for a block, has agreed, then strong warnings should be enough. To both parties. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug weller: It may not have been made clear that I posted my website link in 2007-2008. Maybe in 2009 someone accused me of "self promotion" so I took it down. I think I said that explicitly in the Sitush talk page conversation after my harassment notice.

The issue is, is it ok for Sitush to: follow me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year, to do so at the Gender Gap task force after he already stated he thought it should be closed down, to keep reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement until I have to get an admin to get him to stop, to call me and “idiot”, to 7 or 8 times harass me cause I started a subsection in a lengthy thread, to say I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum, to harass me claiming a typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion is forum shopping, to write at the task force page “This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a “goading prat.” I just want to know if those are Doug Weller's standards of proper behavior. Would that be proper behavior for Carol Moore? There isn't a double standard, is there? Have I been accused of anything as bad as that? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, warnings to both parties. If I had any doubt, which I didn't, your post to my talk page confirmed it. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Months of harassment will mar one's judgement. What was I thinking? In any case, I'd happily take the two way interaction ban. Of course, Sitush can't control himself so if the warning is strict enough he'll quickly go into violation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're willing to do a 2-way ban, I could talk to Sitush about volunteering for it too and we can impose it based on you two agreeing to it. Would you like me to go talk to him?--v/r - TP 19:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I'm all for it. Until this recent incident he was far less annoying than SPECIFICO and hopefully won't be following to me various article spaces since I sure would like to feel free to edit again without constant reverts and criticism. And I'll be happy to ignore him if we run into each other at Jimbo's talk page. ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've reached out to him already. I'll see if I can persuade him that this will benefit both of you by reducing drama and stress.--v/r - TP 22:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed you anywhere, Carolmooredc. I explained that to you on my talk page on 15 Sep but still you persist in making the allegation. Your editor interaction utility diff way, way above would be more useful if you could show that my interaction with you was exceptional. However, I doubt that it is: I contribute perhaps 2000-3000 edits a months and interact often with loads of people across a wide range of articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as an example, I've been on WT:GGTF with nary a mention of you here. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. And there is no doubt you relentless cast WP:ASPERSIONS when you do. Like your very first post on the GGTF page which was some stupid nitpicking of me, which you do relentlessly. Quote:It seems that despite all your contributions on Wikipedia, you still do not have a clue how to use talk pages. What's with the "later"? It makes no sense - you should have added that as a subsequent message. This is not a reflection on your gender but rather your complete inability to follow norms, as has been demonstrated on umpteen other noticeboards. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You have 311 posts on WT:GGTF; I have 9, not all of which relate to you. If that is "following" then it certainly isn't obsessively so. And I got there via, IIRC, something on Jimbo's talk page. I'm fed up of this and am off out. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

311 posts on a task force you want abolished? Sounds like you are working hard at accomplishing your aim!!

Of your nine, besides one quote, these six go after me: [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't follow me at every diff on Interaction Analyzer; it's a judgement call on which you might or might not have. But there is no doubt that on several pages (Like User talk:Jimbo Wales) you have gone out of your way to attack me with the same nitpicking BS. I'm quite sure you followed me to GTTP after learning of my involvement, even if you deny it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Carol, I think you may have misread that, you have 311 posts, Sitush has 9 SPACKlick (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those 6 diffs, in TL:DR are, 1 comment on you changing a post after people had responded and a response to a follow up on that from someone else. 3 edits relating to a strikeout you had placed in a comment and a reply to you directly engaging with a thread Sitush started followed by a response to a ping from another user. Not exactly chasing you around the project. SPACKlick (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - One of the most asinine applications of Wikipedia's asinine "outing" policy that I have ever seen. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Carrite. Considering Carolmooredc has posted information about herself as she has at last admitted here, some might say she has been somewhat disingenuous in allowing editors to suppose she has been outed. J3Mrs (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have concerns about the implication of TP's comment above namely their suggestion that an editor has to have something they posted oversighted (supressed) after it's been deleted otherwise it's considered available on wiki and can be freely used.

  If something has already been deleted, many are going to assume it's gone and regardless of whether they originally requested deletion, they could easily take it as sufficient removal of info they later regret posting. (Actually we partially saw this confusion above with Neotarf, and this was after TP made it clear it was a deleted page.) Heck, not everyone is everyone going to remember they posted it, and even if they did, they may not remember when so finding it may be difficult and if the editor isn't an admin, will require admin help.

  I don't think WP:outing is intended to suggest oversight is needed before information shouldn't be used. While it does mention oversight a few times, TP themselves quoted the page as having said "redacted". AFAIK, redacted is generally taken to mean simply removing the information yourself sometime after posting it. You don't even need to have the diff deleted let alone oversighted. Since redacting something in a now deleted page isn't easily possible when you're not an admin, deletion should generally be sufficient.

  My reading of WP:OUTING is in the case when the information has been oversighted, mentioning it is clearly outing. In a case where "still-existing, self-disclosed information" is used, it's "not considered outing". I do not believe this was intended to apply to deleted information, even if the editor themselves wasn't the one who requested deletion, for the reasons outlined earlier. In other words, this falls in to a bit of a grey area.

  The other reason why the OUTING page mentions oversight is probably to emphasise to people concerned that they should request oversight/suppression and I'm not disagreeing with this. Particularly in cases where the info isn't widely known, there is always a risk the info may be revealed without someone appreciating the implications & there's also the risk of rogue admins. There's also the risk the page may be undeleted in the future. So to be clear, I'm not disagreeing that oversight is best, simply that we shouldn't consider it as necessary and in a case where the information is in a deleted page, it shouldn't be considered usable on wiki. (And since Carolmooredc apparently does remember they posted it and so it would have probably been better for them to request oversight if they did want the info gone. And actually, it's not clear to me that Carolmooredc does want the website gone, or rather they feel people are using it to harass them which is a related but ultimately different point.)

  However in this particular case, I don't think the website link itself can be considered outing. Not because Carolmooredc posted it since that's too complicated considering the conditions here, but because it's appears Sitush may have been posting the website relating to their plans to write an article (however ill advised that was) rather than in relation to the editor.

  Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • So if an admin says they deleted something, and you can't see it, how do you know if they did it right? —Neotarf (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to be more clear, requiring more and more effort from editors who wish privacy becomes a "Striesand effect" situation, as they are required to take more and more actions and make more inquiries of more people that could have the effect of calling attention to the very thing they want out of sight. Finally you get the scenario where someone is able to say "see this thing that was deleted for privacy reasons" and providing a diff to it on a page that is watched by 6,316 users. Lack of respect for privacy may be tolerated on some off-wiki blogs, but it should not be tolerated here. —Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The subject was not 'outed' (given evidence above), the draft article in userspace isn't an attack piece but a draft, and comments such as "Would you like me to copy all the links at the ANI to your your user page? I keep them in a text file anyway, just have to update it a bit"[147] and continual use of User:Sitush's personal name in comments and edit summaries (which I didn't know until it was highlighted by Carolmooredc) suggest this is far from a one-sided case of 'harassment'. AnonNep (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Anyway, I'm off out shortly: got a computer to fix. You know my name - Simon Tushingham - and you or anyone else is welcome to dig around the web for me, although I suspect that you'll find more with the Sitush monicker, including the infamous claims that I'm among those paid by Prince to edit here. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) from Situs talk page. So I used it a couple times. I don't want to confuse people so won't do with any frequency. The problem with his linking to my web page and saying he was going to do analysis was it was just one more item in a long line of baiting. Yes, I shouldn't take the bait, but it's 24 hours after another ANI. I am only human, aren't I? And isn't it a shame we have to collect diffs on editors so opposed to us that we don't have time to work on articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Carol, I'm not falling for it. AnonNep (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There are sooooooo many elements at play here, but to start off I will oppose a block (or even an interaction ban from above). Here's my issues, however:

1. Did Carol ever actually self-identify on Wikipedia - the answer appears to be "yes"
2. Is Carol Moore really "notable" enough to warrant even a draft - the answer is "unsure"
3. What was Sitush's reasoning for creating the draft? A real article? To say "I know who you are, so behave" - I'm not sure we'll ever really know the true answer to that
4. We seem to have a longstanding policy about BLP's: if the subject properly self-identifies to the Foundation via OTRS, and they request for no article about them, then we seem to live by that request. If Carol has made such a request, the MFD becomes moot as instant-delete-and-delete-any-future-such-drafts. This has been especially true about borderline-notable people

This really makes resolution pretty simple, if you think about it. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gee, who knew. Thanks for advice. Will do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not very good advice though. That the subject of an article doesn't want the article is generally neither here nor there, as in the case of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) for instance. Eric Corbett 17:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

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

---

This looks like another instance of canvassing to me. (I'm not "of" Cambridge University, btw: left there in 1985). - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, more canvassing. An uninvolved administrator (i.e. not me) needs to tell Carol very firmly to cut this out, whether it be on the GGTF page or elsewhere (as this one is). Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Geez. I'll take off the link. The guy didn't understand WHY many people were saying Sitush's crappy bio that would never survive AfD was just harassment and I don't like to make charges without providing diffs. So I guess I should add all the diffs? Geez. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, add the diffs. Linking to an ongoing discussion in a non-neutral way (which you've got to admit that was) is simply canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Even the latest edit summary at that page looks dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is harassment and some Wikipedians need to wake the fuck up

I am boggled at how so many people can be so brain-dead to think Sitush is doing nothing wrong here and I can only assume these are people who either like Sitush, hate Carol, or are just so deeply immersed in the asinine Wikipedia groupthink on harassment that they fail to recognize what is going on here. To wit, Sitush strongly criticized Carol during the case regarding SPECIFICO and in one comment stated: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her." Now, I personally did not think that singular comment was problematic since I took it as being an editor stating a concern about an editor's behavior and feeling there was a need for someone to insure she does not behave disruptively. However, after the case was closed with a one-way interaction ban on SPECIFICO, Sitush merely ten hours later made a remark on his talk page about how should he "do anything related to Wikipedia" it would involve an "analysis" of Carol's personal website. This was reasonably taken by Carol as a signal of Sitush's intent to do "opposition research" on her and she left a warning about it. Sitush then responds with this remark where he pulls out several allegations based on his "research" into Carol, including making allegations of criminal activity and citing personal attacks from someone endorsing a political opponent of hers. He basically taunts her with this information he is gleaning from many non-reliable sources before launching the article over her strenuous objections due to the very reasonable concern that someone who is hot off a personal dispute with her is going to try putting out an article about her on Wikipedia.

Now, I have read the userspace article, and from my reading it seems like Sitush is selectively adding material designed to make Carol look like a lunatic. The space he gives to her statements about The Beatles is bizarre given how trivial it is and reads like something you would include to mock a person by going "Haha! She thinks Beatles fans were a part of women's lib! What a maroon!" Another issue is where he lifts material from this article to say "At that time, she was involved in an anti-war protest, opposing US military action in Iran and Iraq, and also supporting Palestinians in what she said were their defensive actions against Israeli and US troops. She was concerned that one outcome might be a Russian nuclear attack on the US." This phrasing, again, makes her sound like a lunatic since the two events seem completely unrelated or like some absurd exaggeration, until you read the actual source, which says: "Citing Seymour Hersh's "The Samson Option," Ms. Moore expressed concern that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in Russia's launching nuclear missiles at America." Of course, the Samson Option refers to a claim that part of Israel's nuclear strategy is that if the country's leaders feel Israel's very existence is threatened they will launch nukes across the world to spark off a global nuclear war and bring the world down with them, which may be extreme but sounds a lot less crazy. There are other examples, but my only impression upon reading that article in full is that Sitush was probably cackling while writing it and only making the barest effort to be neutral regarding Carol.

He does all this, while having recently expressed a desire for her personally getting dragged before ArbCom. This has all the markings of wanting to see Carol named and shamed for whatever fucking problem he has with her. I don't give a shit how much he thinks he can be neutral, his own personal evaluations of his behavior are completely delusional given that everything he has done in the past few days reeks of harassment. Basically, he followed through on this aforementioned threat and there seem to be a lot of chuckleheads here who don't give a crap about real fucking harassment on Wikipedia. Maybe there is something wrong with Carol's behavior, but it sure as fucking hell isn't excusing anything Sitush is doing here and all of you taking his side should feel like fucking gobs of shit because that is what you fucking are when you enable this kind of abusive treatment. There is a difference between assuming good faith and being an ignorant jerkoff.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound this way but I am not going to read a wall of text here, I feel that an I-ban needs to be put in place between the two, its a good solution and everyone can go on their merry way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - completely uninvolved in this whole mess (although Corbett's talkpage is on my watchlist for some reason) but I am depressed at just how partisan most contributors to this argument appear so far. After ten minutes of perusing, I can easily discern two camps, and its rare to find any comment that strays outside of those boundaries. Maybe everyone ought to take a chill pill and reconsider their goals? I don't mean this to sound patronizing, I know I could often use a step back myself. As for EC Sitush creating an article on another editor with whom he has beef (assuming I am correctly interpreting the situation thus far), that takes a huge set of balls and a willingness to relinquish any WP peace and quiet. This kind of ANI (or arbcom) response is almost inevitable. I would hve never ever in a thousand years done it myself. That said, the article, when I looked at it, appears uncommonly unbiased and would most certainly be a great starting point for a proper BLP once it moves into mainspace.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  You seem to be a little confused Mr.choppers; I didn't create the article, nor have I ever even edited it. Eric Corbett 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I meant to write Sitush, but I came to this kerfuffle via your talk page. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my evaluation of Sitush's "unbiased" piece. There is some obvious effort to cherry-pick and misrepresent the sources to portray her in a near comical manner. He is clearly not being neutral or unbiased, but is acting out his hostility towards her with this so-called article. I have read the article and the sources and can safely say he is not being unbiased by any measure. Mind you, I have no personal stake in this GGTF drama or the Austrian Economics drama from which this feud sprung. What I am saying is based off having looked at his comments and the article in the overall context. This is harassment. Period. Full stop.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you are looking for a block or ban then I suggest this goto WP:ARBCOM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Two things; one, sometimes the things discussed at ANI and elsewhere take a fair bit of words to really describe what's going on. I want to reach through the screen and slap anyone who posts something like "TL;DR I can't read that so Imma just support banning everyone/closing the discussion/or the god-awful wiki-trope of "trouting". If your attention span is sometimes tested by a 140-character tweet, then please, go away, and let us deal with it.
• Two, I pointed out Sitush's threat to stalk Carol's edits last week. With the article draft creation, I hope all can see now how the intimidation game has just been cranked up a notch. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly this is a rant manifested from all the feelings that have come from this thread. Some people are so set in their ways you cant expect some to change their ways with a flip of a switch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article is fine. Anything that makes Carol seem like a "lunatic" is because of the sources. Though if I were in Sitush' shoes I would have created this article off-line and waited for things to calm down for a few months before publishing. Or never.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a tic, back up. A BLP that portrays its subject as a lunatic is OK because there are sources? What's all this NPOV nonsense I've read so much about, then? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course the sources don't say lunatic, and neither did Sitush' article. Given the content of some of the sources used, I'd say Sitush could have easily portrayed Carol as an unforutnate subject while staying true to the sources.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 13:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is insane. Sitush tells Mark Miller on Sitush talk page he's going to leave me alone and then he puts a list of alleged "search" words on the talk page of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore which includes "gun owner." In a city where it's illegal to own and unregistered gun, making such an accusation can lead to police raids and death. Or Swatting. Please someone remove this and impose a mandatory two way ban now, including banning him from that talk page which he has sort of moved off his talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hold the phone here.....I went and looked on Sitush's talk page to see where they suddenly told me that they were going to leave you alone. I can't seem to find it. Mind you...I have not made that many posts on Sitush's talk page but it is possible I missed it. Diff please.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore has never existed. Anyway, you're light-skinned, so the police aren't going to shoot first (compare Ferguson to Bundy Ranch) even if they do take the extreme leaps of reasoning from "someone mentioned her name with the phrase gun owner" (which, incidentally, you just did in this comment) to "she needs to be raided". And yes, it should go without saying that creating an article on someone after being in an argument with them has at the very least the appearance of being a total dick move. --NE2 03:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been removed, but enough already. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush put it back. My housemate, the home owner, is getting really pissed off. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I re moved it, he can go pound sand for all I care at this point. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To his great credit, User:Fram has deleted the draft as a BLP violation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fram is hereby awarded with the Rene Rancourt double fist pump. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

ManymanymanymanyMANY thanks to Fram. But...we still need to get these two editors to part ways and leave each other alone. I can't figure out a way to do this so I strongly encourage an interaction ban...either self imposed by both parties, by the community...or a freaking office action by the foundation.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

An Office action could have removed the BLP, as has happened with others, if that was really the problem. AnonNep (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Happily bio's gone [Later strike of premature optimistic statement:and a voluntary two way interaction ban going into effect soon. Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• No concensus, but can these two editors at least agree (informally) to leave each other alone? As in not create articles about each other? Not to deliberately provoke? etc etc MaxBrowne (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please...pretty please wish sugar on top. I could add crap on top (trust me...I can) but what would that accomplish here?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Close this whole thing?

Since Carolmooredc and her IAC cronies have apparently accomplished their mission, this entire ANI should probably be closed as moot. 65.209.113.178 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The whole case is likely going to Arbcom per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues so I feel that this could be closed with that result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

First, this posting was removed since it makes a false accusation I'm in cahoots with sockpuppets on the India Against Corruption who allegedly were threatening Sitush and who were at least one of the parties he made the redacted "gun barrell" threat/joke against. Removing material that the average inclusionist would think was appropriate and writing crappy bios all in one topic area over time certain can get the sanest editors ticked off. Not that that excuses whatever alleged threats were made, of course.

Second, Sitush is not yet a party to the Arbcom though several people have asked him to be. I personally don't care if this ANI which I did not bring is closed as "no consensus but both sides should leave each other alone." (Though obviously making it sound like both individuals were equally responsible would be a bit much considering the diffs provided and comments editors have left here.)

When Sitush returns, if he starts on me again with nitpicking reverts against policy, posting petty complaints on my talk page after a talk page ban, and following me again just to cast aspersions against me in various forums, I'll be back here in a flash. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Ongoing issues with User:Truth_is_the_only_religion on Brahma Kumaris article

^{What's up, Doc?} User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is a SPA and appears to only be here to edit disruptively, without any regard for consensus and without feeling any need to explain his/her edits on the talk page. Probably their contrib's show the story best. The issues raised when I posted here on 26th August are still very much a concern. However in addition, since that date this user has persistently made the same aggressive edit (deleting 15-35% of the article) at least 9 times [148][149][150][151][152][153][154] etc. against consensus, being reverted by 4 different editors so far. In a nutshell, they are trying to piecemeal re-instate a version of the article that existed prior to User:Januarythe18th being indefinitely blocked. There have been at least 3 occasions when the article has been 'bulk reverted' to the banned editors preferred version. Of course they were all undone. So now this "new editor" is going for the piecemeal approach. They refuse to work with other editors at all. I'm confident I can collaborate with User:McGeddon and others to address any content concerns through the usual process. This editor was warned last week on their talk page about this conduct, but no change at all. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWB #72 is hereby invoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Some WP:BOOMERANG here - User:Danh108 is also a bulk-reverting SPA, on the same article. I'm afraid I don't share Danh108's confidence in collaboration as they have declared a personal connection to Brahma Kumaris but reject COI policy as not applying to them. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Boomerangs come in all shapes and sizes[155]. Who is "them" anyway? Do you normally refer to editors by their religious beliefs[156]? 85.255.234.91 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That was intended as a singular they referring to Danh108. --McGeddon (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK fair dues. Although the bulk reverts appear to apply to the disruptive trolling account which appears to be sock of a previously blocked editor WP:BMB. Also Dan appears to have received your content related edits gracefully. Perhaps that would be a more productive avenue to explore 66.249.93.52 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I am supposed to say. The simple answer is just that this is a Brahma Kumari follower, one of three editing the page, who have turned it into a badly written advert full of unsubstantiated conclusions.

I don't know every rule on the Wikipedia but I know a few and if you look at my edits more closely you will, for example, that I removed unreferenced material which had a flag almost a year old. I removed links to Blogspot website for the religion. I removed many self-published references written by the religion. I removed a whole lot of links to their retreat centres which could only have been advertising for them. And so on.

As I mentioned on the talk page, they have spent months editing the page without any discussion of the changes and, strangely, they never discuss or dispute between themselves.

I have asked them to confirm in writing that they are not acting as a team, and are not being coordinated somewhere off the Wikipedia. I believe they are and so their answer is evidence of their good faith. At present I believe that there is evidence of bad faith, e.g. constant admin reports about any one else editing the page and reversion of simple erroneous facts such as their founder's date of birth. I think they are doing this deliberately to provoke troubles which they then use to report people.

Therefore, can I demand a response from them here, are all three of you BK followers and you BK followers being coordinated by other individuals within the sect behind the scenes, or elsewhere? Honest answer please. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Why no answer yet from the 3 editors? Can one of them tell us if they are being coordinated off the Wikipedia? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You sound exactly like a previous editor who was blocked for repeated outing, talk page abuse and a battleground mentality. 66.249.93.52 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is a significant concern. I agree with User talk:66.249.93.52's comments above. I propose User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is either banned from this topic or re-blocked for the following reasons:

Proposal for User:Truth_is_the_only_religion to be site banned for the following reasons:

• They have just joined Wikipedia, yet they are clearly not a new user. I struggle to accept User:McGeddon's suggestion that theymay have lost their password.
• I suggest it is a brazen evasion of their earlier indefinite block: Just compare their comments above to the identical accusations being made in this users unblock requests. This users strategy is actually working really well - pump the talk page with unevidenced accusations, playing on the suspicions people have around these kind of pages (because so many times it has been true - Unfortunately everyone loves a conspiracy theory). Then edit as you like.
• The Tag-team allegation [157] relates to myself User:GreyWinterOwl and User:Changeisconstant. User:Changeisconstant has only edited the page once since and has almost no contrib's - why would they be part of the conspiracy theory? I am asserting they were included because this editor knows them from past wikipedia experience and therefore includes them in the accusations they made earlier when operating the account User:Januarythe18th. Otherwise they would just as easily have included User: TMDrew who has reverted their bulk edits twice and is also a new account (January 2014). I am asserting this is just a strategy to deceive people, to character assassinate editors that don't conform to his/her views, persistenly focusing on their character/alleged religious affiliation, while merrily changing whatever they feel like on the article. So far the only content they keep raising to justify their edits is the founders DOB (and ironically I agree with this!, but can't find RS in support).
• In a similar vein, User talk:Truth is the only religion is immediately referring to the other editors as 'they' - presumably in accordance with his/her conspiracy theory. He launches personal attacks based on religious belief/affiliation. Here he suggest all BKs should be banned from editing the page - what would happen if that was written on Jewish pages?
• The talk page gets turned into WP:Battleground and editors are met with hostility and endless accusations and demands that "they" must answer his accusations before this editor will even speak to content issues "If the BKs would care to confirm or deny my first two questions, then I am happy to continue a discussion of why I think the changes are justified".
• This conduct incites the same level of suspicion in other editors towards "BKs", yet it's all just empty accusations. No attempt is ever made to raise the concerns with Wiki admin - it is used purely as an editing strategy....and let's be honest, who reading this isn't very weary about User:Danh108 now....I even start to doubt myself.
• Now that other editors are getting involved they are realising/echoing the concerns I've been flagging [158] [159]
• User:McGeddon is a really good editor and quite pleasant to interact with. If anyone has time for the explanation about why some of his comments about me are incorrect they can read this. The only editor I reverted was User:Truth_is_the_only_religion who was doing mass edits with explanations like "change date of birth" or "written by follower of religion". Unfortunately User:McGeddon has a small blindspot in his/her interaction with me - I think mainly because of the influence of the rhetoric on the talk page.

Danh108 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion that the user might have lost their password was a good faith response to your initial post on my talk page back in August, accusing an editor I'd never heard of of being a sockpuppet of "my old friend" who I'd evidently reverted once, months previously. If you want to make and discuss sockpuppet accusations, WP:SPI is the place to do it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy, Truth_is_the_only_religion has continued to edit war against numerous users and has repeatedly reverted edits against consensus.--TMD (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There are significant 'blockworthy' issues that don't relate to the sockpuppetry being raised here.Danh108 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion has questioned me as a BK follower and part of some tag team. The same approach was taken by User:Januarythe18th many times before being blocked. If it helps the case, let me make it very clear that I am not a BK follower and this is a baseless presumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changeisconstant (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually did not read all of what Danh108 has written because what is going on here is far more simple. They have accused me of being someone else called June24th. All I can say is that I am not June24th but I don't know how to prove it. I welcome any investigation.

If you look at the actual edits I have, I think you will find they are according to the rules of the Wikpedia, for example, removing blog links, self-publish materials, unreferenced stuff, outdated requests for information and so on. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, no one has ever accused your current account of being June24th. User:Januarythe18th had been accused of being User:June24th about 8 months before your current account was created. Why did you suddenly bring that up? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::That there is a dead giveaway, so block it already! Not to mention should be blocked for BATTLEGROUND against a specific religion and not getting how wikipedia has worked since the beginning - as someone said we will never ban Jews from Jewish pages so why do ppl suggest it for your personal unfavorite (fill in the blank) 71.127.138.35 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Striking yet another sock edit by indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GreyWinterOwl, that's more the proof that User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is likely to be a User:Januarythe18th sockpuppet account Changeisconstant (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here it is; [160]. There might actually have been others but I cannot afford to spend the time looking. Danh108 seems to spend all this time complaining, reporting or trying to get admins to support him. There are too many. Ultimately it all adds up to the same thing. The BKs are trying to block any change to a page that they have written like an advert for their religion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I once walked into a crowded pub and as soon as I entered no one looked at me, but it went completely quiet - that silence spoke and I knew there had been conversations I wasn't privy to. I now know how it feels to be prejudged....Danh108 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The accusation that I was User:June24th is the only I can remember looking at. The BK editors have made so many, I have not followed them all. It seems to me to be all they do; revert the topics on their religion and make complaints to block other users.

I asked the BK editors a question which they have refused to answer. Are they being coordinated and supported off the Wikipedia by other members of their religion to control the topic on their religion?

The reason it is important to hold them to an answer is two fold.

1. If they admit the answer is yes, and the answer is as I can show, then it proves they are acting as a team to control the topic page, and acting in bad faith.
2. If they answer no, it proves they are acting in bad faith and being dishonest to the Wikipedian community and general public.

This is why they won't answer the question. Both answers prove bad faith.

If it is important, I will search for the User:June24th accusation but it will take me a little time that could be better spent. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You're demands seem to revolve around concerns of WP:COI, which is a guideline. Given your singular fascination with one article it is entirely possible you have some conflict of interest issues yourself. But all this is a smokescreen. Behind the smoke you are almost certainly evading a block based on your similar behaviour to User:Januarythe18th and suddenly mentioning User:June24th (a sockpuppet of Jan18th), harassing editors by making repeated accusations without evidence, personal attacks by discrediting editors based on their alleged religious affiliations and editing tendentiously. These are all violations of policies, not just guidelines. I'm amazed that you continue to do all this in full view of ANI. It's a wonder you haven't been blocked already. It's impossible to assess if your accusations are true without evidence or other editors, who don't engage in a pattern of POV pushing and disruption as you seem to be doing, experiencing some kind of disruptive resistance to editing that seems to be in some way coordinated between the editors you mention.85.255.233.102 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you? You did not log in. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what else is needed for blocking an editor who has himself disclosed clearly using a sock account! 85.255.232.86 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(The previous comment was not made by me although we are using the same ISP)

We are witnessing history being made here. An editor has actually managed to orchestrate an environment where he can abuse other editors and Wikipedia as much as he likes while swinging all scorn and suspicion towards those reporting him instead. It looks like he has become "too bad too block". No admin will comment, vote or take action. Truth is the only religion has actually become untouchable. In situations where a systems designed to safeguard citizens, or Wikipedians and the project itself, break down then it is often the victims that get blamed and punished instead of the perpetrator. I comment here anonymously because the situation here is just so weird.

I value Wikipedia highly as a community and a resource. I am deeply concerned that such overtly disruptive behaviour should be overlooked or ignored because I don't think that it is conducive to the project progressing or an environment editors will want to take part in. That is, after all, why behavioural polices exist in the first place. 85.255.232.235 (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am a completely uninvolved party who stumbled on this thread. First of all, editors making accusations should log in. Second of all, this is not SPI, and if there is evidence that a SPI is warranted, as there seems to be, this is not the venue for it, SPI is, and that is the place for blocks for sockpuppeting. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish one of the involved editors would file an SPI. Maybe they need a little help. However it isn't just block evasion being reported here. There are multiple issues which is why, I guess, DanH is proposing a ban. A block or ban isn't just to please some other "involved" party. If it is warranted then it is for the good of the project and community as a whole. If an editor can act in such as way with impunity then what precedent does that set? What do other editors who are blocked or banned for less serious policy violations going to be thinking? What's this guy doing right to get away with so much?

I am not making any accusations beyond what I can see reported here and looking at the contribs. I will log in when I feel it is safe to do so. Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger. 85.255.232.235 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Truth is the only religion, as it has become perfectly clear that the account is a block-evading sockpuppet. I will leave the decision as to whether to impose a site ban to others. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Brahma Kumari followers to be banned from editing page relating to their religion BKWSU

User:Danh108, User:GreyWinterOwl and User:Changeisconstant are Brahma Kumari followers and working as a team to control the Wikipedia topic page on their religion, and are being coordinated off the Wikipedia to do so.

The version of the topic they keep reverting to is highly problematic as discussed. They appear to be investing a disproportionate amount of time and effort courting administrators and putting in complaints.

If someone can tell me how or where to put in a more formal or complaint and explanation, please do so. Thanks.

Before I do so, I want to ask the Brahma Kumaris followers a simple leading question and see their answer. I would like other Wikipedians to hold them to an answer.

Have you and are you being coordinated off Wikipedia by other member or members of your religion? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Truth is the only religion, Serious accusations require serious evidence. I suggest you either back up your claims or remove them. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This proposal isn't likely to go anywhere. Yes, we banned the Church of Scientology, but that's easier to define and track (sort of), and the Church of Scientology is noted for their incompatible worldview (to put it politely). With or without bans, followers of different religions are going to otherwise edit articles relating to their religions. Except in some fringe cases (namely, and to my knowledge, only the Church of Scientology) it is better that they do so openly so that biases can be understood for what they are (as well as allowing good-faith editors to edit topics they are interested in and to balance out those who have a bias against any given group).

Do I have the impression that Brahma Kumari followers are causing trouble in the article? Yes (though I also get the impression that former members or persons otherwise with an agenda against the religion are trying to hard to balance them out). Do I think that topic banning Brahma Kumari followers is going to accomplish anything? Not really. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by the record of banned sock puppet accounts like User:Januarythe18th, they had similar battleground approach and accusations to distract Admins looking at banning them. I am not a BKWSU follower as stated above already however followers are always going to be editing the articles pertaining to their religions and there is no way Wikipedia would ban all followers of religions! Changeisconstant (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This proposal can't be voted on because it is illegal in most countries to bar participation based on religion. The tit-for-tat nature of the proposal looks to me like gaming. 66.249.93.109 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can substantiate my allegation but I am asking the 3 BK editors to come clean first and answer my question to them regarding whether they are being coordinated off the Wikipedia?

Can someone ensure that they answer, or accept their unwillingness to answer as an admission of guilt?

The reason I am not rushing to provide the evidence I have is to further underline the bad faith and waste of others time, energy and efforts via their operating as a team, and making quite so many complaints and accusations to distract from what is going on as they have done.

I suggest that the Brahma Kumari extreme worldview and modus operandi is clearly comparable. Yes, I think they should be banned as per Scientology. The intentions of any group who believe dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago and that they are going to inspire a nuclear holocaust which will kill off 7 billion impure members of humanity so that they can inherit a heaven on earth afterwards has to be suspect. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your problem is not with some group of editors. Your problem is with the wp policies you have such little regard for. Your contribs today speak for themselves. 66.249.93.61 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't answer to most nation's laws. This is a private site, and we are allowed to ban or block editors as we see fit. See WP:FREESPEECH. This proposal is worrisome, however.

If BK followers were causing a tenth as much trouble as the Church of Scientology did, it would have been noticed not only by other users, but by the news media. The Church of Scientology (not necessarily its followers, but the organization that sells the followers their beliefs) was noted for decades of undeniable illegal actions, which they tried to censor (among other things), along with a worldview that is completely at odds with common understandings of research, biology, and even language itself. If there are BK followers in this thread, they appear to be speaking the same English as everyone else, instead of a nearly-distinct language consisting of homonymic jargon. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have to answer to US laws. For example, the community can't just vote to allow child pornography on Wikipedia. Banning a whole religious group from editing as a policy would be seen as religious discrimination. Referring again to the Scientology arbcom case example, it was a mechanical IP range block against offices being used to edit disruptively, not against Scientologist editors in general. 66.249.93.61 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Foundation is not bound by the First Amendment, as it is not the US Congress. Freedom of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment only prevents the United States government from endorsing or prohibiting the worship of a given religion, and has no bearing on private entities such as the Wikimedia Foundation. Your comparison to child pornography is a straw man, since there is not (to my knowledge) any Constitutional amendment specifically banning it as there is with freedom of religion. Apples to oranges. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to have to throw my hands up here and say I'm not in the US nor a lawyer before I did myself six feet under! I just read a "Civil Rights" webpage [161] and assumed that where it said that there were, "Laws protecting people from private (non-government) discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)", that would include public participation in projects or services provided to the public. So far I've only been able to find laws applying to employment so I may have been mistaken. The "straw man" was in answer to the statement made by Ian.thomson that, "Wikipedia doesn't answer to most nation's laws". The point being that Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have answer to laws where they are applicable to an organisation running a website in CA/US. Even if there aren't very many of them. I've also just read WP:FREESPEECH and it appears to be slapping me on the face with a wet trout. How embarrassing.

So I guess that leaves the question as to whether Wikimedia Foundation would accept a community decision to ban editors based solely on their religious beliefs due to the possible bad publicity and protests that might entail. 85.255.233.102 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no prospect of the community enacting any such ban, we'll never know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to end on that note. 85.255.233.102 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

85.255, Did you read anything else I said? While Wikipedia could ban editors based on their religious affiliation, there is no reason to believe that'd happen unless a particular group proved to be incapable of contributing positively (such as the Church of Scientology, but not Freezone Scientologists). And does Wikipedia answer to the laws of any other nation? No. Is America "most nations?" No. Don't assume that America is the world. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. You are right. I was wrong. 212.183.128.125 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So how do I progress this, and prove that the Brahma Kumaris are both centrally coordinating and supporting adherents to protect their religion's topic pages; and raise the issue of whether they are comparable to the Scientologists?

It strikes me all the BKs/BK supporters do is revert to their chosen version and put in complaints to block or hinder others.

That is all this is about.

I have asked the three editors to confirm or deny whether this is going on. Despite all the incrimination and waffle they have all avoided answering the question. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You do not progress this. For the community to accept that BKs are comparable to the Church of Scientology in term of harm, multiple uninvolved editors would have to bring up that the organization of BK (not merely lay followers acting on their own) is being actively directed by the leaders to edit the article according to a set agenda. BK would also have to have an explicit doctrine demonstrating that they would not be willing to cooperate with Wikipedia (like Scientology's "fair game" doctrine) and a history of crimes against (such as the Church of Scientology breaking into US gov't offices) that would have lead a number of otherwise free countries to blocking the religion (such as Germany outlawing the Church of Scientology).

Because of your prior history in opposing them specifically, including making unevidenced claims that editors you disagree with must be BKs, you would actually detract from the credibility of such investigations. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are BKs trying to get people blocked, but you're really coming across as their inverse, not their opposite. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If Ian.thomson or someone else wanted to let me know why my post was such a flop that would be great - without feedback I can't improve for the future. I get that the SPI aspects of my concern have been raised in the wrong place, but think there is more to it than just this. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official "OTRS action" that must not be reverted "without permission"

For any interested editors, I have begun a related discussion about a similar article (Suzannah Lipscomb) at WP:BLPN. I hope that a wider response can be achieved there. 86.133.242.71 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Mdann52 (talk · contribs) made some very controversial changes to the Generation Rescue article, one of the organizations promoting the pseudoscientific idea that vaccines cause autism, removing most of the content critical to them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=prev&oldid=626204970

This, naturally, was reverted. At which point he made the changes again, this time as an official OTRS action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=prev&oldid=626610904 (OTRS action Ticket:Ticket:2014091810016149. Please do not revert without contacting me. I have also removed some seemingly unrelated EL; these are not covered by the action.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=626635473&oldid=626622916 Edit summary: "DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission. Please see my reply on my talk"

Further, he's also done the same thing at Daniel Amen, stripping criticism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&diff=624284523&oldid=624284415 ), and, when reverted, claiming it's an OTRS action. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&diff=624285062&oldid=624284846 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&diff=624304483&oldid=624287626 )

This can't be the intended use of OTRS actions, surely? The actions are non-neutral, and serve as a workaround to Wikipedia policy, specifically, WP:FRINGE. The sources being removed are pretty obviously reliable ones; this appears to be a case where the OTRS actions are a way to avoid justifying why sources or text is wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried asking this user what the special considerations are? It appears your first attempt to communicate was to post the ANI notice. Perhaps try to work this out directly before seeking public scrutiny? Chillum 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

People have on the talk page. Not very forthcoming about it though; see Talk:Generation_Rescue#Recent_large_deletions_based_on_concerns_at_OTRS. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It appears there is private information involved. It is also mentioned that the foundation is involved. I think perhaps a bit of time may be needed. I am eager to hear the point of view of the OTRS worker. I have worked OTRS in the past and I can say that there are some tricky sensitive situations sometimes. Chillum 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I usually make such actions when complaints are raised, then work with the people in question to help resolve the issue; In fact, Daniel Amen is a perfect example of this (the OP fails to mention I self-reverted after I got a better picture about what the issues seemed to be [162]. The example linked above is yet another example of this; The person in question is going to participate on the article page as and when; I'm waiting for them to respond to my latest enquiry, but they are more than willing to work with us on this. There are other factors here, which I can't go into detail about on-wiki due to Non-public data rules, however as soon as I can, I will self-revert and do what I can. As it is, in the meantime, people can suggest and make edits still, and I will do what I can. Frankly, raising this here without discussing it with me first is not really very good; As the page I link to whenever I make an edit related to a ticket details, I prefer email, as it allows me to discuss wider than I can on-wiki; I have recieved 0 emails about this since I made the edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)There's a specific way of challenging an OTRS team edit. See WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution. That should be followed. Having said that I've always been puzzled by the authoritarian statements such as "DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission." which I've seen this OTRS team member use before. I can't see that it is either in the spirit or the letter of what WP:OTRS says. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa: there is a lot of context behind this; I'm just trying to advise people of this. Admitidly, I could of put this better, and I will try and do so in the future. None of us are perfect; However, I prefer a quiet word to being pulled up in front of everyone when I have already explained why I am being a tad ambiguous here. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I think it would be better (i.e. more likely to elicit co-operation and help you in what you're trying to do) if you were to link specifically to WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution rather than simply declare that your permission is needed (or link to the user page you created). DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While it should have been handled directly first, I do not have much issue with raising this publicly. As some wise man said "With great power, comes great responsibility". Hopefully, OTRS changes would be made piecemeal, not wholesale. I am not convinced by the discussion on the talk page. It seems to me those concerns about NPOV could have been dealt with in an editorial fashion, instead of using OTRS. But then, I am not privy to private information. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The information removed is sourced to reliable sources, and the "OTRS edit" was basically the removal of most of the mainstream view from the article. While OTRS may be meant to deal with sensitive issues, it's not a backdoor to let organizations stealthily remove mainstream criticism, even if the people object. If the sources are unreliable, or misrepresented, simply stating that is sufficient reason to remove them and the information connected to them - without ever bringing up OTRS, thus making it clear that sensitive information exists in the first place. At the very least, this was massively botched handling of the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of what was removed I don't have a problem with. I don't think that [163] counts as a reliable source, nor that it meets WP:EL criteria. The edit by Mdann52 was massive, significantly gutting the article in one fell swoop. Nearly all criticism of the article subject was removed, with only the mention that some of the medical community dispute their point of view. The source for that claim, by the way, doesn't even come close to using such watered down language but points out flatly that GR's views aren't supported. Most distressing though was the hammer that MDann52 was using in comments and discussion that OTRS cannot be undone. They mentioned private discussions and a forthcoming draft (oh hey - let's allow a fringe group to write their article! Won't that be just great!). What should have happened was a combination of piecemeal edits, where each one was explained. This wasn't a privacy or legal concern, it was a fringe group trying to white-wash their article and they found a way to do it. Strongly sourced information was removed and just about anything negative to GR was wiped out. This IS a fringe group. Explaining their views and noting that they are held as fringe by the scientific community is part of NPOV. This could have been handled better by Mdann52. About the only thing that wasn't done was a knee-jerk protection as an OTRS action. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"I self-reverted after I got a better picture about what the issues seemed to be." Why are you taking actions when you don't know what the situation is? It sounds a lot like you jump into a situation and perform exactly the edits you are instructed to without any due consideration on your part. This is twice in the last month the editor has been using their OTRS position to whitewash articles, Second Quantization (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to an article without reading the sources first. Removal of sourced content without actually consulting the sources. Failure to understand and apply NPOV. Failure to supply policy based rationale with sources for back up. POV editing as a proxy for COI parties. Claiming OTRS authority to make changes and attempting to suppress reversion improperly claiming OTRS authority. Failure to provide policy based explanations for challenged edits. Failure to provide such explanations when explicitly asked repeatedly. Directly editing as a COI proxy without following COI guidelines. This is clear violation of numerous policies and guidelines. This behavior demands address by an administrator of English Wikipedia and an OTRS administrator. Perhaps a ping to the OTRS admins is needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've commented several times on this and related discussions - we (the OTRS admins) have been aware of the situation. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Mdann52 (talk · contribs)'s revert ban under OTRS 'authority' is rescinded and expunged and normal editing practices may continue on Generation Rescue. OTRS may not be used for enforcing edits that violate NPOV, such as white washing, and editors are extremely cautioned about using OTRS as a means to condone and enforce such behavior. OTRS should be used with care.--v/r - TP 20:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the edit has been reverted, and I have no plans to re-revert. I have already directed the person in question to the talk page; Hopefully, they will pop up over there in a few days time. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not good enough. Besides the ridiculous edit summaries, your commentary on the Talk:Generation Rescue page is truly appalling. Forbidding people from including material in an article simply because of a conversation you are having with an organization is a kind of behavior I have never before encountered. Being an OTRS volunteer does not give you special privileges over other volunteers to claim that people shouldn't revert you. This is outrageous! jps (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, since this isn't actually a sanction, but a sign that the editor should follow normal procedures this presents no actual impediment for Mdann to perform normal OTRS duties, it serves as a warning from the community, Second Quantization (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The only way to avoid this problem in the future is to demand that the rules forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we allow some ability to act on non-controversial actions. There are, after all, a lot of articles with minimal traffic to their talk pages, and doing a non-controversial, neutral edit like correcting someone's birth date shouldn't have to languish for months. But it's absolutely clear OTRS was abused in this case, and anything remotely like this can't be allowed to happen again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think OTRS agents should justify their edits by wikipedia policy and not use the existing of a ticket to override that; i.e note the existence of a ticket, but provide reasoning in line with standard policy. I don't think OTRS agents should be forbidden from making edits as that seems to add to the workload of trying to get edits that are actually requierd. WMF concerns are achieved through office actions, and would not be affected one way or the other, Second Quantization (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Edits other than clear BLP issues should be proposed on talk following COI guidelines. Once an OTRS agent is in correspondence with a COI party and has input on the article they are acting as a proxy for the COI party. Becoming involved in editing an article while acting as an OTRS agent is not appropriate. Raising issues and making proposals on talk is the way this should be handled. For low traffic articles an RFC or request to an uninvolved editor can be used. There should be no backdoor for COI editing without scrutiny, transparency and adherence to policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose too over-reaching and restrictive. Minor edits and the like shouldn't be considered non-controversial. Hard cases make bad policy, and we shouldn't change the entire system for one (admittedly very) bad screw-up. --Jayron32 11:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron. Protonk (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Something along the lines of only labeling clear BLP or privacy issues as OTRS edits I could go for. OTRS shouldn't be restricted from making edits, but their current process for handling disputed edits that are pure content decisions is crap. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron. OTRS is badly backlogged, additional bureaucracy should not be added without a solid reason. It happens that I have made several edits this morning based upon OTRS requests. My usual practice is to include the OTRS ticket number, as well as an explanation, so that non-agents can see why it was done, and agents can see more detail, if needed. I do see I failed to do that in one case, but it was fixing a dead link, so quite innocuous. There may be times that privacy consideration prevent a full disclosure of the reasons. If so, my edit summary will urge contact with an agent before reverting. I think the request is valid, although I'll use softer language than used in this case. @MrBill3: Today, someone pointed out an article title was misspelled. I moved it. Another pointed out a company name had changed, I checked the official company site and moved it. Another pointed out a deadlink, I fixed the link. I think it would be a massive over-reaction to suggest that these are COI by proxy edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Do you think it would increase the backlog and create an excessive delay to have proposed those changes on talk? Why would the normal COI guidelines not apply to actions performed by OTRS team members on behalf of COI correspondents? Shouldn't the existing policy be followed whether an edit is suggested via OTRS or any other means? Some of these edits seem to fall under those that would be acceptable for a COI editor to make directly (minor, unlikely to controversial, clearly factual). I wonder what sources were added to the articles to support those edits. I would suggest an edit performed on behalf of a party with a COI who wrote to OTRS is a COI edit by proxy. This seems to be the definiton of proxy. Some direct editing is supported by the COI guideline but very limited. Should any party be able to write to OTRS to have an edit performed without following the COI guidelines? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Last week, over 800 tickets were handled for the English Wikipedia (this does not count permissions or photosubmissions). Not all resulted in an edit but many did. Asking that the agent write out a request for posting on a talk page, which in many cases gets little traffic would probably double or triple the time needed to handle a ticket. The backlog is already at a level which is concerning. Agents are not permitted to make edits at the direction of others, any edits made must be taken on as the responsibility of the agent. I respectfully decline to make some of the edits requested, and do urge a posting to the talk page, which I often do myself, if I am not comfortable with the edit. If someone if not following the proper procedure, the right thing to do is address that person, not create a bureaucratic hurdle for the rest. If you identify a systematic problem, that's a different story, but there is no hint of that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No need to bring out the pitchforks. It is no great tragedy even if there is a bit of a delay due to communication issues and the article is in a "whitish" state for a few hours or days. Eventually it is bound to get clarified: there are no deadlines on WP. I do not know about OTRS in general, so I can't comment more broadly. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For reasons given above and also because, as I mention in a sub-section below, Mdann actually removed a whole bunch of BLP violations from that page. Editors protesting here should disperse their lynch mob and go fix up that article with reliable sources actually discussing the subject of the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite the American Republican party, Corporations are not people. The worst you can say happened is that 100% reliably sourced information about the head of the organization was, in some cases, used to talk about the organization as a whole, and this only applies to a small part of the information removed. Please stick to facts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The OTRS coordinators are asked to review Mdann52's actions in this incident. Having reviewed all correspondence and other such material, they shall decide whether Mdann is capable of remaining an OTRS volunteer, and whether any other actions are necessary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS admins are aware of the discussions and are following them, but strongly believe this is an isolated incident. We'll remind agents about the existing policy and make clarifications as necessary. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

However, there was another example of this happening in the past: Look here. So, it's not exactly "isolated", though I will agree that two examples do not make a rule. jps (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rjd0060: So, does that mean that OTRS are or are not able to police their own volunteers if problems arise. Because, if OTRS is functionally capable of dealing with Mdann's abuse of their authority, I'd rather leave it to you to reeducate them, and make sure no incidents happen again. If OTRS is not capable of this, that's a fundamental problem with OTRS, even beyond Mdann's actions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We've (the OTRS admins) handled this internally and have already spoken with Mdann. We have confidence that this issue was isolated and do not have any reason to believe that any further issues will arise. I've also suggested a modification of the OTRS page here to reflect the actual practice and hopefully clarify things for all users involved. The OTRS admins have no control or authority with regards to what happened on this wiki. If the community decides they would like to take local action against the user they are of course free to do that as well. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note I have just made the change to the OTRS page to further clarify the process. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A specific example

This was brought up on the talk page, and I think it shows a major problem. In the edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=626610904&oldid=626532808 - and this is a little hard to see because of a deletion before the change, the sentence "Because of Generation Rescue's public profile through national advertising and because its point of view is not shared by the mainstream medical community, its message has been controversial, etc." was changed to "However, as its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community, its message has been controversial, etc."

When challenged on this, Mdann52 changed it to "most of". However, remember, this was a supposedly "OTRS action" which must not be reverted - and yet which didn't just delete content, but which changed it to insert misrepresentation of the mainstream view. There's three sources for that sentence (Admittedly, one of them rather mispositioned, as it doesn't actually mention Generation Rescue, it's just meant to a secondary reference to show the mainstream consensus, to confirm the sources that do, but is placed on its own) and none of them backs the new phrasing. One could challenge the sentence by asking for better sources for the general statement being made, when the sources are a little more specific, but what one can't do is ignore the sources entirely and make things up.

If there are problems with the article, OTRS volunteers are quite right to step in to fix them. But I don't see how this kind of edit could be justified under any grounds as an official, unrevertable change, as acting to prevent one group from being misrepresented does not mean misrepresenting another group to make them look better.

OTRS edits should be well-thought through, careful, and researched. One could, in an emergency, blank content and ask for time to do research on the talk page. That isn't what was done here, however. When you're actively going against the sources, changing content to misrepresent the mainstream view, that's not a sober, careful fix of a sensitive issue, it's a WP:POVPUSH under an official banner. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Point of clarification on "OTRS edits"

Hi all. I am an OTRS administrator however I am not speaking on the behalf of anybody but myself. I wanted to clarify a misconception here that I've seen several people imply. OTRS agents have no special authority on local wikis. They of course may happen to be an admin/arbitrator/etc. on a wiki, but they do not act in official OTRS capacity on wiki.

All edits made by an OTRS agent are ultimately under the 'control' or jurisdiction of the local wiki. So in this case, the edits or actions made should be able to stand on their own merit. Edits that are made as a result of an OTRS ticket must be able to stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines.

I have not completely reviewed all of the information on this issue but will continue looking into it on our end. Please see WP:OTRS#Privacy and team members on the English Wikipedia where an OTRS agents' role on the English Wikipedia is further explained. I personally feel that Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#Disagreeing with a team-related edit is not the current practice and needs to be adjusted to reflect so. It seems slightly contradictory to the previous link I posted. With that in mind, however - we do appreciate the understanding from the local communities. As you are probably aware, OTRS sometimes requires that we attempt to handle sensitive issues with regards to content that may not meet Wikipedia guidelines. We would not be as successful as agents if the community was not as cooperative as they have been over the years. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the above explanation I don't see how these two cases can be seen as anything other than an attempt to abuse a claim of authority. If, "Edits that are made as a result of an OTRS ticket must be able to stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines." The removal of well sourced content is not appropriate. Policy is quite clear on content that is strongly supported by a reliable source. Any content removal needs to be supported by policy based rationale, not hand waving at invisible "OTRS" issues. If the content violates policy that can be made clear, the removed content is not suppressed so the information in the content can be discussed and specific policy related to it cited. What "secret information" is needed to present a policy based objection to existing content? The attempt to suppress editing and discussion with an inappropriate (false?) claim of administrative authority seems clearly an abuse of what authority has been granted. Additionally it seems highly inappropriate to make edits that go beyond the unexplained issue at the same time. This was done in both cases. Take note of the quantity of material removed originally from Daniel Amen (and repeatedly removed despite clear rationale for its inclusion given on talk) and then most of it was restored. Also note the lack of policy based rationale provided on talk, clearly not edits which can "stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines." Then asserting (falsely?) the authority the have the edit stand "unless cleared" wtf? Surely an editor with some experience/administrative authority also has a grasp of NPOV in that it does not mean whitewashing or watering down content based on reliable sources. This removal of content diff ES "cleanup, rm stuff not relevant to him" is highly problematic. Did the editor read any of the sources? The rationale for including this content was clearly explained on talk. The editor was directly and clearly asked to explain how OTRS has authority to enforce edits and no explanation of OTRS authority or function was given. This is a big problem. Can an OTRS complaint/ticket/action force WP not to present information published in reliable sources? Should an editor acting under the auspices of the OTRS team be WP:INVOLVED in editing the article they are dealing with as an OTRS team member? - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are related to privacy or legal issues, I can see the point of saying don't revert an OTRS action without discussion. If the edit is simply a content decision made based on communication with the article subject, that's something else entirely. Saying that edits need to be able to stand on their merit, then making it far more difficult to challenge those edits isn't helpful. Having a way for subjects of an article to comment and/or offer suggestions is ultimately a helpful thing. But having one person (the OTRS agent) make content decisions that aren't driven by sensitive issues and have a process in place that makes it difficult to challenge those decision is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How can privacy or legal issues come into play if the content is information published in reliable sources? None of the sources for Daniel Amen were other than widely disseminated public publications. If the information is published the legal and privacy issues rest with the publisher not the encyclopedia. I realize there may be specific cases that have to do with what WP policy considers appropriate and there is some room for courtesy and respect, but both of the subjects are publicly prominent. In particular with Generation Rescue this is non-profit that has engaged in substantial media activity, likewise Amen engages in extensive highly public self promotion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, I agree. Specific to these two articles, I haven't seen anything that would be considered a privacy or legal issue. My comment in this section was intended to be more a general thought. There are some things you'll find in reliable sources that BLP says avoid including (kids names, address, etc). But general facts? If a source has been found legally defamatory or retracted, but still used as a source in the article, that's something I can see OTRS involvement, but they should explain why in the edit summary, not a vague hand-waving. OTRS involvement in pure content decisions (sourcing, NPOV, UNDUE, etc) needs to be done in an open manner working with the other editors on the article. I think there can be scenarios where they may have to resort to more drastic measures (strong OWNership, obvious issues being ignored), but that's far and few between and (gasp!) we've got alternatives to help with that in the various noticeboards. Pure content matters should not be done under the OTRS action banner. Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The combination of high-handed action, authoritarian communication, and ill-informed reasoning makes it clear that the OTRS personnel are in dire need of a review followed by a thinning of the herd. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action should be taken other than to edit the articles according to policy. Perhaps the claims of special authority were overblown, but in general it is extremely desirable that OTRS agents undertake the work of liasing with external entities. Occasionally—as with all of Wikipedia's procedures—there will be unfortunate cases where an OTRS agent is persuaded to make edits that are unwise, but there is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

They locked down the article and threatened people who tried to undo their actions, after editing to whitewash he article. Everyone has lapses of judgement, but a lapse of judgement as large as this situation got - where the OTRS volunteer was talking about a draft they were preparing with the fringe organization to replace the then-current article, while telling anyone who objected to their whitewashing that, as an OTRS change, noone was permitted to do anything about it - is such a severe lapse of judgement that it raises questions of whether they should be trusted with the tools. Perhaps they just got in over their head, and a simple reminder is enough, but Mdann has not offered any explanation of how they let this situation get as far as it did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a general principle here that if you repeatedly abuse special editing privileges you have been trusted with, they're taken away. One article would be a lapse. Two articles is a repetition. . - Nunh-huh 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read the commentary of the volunteer, it is clear that they are using the OTRS position as a claim of privilege above-and-beyond other volunteers. We should not have to e-mail an OTRS volunteer to make an edit. We should be able to discuss, on wiki, issues related to reliable sourcing, NPOV, etc. If there are sensitivities that need to be worked out with a third party, that's between the OTRS volunteer and the third party. Their edits are supposed to rise and fall on their own rationale, not on the basis of "I had a conversation and you can't revert because of that." They also claimed that the WMF was getting involved as though WP:OFFICE or something gave them mandate. This is all just really gross. jps (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this should result in some strict rules which forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues.

Especially legal threats (not an issue here) received through that system should be met in the same way we normally deal with them....strong resistance. We will not be intimidated by such threats. We rely on RS for our content, and editors are protected by laws which protect users of the internet who reproduce content created by others. OTOH, the original creators of those RS may be liable if they libel someone, but those who copy or quote their work are protected by law.

The OTRS system must not be compromised by COI suspicions. The volunteers should not be allowed to get caught in such situations. They can get caught in the middle of matters which are far beyond their knowledge and area of responsibility. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing I'm wondering, after reading all this: are "OTRS volunteers" doing something problematic and bringing suspicion upon themselves - that is, is this a systemic problem - or is this literally a case of one volunteer not understanding the guidelines he was operating under, and people reacting out of the fear that it's not that he misunderstood, it's that this is just what's done? Because if it helps, this is the first time I'm aware of this sort of action being an issue since I've been an OTRS agent, and in fact I distinctly remember absorbing "don't think that 'because OTRS' trumps the usual editing rules, because it doesn't and it would get you in big trouble" from other volunteers, the wiki pages, and the OTRS manual when I was new on OTRS. There's even an OTRS response template that goes something like "OTRS does not make edits on request, since all edits are subject to community consensus. Here's how to make/request your edits onwiki."

In short, it's never been the case that volunteers are taught that their edits are inviolable or that they should make requested article edits as a matter of course, so responding to this incident as "those OTRS volunteers! They need to stop abusing their rights!" rather than "what went wrong in training, that this one person didn't get that training?" seems out of place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter is entirely correct here, so much so it bears repeating with as much emphasis as possible. Not one person has presented evidence that there is a problem with the OTRS system which needs fixing. Not one. What there is is one editor, in one instance, has demonstrated a pretty grievous lack of judgement. The question we need to ask is "Had the system been different (that is, had the changes people are clamoring for been in place), would it have prevented this?" The answer, of course, is "No." Because no system, set of rules, and training can prevent people from making free choices in their own actions. Poor choices cannot be stopped, and no one has presented any evidence that the system as a whole suffers from people being poorly educated on their role in OTRS. Instead, we have a case of someone making a poor decision, a singular poor decision, that nothing could have prevented. So there's no point in wringing our hands and saying "Oh no, what is wrong with OTRS!!!" There's nothing wrong with OTRS. Something is wrong with what this one person did this one time. Fix this one problem, and move on. --Jayron32 14:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be a single OTRS volunteer who has (apparently with two different fringe articles) gone too far. It needs to be made more clear that OTRS volunteers' edits are not above policy. (A BLP related deletion by ANYONE is not to be reverted, so using OTRS concerns should not be mentioned in a manner which intimidates other editors.) OTRS volunteers could still make uncontroversial and minor edits without any problem, but it would be wise to stay away from using OTRS concerns as an excuse to make controversial edits. Mention those concerns on the talk page and guide other editors. Just use the normal processes and work with other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a problem with the OTRS system if Mdann keeps his status with OTRS, without any sort of public censure and/or promises never to do it again. Mdann has not, at this time, admitted any wrongdoing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a sitting arbitrator doing exactly the same thing last year: [164]. Notice this statement [165] which is directly contradicted by sources [166] (and [167] who got court documents). So I wonder if it is how OTRS volunteers are instructed, rather than one bad apple, Second Quantization (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given the comments above by S Philbrick I am led to wonder if OTRS agents are trained in such a way that they understand their edits must follow existing policy. In editing on behalf of an OTRS correspondent who has a conflict of interest they are performing edits that should be done following the COI guideline. Just because Joe from Acme wrote OTRS that doesn't mean that the edits Joe suggests should not be executed in adherence to the COI guideline, they are still edits proposed by a party with a COI. The COI guideline is quite clear that the edits that should be performed directly are very limited. What is the policy at OTRS regarding making edits for parties who write OTRS that have a COI? From what I understand OTRS agents should be following PAG. COI is clearly not being followed very closely. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COI and WP:MEAT apply to any editor, including OTRS volunteers, who attempt to make edits on behalf of another person. AGF applies to other editors, not to outside sources. Outside sources are still bound by our rules (but they don't follow them), which is to provide a RS for their information. Then OTRS volunteers should present the concern and the RS on the article's talk page and let other editors deal with it. We should be distrustful of outside sources and do as we always do here, which is to let the Reliable and Verifiable sources determine the matter. OR from an outside source is not a RS which is verifiable by ALL Wikipedia editors, ergo we cannot use it to guide our editing. Outside sources have agendas, and we must recognize that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, Mdann has not yet admitted any wrongdoing. It's all very well to call this an "isolated incident", but if there's no admission of wrongdoing, and no indication that Mdann will use OTRS requests more carefully, and research matters before acting in future, this problem can hardly be considered dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear you are right, because they still don't show evidence they understand the problem. COI editors and outside sources should always be treated with extra care and some degree of skepticism. The reason we don't hold them to the same standards as others is that they have a COI and bias which will naturally tend to skew article content away from NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To be completely fair, I must point out that Mdann52 finally did begin to admit being "over-hasty", but only after multiple editors had gotten on their case. Something needs to be done with the basic instructions to OTRS volunteers and the public guidelines for the OTRS system which will prevent this type of thing from happening again. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That does seem to indicate a problem, yeah. If Mdann wants to continue as an OTRS agent, he needs to understand and abide by the limitations of the role. If we can't be sure he can do that, he should not have OTRS access, in my non-OTRS-admin opinion. At the same time, however, I don't think "public censure" or forcing him to admit "wrongdoing" is what we should be aiming for here. If the goal is for him to conform to the limitations of the OTRS role, then the way to fix it is either for his permissions to be revoked, or for him to commit (publicly or to the OTRS admins; frankly it's more the admins' purview than it is ANI's) to abiding by the limitations of the role going forward - not for us to make a show of embarrassing him via a toothless "censure" pour encourager les autres. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but, if they are to retain OTRS volunteer status, then something making it clear that they understand where they went wrong and will return to using the tools necessary has to happen. This could be Mdann showing they understand what they did wrong; it could be the OTRS coordinators making it clear they'll be watching Mdann's behaviour through censure, it could be anything else in that line. But, at the moment, Mdann is showing no indication they understand the scope of their problem.

I don't think that kicking him out of OTRS is the best solution, if it can be avoided. We want our actions to be preventative, not punitive. But, if we don't have clear indicators Mdann definitely won't do this again, I think we would be foolish to drop this discussion without taking the alternative, less-preferable actions. #Proposal 3, above, was meant to be a face-saving way for OTRS to deal with this privately with Mdann; the response there does not inspire any faith in OTRS's ability to police its own. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the new response at #Proposal 3, this seems to have been dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

General problems with the article

I perused the citations in the current article and from what I can tell very few of the sources cited at present actually make any mention of Generation Rescue. Particularly, this article in the LA Times makes no mention of the group whatsoever, but is used to make very negative implications about the group. Having seen the state prior to the first revert, it was clearly bad, including a bunch of BLP violations and widespread use of self-published blogs. People can call it white-washing, but the vast majority of the material was original research or poorly sourced and much of it still is that way. The article is better as a result of Mdann's actions and, instead of trying to lynch Mdann here, editors should instead focus on finding reliable sources for the article that are actually about the group rather than repeatedly restoring dreck just because it happens to suit their POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Jenny McCarthy, a former Playboy model and actress who has written about raising an autistic son, has appeared twice on "Larry King Live" since September, arguing that vaccines trigger autism."[168] QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . *checks title of article and checks quote* . . . I believe you have the wrong article. We are talking about the article on Generation Rescue, the article you are looking for is thataway.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Today, Generation Rescue is known as a platform for Jenny McCarthy's autism and anti-vaccine advocacy.[5] Generation Rescue is run by Jenny McCarthy. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Generation Rescue and Jenny McCarthy are often properly identified with each other. It's her vehicle. Otherwise this subsection is getting us off track here. Content discussion should happen at the article's talk page. Here we are talking about abuse of OTRS in a COI manner, IOW meatpuppetry for a fringe organization. OTRS volunteers are not supposed to do that. They are not above our policies and guidelines. There were no BLP issues, and nothing that couldn't be handled in the ordinary manner, so there was no justification for shortcircuiting and bypassing normal editing. There was certainly no justification for edit warring. Those are the issues to be discussed here, not any content issues. Those are now being worked out at the article. Stay on topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because McCarthy runs it does not mean every article about McCarthy should be considered an article about Generation Rescue. Such an approach would turn it into a BLP coatrack, which is what it was before Mdann got involved. The person and the group are separate and, for your information, a lot of stuff cited on that page does not even mention McCarthy. As far as this not being about content, it is about content since you are going after the person who removed the content. If the content being removed violates our policies then your argument for malfeasance kind of falls flat.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mdann never made such an argument, and he didn't just remove things that referenced McCarthy - they removed everything that was at all critical, regardless of quality of source. Had they removed poorly cited content - and said that was why they were removing it - that would be quite a different thing to actively rewriting content to misrepresent the mainstream view, or saying that they were working on a draft of the article with the organization in question.

The thing is, were that the reason, and had Mdann mentioned that, people would be able to act to fix the article with better sources. But if the OTRS volunteer simply removes all critical content, doesn't give reasons, and states that no content may be restored because it's an OTRS action, then that justification is insufficient, because it offers no road forwards for people to maintain important policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Even if we accept that was entirely Mdann's rationale, by not explaining themselves, they turned a fixable article that needed resourced and rewritten to an unfixable by OTRS fiat POV mess. The problem is the heavy-handedness; any legitimacy one can find for the changes after the fact is irrelevant, because Mdann never offered any argument in its defense other than "secret OTRS communications of a sensitive nature that I can't tell you" - which offers no way to move forwards on fixing the article.

And that's presuming the best possible view of his actions - which is unjustified. Because Mdann's removals was not, so far as I'm aware, solely limited to things that failed to specifically mention Generation Rescue, it was indiscriminate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The place for discussions of content and sources for the article Generation Rescue is thataway. The subject of this filing is involved editing with claims of no reversion allowed by an OTRS agent acting as a proxy COI editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Those claims hinge on the edits being bad for removing policy-compliant material. Evidence to the contrary is certainly appropriate here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to TDA's obnoxious behavior, I have started this discussion. jps (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No the claim of making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest and asserting that no revision is permissible based on the edit being performed by an OTRS agent has nothing to do with the validity of those edits, the content or sources of the article(s) edited. Once again that discussion is thataway. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am with MrBill3 on this one. Even if the edits were of the highest quality and even if the removed material consisted of 100% unambiguous BLP violations, making edits for someone with a COI and forbidding revision on OTRS grounds would still be unacceptable. We remove BLP violations all of the time, with no need to make our doing so unrevertable. If reverts that restore BLP violations are a problem, a quick note to ANI gets nearly instant results, including blocks, page protection, and revdels, as appropriate. This is an improper solution to a problem that we are well equipped to handle without any unrevertable OTRS editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The person who filed this case talked about the article being whitewashed and that is a major focus of the criticism Mdann has received. If the material is in fact not acceptable per our policies then talk of a whitewash is mistaken. Adding material backed by reliable sources that are actually talking about the subject would resolve the problem. Were the complaint merely about the theoretical implications of OTRS editing then ANI is not the place to handle it. Should a COI editor directly make edits, but those edits just remove material that violates our policies then we generally don't rake them over the coals for it. Why should an editor acting per a request from a conflicted party be any different?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

TDA you seem to be ignoring the fact the same activity occured at Daniel Amen, where content was removed with an ES saying not relevant when the sources specifically named the subject of the article, some repeatedly, some as primary focus. And when reverted there redid edit with summary "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so". Refused to provide policy based explanations on talk when asked directly twice. So again the primary issue is COI proxy editing, asserting authority to suppress reversion and failure to provide policy based rationale to support edits on talk which has occured twice. Secondarily the content removed from Daniel Amen was improperly removed as it was relevant to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that since the focus of the filing party was clearly on the Generation Rescue article, but the edits there also seem appropriate, even if the initial reasoning was not entirely valid (I believe the reasoning was that it applies more to the guy's clinics or the procedure than the guy). It does look like the 2005 APA statement only alludes to Amen by using him as a reference about the practice, while the 2012 statement appears to make no mention or allusion to him at all (both are included in the same PDF file so this may be the reason both are seen as relevant). Seems the other material Mdann tried to remove from the article was gratuitously redundant and was inserted solely to have more negative commentary. There was more than enough criticism of the guy already. Clearly Mdann wasn't whitewashing anything on that article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I smell IDHT. "I hadn't seen that" did you read the filing and check the diffs? The edits at Daniel Amen are clearly a part of the original filing, are you jumping in without actually reading the filing and checking the diffs? Second material removed (diff) was sourced to 1) an article about Amen in The Washington Post Magazine 2) Farah & Gillihan (2012) which discusses Amen and his practice, studies extensively 3) Hall 2005 and 2008 again about the subject 4) The 2005 APA consensus statement as you mentioned explicitly mentions the subject 5) The 2012 APA statement is a follow up to the 2005 statement and addresses the same subject matter. The principle activity of the subject and reason for his notability is the activities of his medical practice and his clinics (of which he is CEO and Medical Director). The main technique discussed in reliable sources (and by Amen himself) used by these clinics is SPECT, the subject has made multiple assertions about his use of SPECT. The presentation of the mainstream medical scientific consensus relating to biomedical information must be predominant and clear in any article, see WP:MEDRS. If Amen asserts SPECT is useful for diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric conditions (which he does and charges a great deal of money for in his practice) then the article must present the current medical knowledge on SPECT for diagnosis and treatment... as clearly and explicitly and in due proportion. Per NPOV the content should represent what is published in reliable sources per due. There had already been extensive discussion on talk about these sources and about the appropriateness of clearly and explicitly presenting the current medical knowledge regarding the technique promoted by Amen and practiced by him and his clinics. The appropriate amount of "criticism of the guy" is proportional per due in RS not in a WP editor's opinion.

You are also conveniently ignoring the ES "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so." It is this type of claim of authority that is at the root of this filing. It is also the failure to present the type of arguments and rationale you are providing here (again the WRONG VENUE) and get consensus support for challenged edits (please take this to the TALK PAGES of the SPECIFIC ARTICLES and work on getting consensus for your opinion there). Here the issues are 1) POV/COI editing with 2) claims of unchallengable editing 3) lack of discussion and consensus 4) general failure to follow PAG based on status as an OTRS agent. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You cannot say the issue is POV editing and then credibly suggest the article's content is not a valid issue here. Did the material Mdann removed comply with our policies? If the answer is yes then it is POV editing. If the answer is no, then it is not POV editing. Here I am saying the answer is no the material Mdann removed did not comply with our policies. For the record, the Amen article still had plenty of criticism of him and his methods and noted the position of mainstream science. The article complied with WP:FRINGE in both versions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to raise the questions you have about the edits on the talk page of the article (after reading the talk archives) I think you will find there is strong consensus against the position you are taking and that is based on substantial discussion, policy based rationale and sources. Your contention that the material removed "did not comply with our policies" is not supported by the consensus interpretation of policy ON THE TALK PAGE of the article (and the archives). The removal of sourced material with consensus support does not comply with our policies. The repeat of such removal without providing policy based rationale on talk and gaining consensus is a clear violation of policy. The assertion of authority to ban reverts of one's edits based on being an OTRS team member is highly problematic and seems a clear violation of English WP policy and OTRS policy. So far an aknowledgement of this from Mdann or OTRS admin is lacking. Editing based on the requests of a party with a conflict of interest (the definition of proxy) without following the COI guidelines does not comply with our policies. Per COI "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." (emphasis in original). Thus clearly an edit made on the behalf of a party with COI that has been reverted should be discussed on talk. NOT repeated with a bogus revert ban. As the edit was removal of content that had been extensively discussed and was supported by consensus the edits and assertions of needing to be "cleared" to restore the content were gross violations of policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to what MrBill3 actually wrote. He wrote "making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest". That is not the same thing as "POV editing". The issue -- the specific issue that I am concerned about -- is the combination of making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest and claiming that the edits cannot be reverted because of OTRS. You keep claiming that the specific issue that I am concerned about is something else. That's wrong. You could argue that it 'should be' something else, but the fact remains that I am well aware of what concerns me, I have clearly explained what concerns me twice now, and what concerns me has nothing to do with the quality of the edit. Please stop trying to make this about POV editing. The edits were wrong even if NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Long story short is, the article after the changes was a major violation of our NPOV policy. Before, it at worse needed some - not all - of the sources improved. Sources needing improved is a case for tagging, not for massive deletion of content, creating a POV mess and lockdown. Mdann unambiguously violated WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in their edits. Further, Mdann did not raise any policy when asked to defend their edits, just cited secret OTRS communication. Had they given reasons for their edits, and cited policy, we wouldn't be having this argument, we'd be fixing the article to respond to Mdann's concerns. It does not add a single jot to Mdann's case to come up with possible justifications for a part of their edits, particularly as, even if we accept the edits were justified - and I'm not saying they are, but even if we did, BLP does not apply to corporations, so Mdann had no right to lock the article down. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The article before the changes was a major violation of our NPOV policy. At least after the changes it generally comported with our V and BLP policies. With all the time you guys have spent trying to lynch someone over the matter, you could have easily found some actual reliable sources that actually discuss the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand WP:NPOV - NPOV is not presenting the subject in a positive light. When the subject expresses fringe beliefs, and we report on them, we are required by WP:FRINGE - part of the NPOV policy - to put those fringe beliefs in context. It's not worth discussing this with you further if you don't understand the policies being discussed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say the article was NPOV-compliant after Mdann's edits, only that neither version was compliant with NPOV, but Mdann's version was compliant with V and BLP. That is on the people who were not providing policy-compliant material for criticism of Generation Rescue, not Mdann.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are literally the only person seeing BLP issues. You do realise corporations aren't people, right? Further, Mdann added inaccuracies, such as his misrepresentation of the scientific consensus, so Verifiability is shot as well. Your argument holds no water. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You should look more carefully at the article prior to Mdann's edits because there are plenty of BLP violations and I am not talking about material concerning the group itself. As far as the scientific consensus part, I am not seeing where the statement is backed by the source at all so it was a verifiability issue before and after Mdann's changes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I couldn't disagree with you more. I am personally no supporter of non-standard science, and certainly I regard their view of this controversy as bothvery unlikely, and dangerous; but that does not change the need for a proper article. This was a proper attempt to remove disproportionate coverage. This article is about the Association. It's enough to indicate that they support a non-stanfard view of the subject. Discussion of why their virw is not standard is extensively covered elsewhere in WP--extensively, and appropriately, on the basis of the scientific evidence, just as it ought to be.The view is not unique to them--the explanation of their view in detail or its refutation is no more needed here than an explanation of why the evidence for flying saucers is insufficient at the article on a SF fan club. Repeating it here is unnecessary, inappropriate, and confusing. If this was a group supporting the scientific consensus of the matter, it would be equally wrong to explain the consensus in detail--every bit as wrong as to explain the basis of climate change in an article either on either climate change denialists or eon environmental activists. In an article on manufacturer of widgets, when they attempt, as they often do, to explain the great social utility of widgets in general, we remove it as promotionalism.

As for the OTRS aspect, I have deliberately not see the oTRS correspondence, tho I am an OTRS agent, because it doesn't matter. The material does not belong here. I agree it is inappropriate just to give OTRS as a reason, but one of the proper uses of OTRS is people complaining about this sort of prejudicial content, to get proper attention on it, and to overcome the bias of people who because they how they are right, and in fact are right, need to spread the truth everywhere regardless of encyclopedic balance. OTRS is, among other things, our key defense against promotionalism. I use it to explain to companies, more personally than I could do here, just why their edits are improper, and to tell them how to reach a solution in keeping with WP. When necessary, after telling them what would both address the interests of truth and balance, I often make the edits directly. I have as much right as an OTRS agent to make a edit on behalf of a COI user as anyone else does. But though I will mention I', editing in response to an OTRS request, they have the right to have their privacy preserved as much as any other user does--I act as the intermediate for the purpose, just as I would act if I were verifying a copyright donation.

OTRS is one of the things that work best in WP. I delayed being active there for many years, because I could see I see I was not needed,and have only become more active to handle the incoming flood of promotionalism. It does have the same problem as the rest of WP, that there are a considerable number of people all acting independently, and , just like admins, reluctant to interfere with each other to avoid causing chaos. This does give the need for some degree of oversight. It is presentthere informally, for we can see each others' work. But it is always unwise to leave things at that without some formal review--just as we have Deletion Review for administrative speedys. We have it in a sense for OTRS edits, because they are made openly in the face of the community. But we do need a formal mechanism for ensuring accuracy and consistency of operation at OTRS--I understand that some steps are being taken in this direction. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

He actively changed statements of the scientific consensus to "some doctors", DGG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The changed to "most", still not a good expression of the breadth and depth of the scientific/medical/academic/official consensus general watering down and changes that remove positions clearly held and publicized in the past. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

He changed it to "some" as Adam said ("its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community" [169]), a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Deleting over emphatic criticism is one thing. Misrepresenting the mainstream view is something else. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll crosspost what I put on the Fringe Noticeboard, because, on reflection, I should have said it here: Perception is all, and when an editor breezes into a contentious article and makes changes with basically the rationale "secret squirrel - I know stuff you don't - don't alter my important action without 'clearing' it with me", then it gets folks backs up. From that point things are never going to go well. I'm sure, DGG, had you handled this, it would have gone very differently - even if there was not universal agreement for your actions. Regular editors need to see the rationale behind these actions, and there should have been no problem being transparent here. Nothing I can see required the "I can't tell you why I'm doing this" approach. That will result, rightly or wrongly, in a fear that COI edits are being made by proxy without proper process or consensus, via a "back-door". I'm encouraged by your comments about training. Notwithstanding any of that, I can fully understand why folks here want to see some acknowledgement of the errors in approach at least, to be reassured that these concerns are understood and addressed. Begoon ^talk 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is Mdann's edit summary in the editor's first edit on the Generation Rescue article: "rm some poorly cited material, some uncited material, and other non neutral stuff. See also - Ticket:2014091810016149". No talk of being a secret squirrel. That only came after people kept reverting Mdann's actions. Reasons were given and they were fairly good reasons as I have been attempting to explain.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

TDA still flogging the content aspect in the wrong venue? That only serves the same purpose as any straw man argument, which is to divert attention from the real issue here, which is a misuse of OTRS. Nothing needed to be done which could not have been done by following normal collaborative editing procedures, including any possible BLP issues. Even Mdann52 later realized that and backed off.

TDA, your harping on this issue here is quite tendentious and disruptive. You are wasting our time. Stop it. Mdann52 could have been a million percent right and the manner he did it was still wrong. It's the "wrong manner" part we're discussing here. Are you really incapable of understanding that? If so, then you shouldn't be commenting in areas where you lack competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was brought to this page under the header "Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official 'OTRS action' that must not be reverted 'without permission'" and the comments by the filer make it clear that the edits themselves are in large part the reason for the complaint, not the OTRS action in isolation. There is no objective way to view the nature of the content as off-topic when the discussion started off as a complaint about the content changes being made. The allegation of misuse is clearly predicated on the content changes being inappropriate on their own. If your objection is strictly to the idea of someone saying an OTRS action should not be reverted without being discussed privately, or how OTRS requests are handled generally, then this is the wrong venue for your complaint. You need to take that up at another page that concerns procedural policy on this matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule that says we have to pay any attention to what the person filing the report thinks the issue is. It often happens on ANI that the original complaint is dismissed out of hand and everyone focuses on another issue that came up during the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, the two issues are inseparable. The idea that there was malfeasance is based on the edits being inappropriate. An OTRS editor was informed of problems with an article. Said editor found problems with the article and sought to address them. Honestly, it does not seem there was sufficient consideration for the state of the article prior to Mdann's edits until I raised the issue here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you are the only person here who finds the two issues to be inseparable, and I completely reject your notion that "the idea that there was malfeasance is based on the edits being inappropriate". That statement is simply not true. You have restated your opinion on this again and again and as far as I can tell have convinced nobody, It is time to drop the stick. (I would have said "concern", BTW; I am not ready to accuse anyone of malfeasance.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Were the material being removed considered completely inappropriate by everyone involved, we would not be here at all. Period. Full stop. No one is going to complain at ANI about an OTRS edit if they believe it was removing material that did not comply with our policies. It certainly would not gain as much traction at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I think this issue has been hashed out pretty well. I'd like to see the stick dropped in regards to Mdann. IMO a statement by OTRS administration that, except in clear cases of BLP or privacy issues, edits by OTRS editors:

1) Must follow English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including COI, and should be argued for with policy based rationale on talk when challenged

2) Have NO exemption from reversion or discussion on talk and assertions of such are not appropriate

would be a step in the right direction. (As a point of fact BLP and privacy issues have substantial means of address within existing WP PAG.) An acknowledgement of the same by the editor involved would also be useful.

The issue that remains somewhat unclear is the application of COI when an OTRS editor is acting based on input from an unseen email. Does off wiki communication with a party that is not editing WP themselves create an instance of COI editing by proxy and require disclosure when making edits based on/inspired by that communication? I understand that an OTRS agent made aware of problems with an article can make an assessment (how independent? how thorough?) of the article and edit the article to improve it. When driven by off wiki secret correspondence this becomes fuzzy.

A clear and specific acknowledgement of the problems with the actions on the two articles in the filing might allow this discussion to move towards addressing the remaining clarification I think is needed. I am hoping both English WP admins and OTRS admins can propose a way forward that allows OTRS agents to act efficiently while ensuring adherence to English WP PAG. While the above discussion has delved far into discussing the merits of edits, some clarification of how OTRS agents should proceed and how edits should be done and argued for might be useful. I invite other editors to raise concerns I do not address.

Per WP:Volunteer Response Team, "Most requests relating to usual editorial matters are referred to normal on-wiki processes." Shouldn't normal on-wiki processes absolutely involve argument in support of challenged edits on talk? No criteria is given for what requests are handled by other than normal on-wiki processes, let's assume privacy, BLP and defamation are. What else? Why not be clear and explicit? On the same page @ Dispute resolution, "The volunteer team strongly recommends that you contact the editor responsible prior to reverting." Shouldn't this section first make clear that OTRS agent edits are subject to WP PAG and the normal dispute resolution process, particularly including discussion on the talk page of the article? Shouldn't it make clear that OTRS agent edits should stand on their merits? Regarding, "the agent may be in possession of confidential information that should not be published on a public site such as Wikipedia." while such information should be held in confidence what bearing does that have on edits made on WP? Except for an internal OTRS issue that the anonymity of the OTRS correspondent should be maintained, shouldn't COI be disclosed per policy? Shouldn't edits be worked out in accordance with PAG? Even for fairly basic editing where is the problem with requiring OTRS agents to disclose an edit has been made at the suggestion of a party with a COI?

If issues with NPOV and or DUE seem apparent to an OTRS agent shouldn't a discussion on talk be started at the time of the edit, particularly if based on input from a party with a COI? Even for basic generally non controversial edits a posting on talk doesn't seem like an onerous burden on an OTRS agent performing an edit. I think acknowledgement of and strict adherence to PAG, and transparency would go far to help the community maintain good faith and work collaboratively with OTRS agents. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3, I don't think we've met. Thanks for your contributions, and for your interest in this subject.  :-) I'm a little confused though - I thought that Rjd0060 had already (a couple of times) met the request that you make at the top for those statements. If there's something else you think needs to be done, I'm afraid I'm being a little too dense to figure out what it is. Do you think another statement is necessary? If so, where and to whom, and why aren't the ones that he's just made (in his role as an OTRS admin) enough?

I truly do want to make sure that legitimate concerns are addressed here, but I also want to be sure that we're not focusing our energy on a problem that's already on the way to solution. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Philippe Beaudette, I also think we have not met. The pleasure is mine. First if the other editors involved in this discussion feel it has been adequately addressed, I am willing to "drop the stick". Of concern to me are a number of issues 1) The differentiation between Rjd0060's statements speaking only for themself and those as an OTRS admin is not entirely clear. 2) I don't see in this discussion or especially on Volunteer Response Team (VRT) clear and adequate explanation that OTRS team member edits are subject to and must follow PAG. 3) That the dispute resolution section of the same does not explicitly state that talk page discussion and existing WP PAG are primary and acceptable for disputing OTRS team member edits. 4) Of particular importance, an explicit statement that OTRS team member assertions of revert ban authority were in this case and others not OTRS or WP policy. 5) A clear statement that edits driven/inspired by confidential input from a party with COI are COI edits and should be declared as such.

I think an additional statement from an OTRS admin (here) that addresses all five points explaining OTRS policy would provide needed clarity. I also think a revision to VRT that reflects the policy clearly is needed. A statement from an English WP admin that addresses these points with an explanation of policy would also be useful. As above I am willing to yield to a consensus of concerned editors. Also in the interest of not unnecessarily expending energy on a resolved problem, I think problems that arise may be dealt with when they occur. I would point out a problem "on the way to solution" is one that has not reached a solution.

I thank you and the editors above for their contributions to the project and their efforts in addressing this/these issues. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia—there are no cast-iron undertakings about anything. The situation is that an OTRS volunteer made a mistake by overstating their position. It's not the end of the encyclopedia—we will survive. OTRS volunteers (who almost always do wonderful and highly appreciated work) have obviously got the message, and no further time needs to be spent debating the constitution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not good enough. There are too many uncertainties. Yes, one OTRS volunteer clearly acted inappropriately, although they don't seem to yet completely understand what they did wrong, and that's a problem. Part of why they don't understand might lay in the fact that there isn't an explicit enough statement that Wikipedia PAG are the ultimate authority, not some secret communications involving OR information and COI-inspired pressure to tweak existing content away from NPOV. (Clearly BLP and privacy issues can already be dealt with under existing PAG. There is no need to wave "OTRS" as a type of privilege which trumps PAG.)

We need to read "in print" (not declarations that "we understand") that OTRS is not a shadow government capable of ignoring PAG. It needs to be written clearly that OTRS cannot use secret information and OR as justifications to ignore RS and allow COI individuals to steer content away from NPOV. Those are not acceptable options or alternatives to normal PAG.

Much as many COI individuals/organizations might like to think, OTRS should not be used as a method for circumventing, short circuiting, or getting around PAG, but is only a means of jump starting the process of dealing with problems, and that "dealing" with them will happen in the normal manner (collaborative editing), with openness and discussion. Until we can actually SEE this in writing, there will be distrust. The current debacle would never have happened if such declarations had been clearly written, with no room for misunderstanding.

I can see no scenario where there would be any exception to using normal collaborative editing procedures, including dealing with BLP issues. Can you name even one? If you can, then it needs to be included in existing PAG. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

With my OTRS admin hat on, I made the edit you are looking for. Long of the short, I removed the "per OTRS" as a reason in the dispute resolution page to make an edit. That's not acceptable and agents are not trained to think so, as RjD0060, Fluffernutter, DGG, Jayron32 and others have noted. The notion of "per OTRS" being acceptable went away around 2010 and now it's actually gone from policy. I'd like to thank those for bringing up that the process pages were not up-to-date as far as OTRS standards go and I appreciate this opportunity to read the community discussing this. The OTRS agent community is moving forward in being as transparent and community-oriented as possible in light of what is handled and there are some relics of old processes that still remain in some places, such as this case. If you're interested in watching/listening to a (brief) overview of the most common emails OTRS receives and how we handle them, you can watch my half hour Wikimania presentation from London on YouTube. Keegan (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see the need to push back against the idea that an elite editing crew have special powers to dictate what occurs in articles, but are there other known cases of a problem? I quickly scanned the archives of WP:OTRS/N since January 2013 and did not notice any issues raised (WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution says to raise issues there if unsatisfied with other discussions). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There was this edit last year when Deepak Chopra contacted OTRS and got the volunteer to make some decidedly non-neutral edits on his behalf. Again, note the ES says not to revert without contacting the agent (which I ignored, leading to this discussion on Talk). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 asked me to comment--so, to expand a little on what I said yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team:

I don't think we are finished until the policy statements at WP:Volunteer Response Team and elsewhere have been revised. Even if they were intended properly, they make much greater g=claims of privileged editing than supported by the fundamental policy of the nature of WP as a user-contributed encyclopedia. Several issues have been confused:

(1) The actual quality of the edits that gave rise to this discussion. In general , I support the edits. They did mostly serve to remove a rather blatant bias. Whether they went to far in the opposite direction is for the article talk page.

(2) The attempt to use OTRS authority in making the edits. This was totally unnecessary and inappropriate. They used no confidential information. There was nothing there that could not and should not have been openly addressed. If agreement could not be reached on the article talk page, then the further ordinary on-wiki steps were available.

(3) As an OTRS agent, I've seen the communication there that gave rise to the edit. It is a COI communication from a paid public relations agent, and, as is often the case even with justified complaints, claims altogether too much, and should not have been taken at face value. To do so implies a non-critical approach and an unawareness of the actual situation. The job of OTRS is to filter and mediate complaints, not necessarily to resolve them. Sometimes a necessary edit is so obvious it can be made without prior negotiation. This was not one such an instance.

(4) In a situation like this, I consider it to have been poor practice within the existing parameters of OTRS to proceed immediately from such a complaint to make an edit--the better course would first to have discussed the problem with the complainant, to clarify what would and would not be possible within WP editing policy. After that, in a case such as this , the ORTS agent would have had the choice between making what they consider the appropriate edit, while saying they were doing it on the basis of an outside request (we must indicate when we edit on behalf of another) but not claiming any special authority other than that of trying to assist a situation, or of referring the complainant to the article talk page for discussion, or of posting appropriate portions or paraphrases of the hopefully revised complaint there themselves, explaining what they were doing. The OTRS agent was illegitimately attempting to bypass normal editing is correct--even if the edits were desirable.

(5) This situation was not unique: other OTRS agents have done similarly. They should not be doing it in such situations. They have in disputed situations like this no special powers whatsoever, and an attempt to claim it is an attempt to claim super-editor, a privilege that does not exist in WP. (There is a privilege to suppress material or to block vested in every administrator but subject to the review of every other administrator and discussion on-wiki, and in some cases supervision by arbcom; and the right of WP:LEGAL or the oversight team to make a suppression or a block that cannot be reversed by an admin or ANI in the usual way, but which there is an existing review mechanism).

(6) The unique ability of an OTRS agent is the access to private information. Nothing further.

(7) Problems from this will continue to arise. The OTRS policy pages must be revised to indicate that all changes other than those that are specifically stated to be based on private information are subject entirely to the normal editorial processes. Complaints about OTRS agents overstepping their authority or making errors should probably normally be handled within OTRS by an appropriate procedure , but there remains a right of anyone to deal with them directly on-wiki as for any other actions or any other editor. The current special dispute resolution procedure is only indicated for ones that are specifically stated to be based on confidential but verified communications,and it must be so indicated.

(8) Assurances that this is all being dealt will be justified when they have been dealt with. The responsibility for training and supervising OTRS is the joint responsibility of the Foundation and the community. The Foundation does have the responsibility to grant or withhold OTRS access, as for everything requiring access to identifying information; I assume that they would not refuse an on-wiki request that such access be removed, but the community does retain the power to block anyone. Legitimate power in a complex organization is based on a systems of balancing and overlapping authority.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a very wise analysis. Thanks! To resolve this situation, we need to come up with some wording and specific revisions. Let's start working on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having followed this discussion since its inception, I fully concur with DGG's analysis of what needs to be done, especially re the clear mis-use of "confidentiality" claims to stifle discussion, when no confidentiality is involved as was the case here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should also make it clear that OTRS agents are not editors on the same level as functionaries, checkusers, Arbcom, or WMF staff making legal action edits. Finally, this issue is a lot more prevalent than people think. This was a particularly egregious example which finally prompted a "full and frank" discussion. However, when most editors (including me), see OTRS edit summaries like the ones used here pop up on their watchlist, they simply "obey" even if they don't agree with the edit, or often don't even bother to check the edit itself. That is why so few show up at dispute resolution, and why from now on I'm going to carefully check each and every OTRS flagged edit that shows up on my watchlist. Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, I'd also like to thank DGG for answering questions on this issue at multiple locations, and for this extraordinarily thorough analysis. Hopefully things will indeed move forward both in terms of how OTRS agents understand and approach these matters, and how the community scrutinises and reacts to them. As Voceditenore says above, often it takes a particularly glaring example for an underlying issue to be exposed. We now have the power to move towards a situation where this problem is eliminated. Begoon ^talk 07:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Delimitations

We need a section with two subsections which clearly describe the delimitations of the OTRS system. There should be two lists (not prose):

A. What OTRS volunteers can do for you

1. If you don't understand the editing process and need help, they can give you pointers.
2. They will attempt to address any privacy concerns you may have.
3. If you feel that you or your organization have been libeled, they will see if anything needs to be done and can be done. They will follow the normal manner of dealing with information covered by our Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.
4. They will ask you to provide any reliable sources which can be used to back up and justify any changes. Your word alone is what we call "original research" and cannot be used to justify changing any content.
5. They will advise you about not making legal threats or personal attacks, and that getting too aggressive, whether here at Wikipedia or in the real world, can create a Streisand effect. Tread lightly and be patient.
6. More suggestions.....

B. What OTRS volunteers will not do for you

1. Volunteers have no more rights than any other Wikipedia editor, so they cannot be used to strong arm other editors. They cannot force other editors to do anything, and they will discuss the matter with other editors. This is a process of give and take, and patience is required.
2. The OTRS system is not a means to circumvent normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Volunteers will use the normal collaborative editing processes while dealing with your request.
3. Volunteers will not violate any policies for you.
4. You may have a conflict of interest (COI), and thus your concerns will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone else who has a COI. Volunteers will not automatically take your side, and they will never force your preferred version or content into an article, nor will they delete negative content which is properly sourced.
5. More suggestions.....

That section (possibly as a template) should be placed on at least these two places:

• Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team
• OTRS

Please feel free to suggest other points and alternate wordings. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this. I do wonder, though, if this is the best place any more, or it's now time to move from this board to an OTRS specific location, or a "Pump", in which case the discussion should be an RFC, widely advertised - with maybe a watchlist notification, even, since it is potentially of wide community interest. Begoon ^talk 17:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Right now, more people are watching here and there has been wider input, but making it an RfC would be good. The OTS talk pages seem to get defensive responses (and edit summaries which want to shut down the discussion!) from the few people who are active there, so we need very wide responses from the whole community. So far we've been getting responses here by people who understand the problems and controversy related to this latest incident. We need to keep that history in focus wherever the RfC is held. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a thing for WP:VPP then. This discussion and the one at the Fringe Noticeboard should be linked and included. It can always be brought back here if that fails. Just seems like the best way forward right now. Begoon ^talk 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did this: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#OTRS. Hopefully it can progress from there. Begoon ^talk 00:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And I made some small changes in wording, and added several additional points. I think we should continue there, not here. If we're going to work on devising a text, it has to be at a single place. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

But then he took it over the top by starting a new thread about me on the article talk page.[170]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic discussion ends here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic discussion ends here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the matter at hand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue still ongoing

For the record, this issue continues in the absence of any admin action. I recently came to the article, this is what the user under discussion directed at me [171]. 100% personal attack without even the intention to discuss anything related to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

A Suggestion to Wrap This Up for Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

comments about !voters at an AfD

There is an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com

There are far too many editors there to consider notifying them all separately, so the notification will be made at that AfD.

A number of !voters (7) have notes attached that they were canvassed for their !votes. Some of them are long-time Wikipedians. Is the use of such an accusation on a broad scale proper in an AfD where no such issue has been raised at any other noticeboard? I consider the canvassing issue to be serious, but serious issues warrant more than notes attached to !votes, and if the canvassing was not in violation of any policies, then ought the accusation be bandied in a place where most folks would never respond to it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• As someone who only made a comment there, I would be very interested in knowing exactly which editors your accusation is aimed at? I couldn't find the notes you refer to. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

VMS Mosaic, run a search on the AFD for the phrase An editor has expressed a concern. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Those notes are not "notes attached that they were canvassed for their !votes" [emphasis added]. They are templates added by a different editor suggesting (without evidence) that those editors' were canvassed. Sheesh. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A look at the recent history of Thefederalist.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) definitely reveals some bad behavior by editors who should know better. Kelly ^hi! 13:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

…which happens to include the OP…

On an unrelated note, isn't there a template that warns an editor that they have been canvassing other editors? Can't we warn these editors who have canvassed? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is supposed to have done the canvassing. Kelly ^hi! 14:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The "canvassing" was done by multiple sites discussing the deletion discussion as stories, and linking to the page . As far as I can tell those sites writers are not wikipedians, and would not be aware of, or subject to our policies. Now, we may need to take into account the influx of editors when evaluating the consensus, but tagging everyone and accusing them of meatpuppetry is probably not helpful to the discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/26/wikipedia-is-now-trying-to-eliminate-the-federalists-online-entry/
• http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/the-federalist-targeted-for-wikipedia-deletion-after-criticizing-neil-degrasse-tyson/
• http://washingtonexaminer.com/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-acclaimed-conservative-site-the-federalist/article/2554032

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Federalist_-_AfD--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Canvassed template calls out a particular editor for possibly having been canvassed, without naming the accuser or supplying any evidence. I've never tried to put a template up for deletion, and at the moment I don't have time to learn how, but from reading the AfD it seems like this template is doing more harm than good. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen this template before, and I thoroughly agree with your statement. It's one thing to say "this has been advertised on another website" and place the {{notavote}} template, but it's completely different to say "this person was canvassed off-wiki", since that's pretty much impossible to prove. If someone got canvassed on-wiki, we can mention that with normal text; no need for the template, since that's more likely to be misused (as here) than used properly for on-wiki canvassing. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noting the actual problem - that of unnamed accusers labelling legitimate Wikipedia editors using an anonymous template which could harm those accused of being canvassed. Collect (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I did somewhat misunderstand your intent in coming here, so my first comment missed your point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• That entire AFD nomination is silly and appears to be an attempt by a handful of editors to engage Wikipedia in a battle with a political website. The whole discussion damages the credibility of the project, though I'm sure Wikipedia will survive just fine. I saw Jimbo discussing this endlessly on Twitter last night. Kelly ^hi! 10:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Nothing to be done at this point. Is the website notable? Who knows. Being "mentioned in several articles" is not very promising sounding. But bringing the site's article to AfD in the wake of Tysonmisrememberedquotegate was a dumb idea. It seems unlikely a consensus can properly be derived from this AFD, but closing early as "no consensus" will raise even more howls; let it run the seven days and those who want to war over it there, canvassing or not, can do so. There's no easy fix.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• We've even got one administrator removing comments left by another administrator on the AFD. Kelly ^hi! 14:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re notification: Cwobeel was the editor who added the canvassed tags. I was the editor who originally raised suspicions of canvassing or meatpuppetry. Neither of us were notified of this ANI. I just discovered it now. And FWIW, once Gaijin42 graciously pointed me to an explanation for the suspicious activities I dropped the accusations. (And I just struck my accusations to make clear where I stand on this.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It would have been nice manners to have been notified of this discussion. Outside canvassing has occurred, with many commenters at the AFD coming out of the woodwork, making their first edit after months (and even years) of no activity in the project, so I marked these as such after checking their contrib list [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. Many others were SPAs, marked also as such. Was I wrong in adding these templates to their comments? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Goldarab and scabrous attacks/threats aimed at me, not (I believe) technically rising to the point of potential libel/defamation

Resolved

 – Users blocked indefinitely

• User:Goldarab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Goldarab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Goldarab removed a person from a list of alumni of a college because that person has been convicted of crimes, and he didn't want the college associated with that person (although some folks suspect she was the victim of a frame-up). I restored her and found a source. He removed her again; I reverted and gave him a non-templated warning about vandalism and NPOV editing. He has since placed a scabrous personal attack on me, with threats of outing, on that talk page; and reverted a series of edits I'd made to other articles, as well as once again removing the cited reference to the alumna.

I have removed the attacks, given him a level-2 template vandalism warning, and am now asking that some non-involved editors look at his recent reverts of my edits, as well as his attacks and threats of outing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw Goldarab repeating the unexplained removals of sourced material by IP addresses by reverting Orangemike's reinstatement of the material. There's nothing obviously wrong with the material that I can see, and without any explanation the blanking of content does not seem appropriate. I have reverted back to the version of each article as Orangemike left them. Hope that helps. Neatsfoot (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Herbyplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a brand new user and is repeating the edits. WTucker (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Herbyplanet is blocked as well. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac

Loganmac (talk · contribs) is one of several accounts of a decent age who has since become solely a single purpose account to attempt to skew the Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article into one in the favor of the "gamergate" crowd. In his most recent actions, he has decided to screencap a thread on the article's talk page and then post about it to his Twitter and on Reddit in an attempt to discredit the thread's author and Wikipedia's ability to cover the subject of the article. Bosstopher, the author of the thread, requested that Loganmac post corrections regarding his opinion which Loganmac has misinterpreted and Loganmac has refused basically citing first amendment rights. It is clear that Loganmac is no longer here to write an encyclopedia but further an off-site conflict, as the last substantial edit he made that was unrelated to this dispute was in 2011. If anyone is to be able to write a neutrally written article on this subject, it has to be without these wannabe Upton Sinclairs in the mix souring the collegiate atmosphere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• "We cannot punish editors for off-wiki activities" is something I hear fairly regularly. Be that as it may, having this user, essentially an SPA, participate in the GamerGate matter is of no use, and I agree: NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note does this mean there's no rule against me going onto the reddit thread/twitter and explaining how I'm being misrepresented? Bosstopher (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. It's probably not a good idea, but there's no rule against it. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Why would it be a bad idea? Bosstopher (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Well now Ryulong has told me "learn to fucking read" on twitter https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516651395512950785. It's twitter, he can tell me whatever he wants, I really don't care. The screencap was my own free opinion on an unrelated site. I really don't get why he got so angry about me tweeting that. And I'm not a single purpose account, I'm most active in the Spanish wikipedia, and I had another account in the 3 years "abscence" on the English wiki of which I've forgotten my password, since this account is linked to my email I looked up the password in my email. Remember that we're not accountable to what we do outside Wikipedia, just as noone was held accountable for doxxing Titanium Dragon and a trans minor editor on Wikipediocracy. Also Ryulong should know I didn't cite "first amendment rights", since I'm not from the US, which for some reason he thought I was by default Loganmac (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Whilst he could have phrased it more politely, Ryulong is indeed correct about your inability to parse a section of text. No-one there is trying to "get rid" of Kain as a source, they're saying he's over-represented in the article, which given the number of times he's referenced is a pretty reasonable point. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well clearly you couldn't read what Bosstopher had to say, Loganmac. And this is the second time I've heard someone say "I have an account on another project where I'm more active" in this debate. What account do you use there because I'm sure you can be allowed to rename your local account to match that one so they're linked. And this is entirely unrelated to whatever the fuck Titanium Dragon did. Your presence on this website is now disruptive, now that you've decided to take your concerns of it to other websites rather than attempting to discuss it here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Because nothing productive will come of descending into their gutter. Conspiratorial minded folks just aren't going to listen to your reasonable explanations. It's hard to leave bulllshit charges unanswered, but you won't be correcting the record there, you will just open yourself up for more abuse. Trust me, people have been making shit up about me for years on JFK assassination websites because of my work here, and once you get past the annoyance, you will find it all completely meaningless. You can and should, however, confront Loganmac here for his inappropriate actions. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So what you're essentially saying here is "I don't like this guy's constant reiteration of his opinion, so I'll just shut him up 'cuz he hurt muh feels off wiki". M'kay. Censorship in a nutshell. 72.78.145.144 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Reddit so don't throw your comments in ahead of other people's. And no. Loganmac has been disrupting the project by bringing an off-site conflict onto the site and is harassing people by doing things offsite. This isn't censorship either. This is banning someone for being a drain on the community's resources because they are solely here to stir up shit, which is the exact same reason bans of this nature are being meted out at 4chan, Reddit, and other areas. This isn't a first amendment right. The world at large has the privilege of being allowed to edit Wikipedia and in this case, Loganmac has abused that privilege by harassing people through off-site channels.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How have I've been disrupting it? When the article wasn't blocked I didn't erase all mentions of misogyny and harassment since you're right the press has made it the focal point. I tried helping reword the leading when the article was just getting started. Also, again with the first amendment, I'm not from the US, I don't have any idea what it covers nor do I care. And I didn't harass anyone. I presented a screencap and that's it, why do you put forward that reddit link? How do you know it's me? That for me seems more like your definition of harassment Loganmac (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't have to present the screencap in the first place in the places where there's guaranteed replies. And because the Reddit link contains the same screencap from the Twitter account and it was posted by a "Logan Mac".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I, I'm not allowed to critisize Wikipedia outside wikipedia? Also I wonder how did you come to find that reddit post, did you google my username?Loganmac (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I found your reddit post and twitter post, because I am an avid reader of both the #GamerGate hashtag and [to a lesser extent] KotakuinAction. My grievance is not that you are criticizing Wikipedia outside Wikipedia, it is that your posts are lies, you know your posts are lies, but you still wont apologize or issue an amendment. As it stands I'm not sure this warrants a ban, but you've made a factual error and need to correct it. Don't be such a fuddy duddy. Bosstopher (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong, you should not stoop to the level of Logan and pursue disputes outside of Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  But is pursuing a Wikipedia dispute off of Wikipedia making 3 left turns to turn right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  I just spent about 5 minutes puzzling over the meaning of this comment -- I'm pretty sure this is a snarky way to say that "two wrongs make a right". A trout for both Ryulong and Logan, and let's end this petty back-and-forth. Shii (tock) 01:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  All I've done is make one comment to him on Twitter and say he should be censured for having the gall to take an off-wiki dispute, bring it on wiki, and then take part of the dispute that happens on wiki back off-wiki again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Logan should apologize to Bosstopher for misrepresenting that editor's comments, which were rather even-handed towards Kain, but beyond that I feel this is premature. We are not talking about an SPA because Logan has contributed to other articles well before getting involved in this article. He has actually not made many edits to the articles and said edits are not particularly objectionable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps not in the strictest technical sense a single-purpose account, but that's quite a gap in the editing history, from Feb2011-Sept2014, suddenly showing up again to dive into gamergate. This account is singularly focused on GG right now. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are so many inactive accounts that have come back to Wikipedia for the express purpose of diving head first into the Gamergate debate because the semi-protection ensures that no newly made accounts can do shit. There's a user who had a 6 year old account with 1 edit on it, made 9 more edits two weeks ago, and then began heavily editing the article. There are way too many people who have these kinds of accounts and have begun editing after years of inactivity just to make sure that their side of the debate is covered on the page, which means they want to throw out any source that they believe has some vague bias against them and only institute sources that are heavily biased in their favor, because to them that's a neutral press.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That shows an amazing amount of patience. Has there ever been discussion of automatically disabling registered accounts that have been inactive for, say, a year or more? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's really patience as much as it is "Oh look I already registered here, better use it to my advantage to further this external dispute." And I don't think anything has really been said. I think I've only seen talk of it for admins who've up and vanished.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowing that they still allow IP's to edit, this is probably futile... but what would be the process to initiate and/or revive such a discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why would anyone would bring up the single-purpose account essay as a reason why someone should be banned. Is there anything in the links that Ryulong has reported of Loganmac conduct that contravenes policy? Diego (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Being a single purpose account is often a symptom of other problematic behaviors that are not desired on Wikipedia. Such as not being here to build an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you should treat the disease, not the symptoms. If the only "crime" is being a single-purpose account, this is not against the rules and therefore should not be the basis of a request to block a fellow editor (and certainly not merely because of content disagreements). WP:ANYONE is allowed to edit here, even if we don't like you. Diego (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet there is a limit to how much we allow such behavior to continue all of the time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please close

Unless you have specific rule violations that Logan haa been committing, there doesn't appear to be a case to ban him. SPA or NOTHERE aren't a basis to vote to ban someone from the wiki, just because you disagree with their opinions. We have to assume good faith. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, NOTHERE is a reason people are banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A non-policy information page based on subjective judgement of someone else's behavior? No, the reasons for banning someone are in the policies linked from there. Breaching WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, WP:DISRUPTIVE, Wikipedia:BATTLE, Wikipedia:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:DR an the other policies mentioned there are the basis why people are banned, not a mere perception that they're "NOTHERE"; you'd need to show that Loganmac has irredeemably acted against several of those and convince others that it's bad enough to merit the capital punishment. You've breached some of those yourself, so you shouldn't bee too eager to have others banned - your own behavior has been put under scrutiny as well. Diego (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE ahs been breached considering he's only been contributing to a single article and using off-site means to pursue support for his cause on site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Robin Williams

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

---

I intentionally have a low edit count on this noticeboard. I'm here today because of the ongoing incivility over at Talk:Robin Williams (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). I for one have seen enough. Twice I have taken apon myself to hide disruptive, off-topic disputes ([179][180]) then clearly explained why this behaviour is inappropriate. With each discussion the same pattern seems to develop, starting with a relevant topic, constructive feedback, and ending with a fiery inconsequential mess.

There are a few editors that have in my opinion been especially quarrelsome ([181][182][183]), whom I've warned ([184][185]), though I'm not trying to point the finger at a sole individual. The disruption is more comprehensive, and at this point I'm unsure how to proceed in restoring order. Even though I've little input into the actual discussions, I consider myself too involved to take any administrative action, should it be needed. This is a fairly popular article right now, and the talk page looks like an awfully bad example for passing editors new to the community. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As I stated to you at my talk page, I disagree with your choice to single me out with the warning you placed there. I also expressed to you in response that I appreciate you as an administrator, I just simply think you are off the mark in choosing me to warn. It's not clear to me if this AN/I is specifically about me or a report about everyone who has been disruptive at the Robin Williams talk page. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify. Regardless, I will be going to that article talk page after signing here and perform a strike-through of my comments to Slave28 along with an apology on his talk page. This is not being done because I am trying to avoid being blocked or anything like that, it's completely and honestly a good faith effort to stop the disruption (at least from my end). I still strongly disagree with what's going on in the way of content additions to that article's talk page. And I even more strongly disagree that the discussion at another two articles regarding BLPNAME has anything to do with the Williams article (which some editors are trying to push). Again, I would appreciate clarification from you, MusikAnimal. Thanks, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

MusikAnimal - you stated " I'm not trying to point the finger at a sole individual", yet that's precisely what you did. Winkelvi's behaviour may not have been perfect, but less than perfect behaviour rarely happens in isolation. IMHO, some behaviour from others has been worse. Why did you target just one editor? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not making myself clear. There are many editors involved, but I don't feel a special need to have to warn everyone individually about such obvious misbehaviour. Winkelvi has been consistently more active in the discussions by comparison, and I among others have tried to reason with them in staying cool. The foul language, particularly when directed at other editors, does not add to their argument and seems to only promote further disruption. This sort of attitude is unacceptable and goes against the fundamental philosophy behind Wikipedia. My intention is not to put sole focus on this editor, but their doing certainly warrants mention. If there are other editors you feel should be brought up in this thread feel free to do so.

We have a real issue on our hand on this talk page. I don't quite fathom how anything productive is going to come about if everyone continues to behave the way they have. I am reaching out for the help of other administrators on how to handle this, as I'm simply at a loss. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To start with, stop taking sides yourself. Nothing good can come from your current parochial position. You have still only named on editor as misbehaving. It's not my job to name others. I didn't bring the matter here. You did, in a very one-sided way. And that is guaranteed to make editors with opinions different from yours feel that they have little chance of getting a fair go. Frustration and anger increases. Bad behaviour increases, etc. etc. etc. It's behaviour like yours that reinforces my view that our Admin system is broken, and is itself the cause of much bad behaviour on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to restate that I have had little participation in the discussions at Talk:Robin Williams. My post here has nothing to do with anyone's opinions there, only their conduct. I'm unsure what side I'm taking, but if there was some obligation to bring up all editors involved when posting here, I apologize as I have not. I have brought to attention only what I know and what I think may proportionally have had a more recurring impact on the talk page. I am intentionally vague in my wording so as to not spur incivility here. A simple review of the talk page (particularly the hidden discussions) should speak for itself. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I accepted Winkelvi's apology before looking at the comment in question she apologized for, which now makes the acceptance comment look a tad silly on my talk page. Nonetheless, I see why Winkelvi made that comment now, my use of the term "widow" in my example on where to use and the put the children's names. An obvious misunderstanding as it was simply my way of showing how I envisioned that section. Being that Winkelvi and I bumped heads before on that talk page the comment is not surprising, but I take no offence as Winkelvi is a passionate editor and this is more then likely why the two of us seem to clash quite a bit. I have tried not to debate with this editor on issues as I am also passionate about improving Wikipedia and dueling editors does not help the cause. Winkelvi has done a lot of great work on the Robin Williams article since the actors passing and to be honest, less then a handful of issues have come up on the talk article's talk page which were stickling points, it is only unfortunate that those points seem to be persistent. I may disagree often with Winkelvi but I do respect this editor for being passionate in the work on Wikipedia. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal for a ban on User:Malusia22

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

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

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

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

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

Group censorship and harassment

Hello, people. Weekly Shōnen Jump has been the subject of group censorship and harassment over the last few days by User:SephyTheThird, User:TheFarix, User:Koavf and User:Materialscientist, and now things have gone to a point where blocks and bans are necessary. A user [186] added content but was reverted [187] with no reason. A second user also added content [188] but was reverted three times [189] [190]. This is censorship and cannot continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacred Soul 333 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of sockpuppets of User:Cow cleaner 5000 (by the way, you're probably going to be investigated for connections to Cow cleaner 5000 soon) making argumentative edits against WP:NPOV, and the article being corrected by the upstanding individuals you named. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the page is semi protected, would pending changes be of any more help? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a minor quibble, but I'm not sure how changes that do not mention or involve a living person qualify as harrassment. --Richard Yin (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake sources are still fake, regardless of how many sockpuppet accounts you create to include it, Cow cleaner 5000. Attempts to vandalize the article will simply not be tolerated. —Farix (t | c) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Said users accused of 'censorship' and 'harassment' are preventing the magazine being classified by a vandal as a terrorist organization, which CC5000 has taken to AfD several times under that claim (and permanent move protection has had to be rendered to stop several pagemoves comparing it to ISIS and Al Qaeda). The only 'censorship' going on is the removal of idiotic content and personal rants by CC5000, and the page protection is appropriate. In fact, seeing as it's been taken to several never-to-be deleted AfD's, is there a way to permanently protect it from the process so CC5000's undoubtedly lined-up roster of auto-confirmed accounts (which is why we're here even with a bunch of tools protecting the article) can't nom it again? Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't say this (it's usually wise not to get involved with sockpuppet dramas, as it puts oneself under suspicion), but come on... Nate, we've already won. We can't accomplish any more by calling them idiotic and ranting. (Them as in sockpuppetter and his/her possible read friends.) Because in the likely case we're right, it's not any use. In the unlikely case that we're wrong, and (some of) them aren't really sockpuppets at all, we'd be harrassing them with these. I mean how'd you like it if I kept endlessly denouncing you for comments made by someone else? Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User BgWhite Admin. Abuse

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

---

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal

Admin. deleted citations prior to posting a removal request due to personal or political bias after he ignored the print date of the book--April 2014--and cited removal due to wiki "crystal ball" policy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 1 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Bgwhite continues to remove a noted essayist's list of published work on Michael Gurnow (also the author of the The Edward Snowden Affair, for which he has suggested page deletion (see above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maldoror2 no admin tools were used. Any editor is allowed to send a page for AfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No references were removed (an ISBN 10 number was removed, but there's an ISBN 13 number, so I think this is sensible? In any event, the reference remained.) either. While neither the PROD nor the AfD are good ideas (at the very least, a non-notable book by an author with a biography should be redirected, not deleted), neither use either admin tools nor admin perogatives, and neither are particularly abusive (even if they are poorly thought out). WilyD 08:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WilyD, I didn't PROD the article. Maldoror2 is the PR person for the book's publisher, atleast as stated on their user page. Per WP:ISBN, only the 13 digit ISBN should be used. Maldoror2 has already stated they won't tolerate removal of the article's material, thus AfD is only avenue. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgot, Maldor2's confusion about ignoring print date comes from the AfD of an unpublished book. Book is from same author from other AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake about the PROD (though bringing articles to AfD that you know shouldn't be deleted is still a bad idea). WilyD 08:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the copied-pasted AFD wikicode to keep this page from being disrupted by the templates. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal. I have also merged the two sections that Maldoror2 has created for this one issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Noting that at the book's talk page he says "My publisher asked that I create the page, ergo it is for publicity purposes. Is this kosher on wiki?". So a clear COI and possibly paid editing. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

86.13.221.231

Personal attacks. Seryo93 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for one week for continued personal attacks. Jayron32 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

I'm not sure that, strictly speaking, this counts as a legal threat, but I thought it was worth bringing here just in case. The edit summary here[191] says "Reverting this edit, will result in a report to the FBI". Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It absolutely does. However they claim to have 'retired', and it seems nothing of value was lost. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with this editor before. This typical of past disruptive behaviour. Try something, get reverted and warned, and then claim that he didn't understand or won't do it again, or in this case has retired. He's had final warnings before. He's still continuing with the archive edit. Latest threat is "I WILL CASE A FILE IF YOU DON'T STOP)" [192]

Removing it from an archive is vandalism, the legal threats are blockable, he's edit warring to remove this from an archive, and none of his other edits are any better. Giving me a 3RR warning for reverting his vandalism was a nice touch. clearly not here to contribute constructively. Meters (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: This user confirmed to be under 13 years of age after i have looked at his talk page [[193]]. Please disable his account for 3 years or forever. Lights Out XZ (talk) I have created this account today to immediately report it to you. — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:I AM WILDEDIT indeffed by User:HJ_Mitchell for legal threats. And User:Lights out XZ was created more than an hour before I AM WILDEDIT clained to be 10 years old, and just minutes before I AM WILDEDIT started with the legal threats. What are the chances? Meters (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

New User Redirecting a Series of Pages

Can someone pay attention to HighWindows? I don't think he will stop.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To expand on VictoriaGrayson's request: As I view myself as capable of neutrality on Buddhist topics, (I'm not a Buddhist) I've been watching these for problems. HighWindows is being WP:POINTy in his moves of articles and editing suggestions, as is clearly seen in his edit history. He should not move articles, and I have commented on his "asking the other parent" over at WP:EAR.

The real issue here is that, as I noted at WP:EAR, while there MIGHT be an argument to be made for dropping the Geshe honorific from article titles, HighWindows is also doing disruptive things like trying to rename the 14th Dalai Lama article (not understanding in that case the honorific is "his holiness") I explained to him here that the Dalai Lama is akin to the Pope and both have name changes with their ascension to their post. (Pope Francis is not titled "Jorge Mario Bergoglio")

I explained this to him previously at Kelsang Gyatso, where HighWindows wanted to add the honorific "Geshe" to that article's title in a RM, which was declined. see here, But more to the point, to answer him, I researched the issue in Catholicism and in British nobility, where there is apt to be a longstanding policy, and found that all the Popes' articles are under their papal name, but most of the articles on Cardinals (other than historically famous ones like Cardinal Richelieu), are under their birth names - but that makes sense because Cardinals generally don't give up their name with ascension to their rank. I compared Geshes to Cardinals, but Lamas to Popes. HighWindows is now trying to move and remove the titles of other high lamas, notably at Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama, which per examples of British nobility, such as Anne Blunt, 15th Baroness Wentworth, is perfectly appropriate. In short, we have a POV-pushing editor who is WP:NOTHERE and [{WP"POINT]]y. I recommend that, at a minimum, this user be strongly warned and asked not to move articles or inappropriately remove titles where they are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not claim expertise in Tibetan Buddhism, but based on what I have read in our article and in a variety of sources, Geshe is an academic title, like a degree, and analogous to "doctor" or "professor". According to the Manual of Style, we don't give articles titles like "Dr. John Smith" or "Professor Mary Jones" and don't call them "Dr. Smith" or "Professor Jones" in the body of the article. Of course, we mention their academic degrees and jobs in the appropriate section of the article. But every general principle has its exceptions, and certainly 14th Dalai Lama counts as an exception, as do articles about Popes. This is a very high visibility article about a person well known worldwide as the "Dalai Lama", winner of the Nobel Peace Prize under that title. I contend that articles about people holding the "geshe" degree should fall under our standard naming protocols described in the Manual of Style. I have explained my reasoning several times on talk pages. On the other hand, it is pointy and disruptive for an editor unhappy that their spiritual leader doesn't get to be called "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" to then move on to articles about Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas to move them without discussion and consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw and Cullen328.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree in principle (and probably in detail, I haven't re-familiarized myself with those rules, but it sounds correct from what I remember on that subject) with everything Montanabw is saying here and at EAR. My point to HighWindows at EAR was only about OTHERSTUFF and the fact that he has no room to complain about other people not doing stuff. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (cross-posted here and at EAR)

Hello, thank you all for your comments. I am afraid I haven't got time at the moment to read them all in detail but I would like to make the following comment. I am new and I have probably made mistakes, some of the names on here I recognise as people I have asked for clarification from and my questions have been ignored or responded to rather aggressively I felt. I was intrigued by the Geshe question and have, as is my nature, been following this line of debate with some interest. I actually came on Wikipedia to look at English Literature but got diverted by the whole question around titles. I did not agree that Kelsang Gyatso's title should be removed when this is how he is referred to in most academic articles, as I provided evidence for. My reliable and unbiased references were removed and unaccountably called "in-house" and biased by Victoria Grayson and Monatanabw, no explanation for these accusations was given. A different, possibly more neutral editor, later said the references were actually reliable. I was told quite clearly by several editors that honorific titles should not be used in the title and only once in the body of the text. I pointed out that if that was going to be applied to Kelsang Gyatso's page in fairness, and in the interests of neutrality, it should be applied to all Tibetan honorifics. In the discussion about this on the editors discussion page, where I raised this issue to get advice from unbiased editors, I was told that the titles shouldItalic text be removed but people don't have time to do this. I took this on as a project, using the Wikipedia list of Buddhist honorifics and titles I started to remove the titles, just as it had been done to Kelsang Gyatso's page and some other Tibetan lamas pages. Dalai Lama is on the same list as Geshe and other Tibetan titles. It is also described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as an honorific title. Clearly some people here don't agree with that, that is of course your right but I have used wikipedia and a neutral source as a reference for myself and thought this was the policy. I agree it seems not quite right not to use a title when we are so familiar with it but it was only on investigating the use of honorific titles that I discovered even the Queen and President Obama don't have their honorific titles used; I therefore thought the same would apply to the Dalai Lama. I can't comment on the Pope sorry, I am not sure if his name is listed as an honorific title on the page for Roman Catholicism or how other neutral sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica may classify this. I am sure removing the title has caused some offence, I said it might, but removing Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's title also caused offence and that didn't seem to matter in the face of this being wikipedia policy. I have to say that the claim that Wikipedia is unbiased and neutral does not ring at all true with me now. I feel that people are using the policies to their own ends and when someone does something that goes against their bias they use aggressive editing and ganging up, it is a shame that wikipedia allows this. It is not my decision whether the Dalai Lama's title remains or not, that is a matter for the editors to decide but I hope the decision is based on genuine neutrality; which frankly I doubt is the motivation of some of the person who lodged this complaint, or those who have jumped on the band wagon. I apologise if I have broken any rules as such but I felt I was acting on advice given and was acting in the interests of fairness.HighWindows (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A Geshe degree is different than Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama etc. A Geshe degree does not replace a person's name.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting in my two cents here. Just wanted to point out that @Cullen328: also did this similar reversion of Wikipedia names a couple months ago removing "Geshe" Titles amongst a variety of Wikipedia pages. Not being critical of him, but seems like a precedent? Hes quite an experienced user.. @Dougweller: did too as I just saw on the EAR page. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with "Geshe," I have an issue with trying to rename the Dalai Lama article and other WP:POINTy edits, plus mass renaming moves without discussion or clear consensus. That said, I am not going to object to Geshe title moves, so long as the article content is not whitewashed and it remain clear that the individuals are geshes, if that is verified. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this problem started when the title Geshe was removed. The use of Tibetan honorific titles is complex, Kelsang Gyatso is always referred to as Geshe kelsang Gyatso, as is traditional in Tibetan Buddhism, in effect the person is renamed. I have cited articles that state that Dalai Lama is an honorific title and it is in the same list as Geshe on Wikipedia. I am acting in the interests of neutrality, if you are going to remove other Tibetan Lama's accepted titles then this should be across the board. I found it interesting that some people on here had very strong opinions about the title Geshe being removed from Kelsang Gyatso's page but had no interest or motivation to remove the same title, or other Tibetan honorifics from other pages, that suggests bias and an agenda to me. My valid concern is that if a title is removed from wikipedia for one person and not others there is an inferred inferiority applied to the person who has the title removed. I also find it very interesting that people claiming not to be Buddhist and not to have an agenda get so hot under the collar about the Dalai Lama's title; this is apparently based on ancient traditional laws of reincarnation, and there is much confusion about the reasons for the bestowing of the title in this case. Even the current Dalai Lama has stated he does not believe he is the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lamas. In the light of such confusion why do people feel this title should be treated any differently from other honorific titles, positions of political office, or inherited titles on Wikipedia, which holds itself up as a beacon of neutrality?HighWindows (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw it seems I cannot win with you. You accuse me of doing things without discussion and you also accuse me of "asking the other parent." You are right I did ask other editors for their unbiased opinion before carrying out further changes, as was suggested to me by neutral editors.HighWindows (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Attack pages

Please see User:Lithistman/Evidence and User:Lithistman/WCM diffs, my request to the user to request deletion [194], and his removal of my subsequent WP:G10 CSD requests [195], [196]. I consider those attack pages per Wikipedia:Attack page, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. NE Ent 01:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Editor notified [197] NE Ent 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Head...meet desk". And it just continues......--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It was created on September 24th and it is October 1st (well, it is still that date where I am). Speedy deletion should have happened on the 27th.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, though I did e-mail a copy to LHM. I don't think his concerns are entirely without merit (which is not to say I agree with all, or even most, of them), but keeping the list as an open-ended attack page is right out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the same for User:Lithistman/WCM diffs. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Battleground mentality and disruptive editing by Coat of Many Colours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The accusation of pedophila [198] is targeted at the painter Chabas, and since he's both notable and long dead (1937) that's not a violation of policy. From my take, this kerfuffle is the OP Crisco adding drama to victory -- and the time of COMC's commment, the voting was tending heavily towards accept, and it was as much Crisco, et. al. choosing not to let COMC have the last word as it was COMC's continued rebuttals that churned the page.. The edit warring over two sentence quotes as "copyright violation" is lame, also. Clearly, copy pasting entire paragraphs is a violation and brief phrases are not and there is gray in between, but certainly not worth fighting over, by COMC (just externally link to the quote) or Crisco 1492 (don't fuss about it if it's borderline). I heartily endorse Crisco adopting a User:NE_Ent/Unilateral_interaction_ban vis-a-vis COMC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To start with - Coat of Many Colors - Coat's first edit is from 14 November 2013. He might have had other accounts before. He is not a newbeginner - even if his account is only about a year old, he edited from 2013-11-14 until today. He knows a lot about Wikipedia. Does a newbegginer usually go strait to Jimbo Wales talk page, [199], [200] start voting for administrators [201], [202] and edit Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: [203], [204] ? Other editors still ask after two years for advice ... and they have no idea about this kind of things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse block: Nothing else will give the Featured Picture project and editors there and elsewhere any peace. I too had a quite upsetting experience with Coat of Many Colours in another nomination in July:(→‎Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel) I was personally attacked, belittled to other editors commenting in the nomination, and snarked at mercilessly by him. I was demanded over and over to strike my negative vote. Although I asked for an apology, I never received one: [205]. He also snarked and was vastly impolite to others in that nomination, including Hafspajen..We begged for administrator intervention at that time, but none came to help. I am relieved to see this behaviour coming to light. Because of my treatment by Coat of Many Colours, even though I still contribute to the FPC, I will never again cast an opposing vote and have stated it was because of the intolerable atmosphere in this discusssion:[206]. Although out of politeness to that discussion I did not name Coat of Many Colours as the editor, I hereby attest that this is the editor I am referring to in this diff. Fylbecatulous talk 13:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment User:Awien, your assertions about behind-the-scenes collusion, and provocation and personal attacks need some evidence, not just a simple statement. COMC asserts that "we are substantial donors and yes we do have significant eyes in the project". Do other editors have any views on this? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corona del Mar High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting block.

I'd like to request to be blocked for 3 months becuase I cannot willingly refrain from editing, and it's just so annoying considering I have to study for academic tests and then end up editing for 3/4 of, if not the whole day. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87: Have you considered Wikibreak Enforcer? - Purplewowies (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiBreak Enforcer: "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address."

Not much help for the compulsive editor, imo.

Obviously the OP would need an IP block too. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

An associated anonblock will cover the IP issue. @StanTheMan87: Please confirm on my talk page that you want to do this and I will action.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Shouldn't we make sure the IP isn't shared first? Even if it's a softblock, I don't know it's appropriate to require people to register because one editor can't resist the temptation to edit. I acknowledge that technically StanTheMan87 could vandalise anonymously sufficiently to require a softblock, but I would hope they are better than that. So I'm not sure that we should start softblocking IPs on demand when the person behind it is only one user and not someone with administrative authority. (I believe we do sometimes block school IPs when someone with administrative authority says they feel it's too difficult for them to control vandalism so it'll be better if it's just blocked.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• StanTheMan87, I sympathize with your plight, and so does Bishonen who has, especially for souls like yours, wrote up User:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings. Good luck with your studies. If you're in one of my classes, signal such by drawing an upside-down monkey on your next homework assignment and I'll give you an extra sticker. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost makes me want to re-matriculate...almost. Tiderolls 14:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd suggest editing your Hosts (file) to send wikipedia.org somewhere else (like this page) to serve as an incentive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from HiLo48

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose behaviour keeps coming up here...

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Tznkai and Talk:Pregnancy.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:HiLo48
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#HiLo48 civility
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796#Personal Attacks by user HiLo48 after several requests to stop. Requesting action
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#HiLo48's incivility
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#User HiLo48
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#User:HiLo48

...and whose block log speaks volumes, is at it again. After starting the thread Talk:Queensland rugby league team#POV editing by User:Gibson Flying V (which, by the way, results in the words POV editing by User:Gibson Flying V flashing up on an untold number of lists every time someone comments on it - some form of low-effort, high-yield personal attack?) where he failed to impress anyone, he started another thread at the neutral point of view noticeboard where he similarly failed to get support. Once that was archived he decided put his toes right up to the edge of the WP:3RR line at Queensland rugby league team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and when I called him on it his response was to start the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian sports#POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team by calling me an "AFL hating editor". When I called him on the blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and raised the topic of his incivility he responded with more ad hominem remarks to which I responded by providing a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Incredibly, HiLo48 then started two more similar threads both entitled "Anti-AFL POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team" at Talk:Australian Football League[207] and at its Wikiproject's talk page[208] where his remarks about me were repeated. An uninvolved editor, Macosal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), echoed my warning about forum-shopping and posted a notice about inappropriate WP:CANVASSING on HiLo48's talk page. HiLo48's response in the face of this other user's continued civility was to abuse/attack them a few times before deleting their notice (and his abuse/attacks). HiLo48 then made this edit, which is as perfect an example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as you'll ever find, basically admitting as much once I reverted it when he started another thread: Talk:Queensland rugby league team#POV wording again. Until this point I'd resolved to ignore HiLo48's personal attacks (whilst continuing the discussion) but here gave a clear warning that no more would be tolerated (with diffs and explanations of what is unacceptable), explaining that his next personal attack would result in this report. His response was 100% ad hominem and contained accusations of avoiding discussion, holding "obviously non-neutral" views and POV-pushing. So here we are. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The summary of this recent diff nicely summarizes Hilo's attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't even be bothered reading all of that from Gibson Flying V. To make it easier for others to understand, this is a content dispute. It's all about an editor who wants to say that when two of his favourite players in his favourite sport, Rugby League, choose to play Rugby Union, that's fine, but when they choose to play Australian rules football, they are "poached". "Poached" is obviously a non-neutral word. In Australia, rugby league is pretty much in direct competition with Australian rules football for fans, so some antipathy can sometimes exist. I suggested alternatives and compromises, such as using "recruited" rather than "poached", but he won't agree. That is POV pushing, and stubbornness. I AM a person who won't give up fighting POV pushers. It's one of the biggest blights on Wikipedia. That's really all there is to this story. Now, I regard AN/I as a disaster area for justice. Editors who dislike an accused can say what they like about the accused, virtually never with any consequences, and little chance for the accused to defend himself against such nonsense. The raising of a long past block log is simply part of that, and irrelevant to the merits of this case. I won't take any further part in this discussion unless it becomes absolutely necessary. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, breaking my promise already. In posting the above I had an edit conflict with ymblanter. What a surprise that he turned up! He is a perfect example of the problems with ANI that I mentioned above. He is a Putin hating POV pusher who brought me here some time ago because I was getting in the way of his POV pushing. He lost. I embarrassed him, and he has been after me ever since. (Do we actually ever do anything about badly behaved Admins?) His is not a good faith post. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Um. Wow.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to prove long-term behaviour, try WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 11:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's pretty much about the past week alone. There's just a lot! Sorry if it seems verbose, I've never done this before.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're providing links to archives from ages ago to try and prove currency? RFC/U. Your WP:BATTLE mentality is returning if you think otherwise the panda ₯’ 11:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to provide currency at all. But to provide context. I suspected repeat offending might mean something in cases of personal attacks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. You're throwing a bunch of shit against a wall, hoping something will stick. I reviewed 3 of the links you claimed contained personal attacks and ad hominem, but found nothing of the sort. False claims of personal attacks can lead to flying sticks the panda ₯’ 11:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Which three?.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is from 2011, apparently no action; this is from 2012, plaintiff warned and then blocked; this is from 2012, HiLo gets an ITN block; this is from 2013, "nothing actionable"; this is from 2013, with HiLo unblocked and the plaintiff topic-banned. So at best there's one with serious consequences for HiLo, but they are hardly from this past week. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hilo48 just does not know how to behave. He is one of the users who make Wikipedia a horrible place to work, and he is doing this consistently for many years. In particular, this year he is stalking me, with the initial claim that my English is so bad he can not comprehend me, than that I am a hater of Russia, and now that I am a hater of Putin, and next time he will invent smth else which is going to have as little ground as these claims. I am convinced he is a net negative for Wikipedia, and since he shows no sign of understanding his problem - which is that he consistently assumes bad faith of the others and refuses to see any problems with his own behaviour - I believe the only long-term solution is to have him indefinitely blocked. How many people can he demotivate by his "fuck offs" and "I decide here" before he finally gets indeffed, remains to be seen.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and now he accuses me in POV pushing. He is probably sick. What he is saying about me is blatant lie.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it... the middle sentence by Ymblanter is indeed a personal attack. Check the cleanliness of thine own hands before launching mud the panda ₯’ 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm...I'm not that convinced that it is a personal attack, though it may well be an exaggeration. Sorry to disagree with you. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A very nice tactics: To completel ignore what is in the thread, but to stat with a boldface against someone who has not been taken to ANI. If Hilo still believes I am a POV-pushe, he should not continue throwing mud but start action against me for POV-pushing. Nobody managed so far to prove I am a POV pusher. If he believes my behavior is not acceptable, he should start a ANI thread. I do not see why he is allowed to lie all aound, and I have to shut up and listen to his lie. I tried once, which led him to believe that I accept all bullshit he has against me. And please DangerousPanda, when he called me a "fool" and I have taken it to ANI into a thread you were in, why did not you react then?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that I had ignored anything in this thread? I advised that I reviewed 3 of the links provided as evidence, and found all 3 of them did not show any such NPA's. Now, returning to your own dirty hands, is there a valid reason why you're referring to me using an old, intentionally retired username? I usually find myself on your side, Ymblanter, but this bullshit tactic of your own is entirely unacceptable the panda ₯’ 15:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I was under impression that in the thread #6 cited above you used that username. Now I checked, and you used another one. I amended my comment above.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Gibson Flying V in the past and am fully aware of his BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is certainly not helping the situation; however I concur with DangerousPanda above that this should be raised at RFCU if there is such a long-term pattern of behaviour. GiantSnowman 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, if anyone opens an RFC/U against Hilo48 I will certify it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I would too. Last week I did nothing outside of Wikipedia's suggested behaviours in regards to a textbook case of canvassing by HiLo, only to be told three times in quick succession to "Fuck off" (with varying levels of capital letters and exclamation marks) and have my motives reduced to some kind of personal grudge rather than responded to reasonably at face value. (here). I do not regard this as acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia (especially given that this was in response to a clear cut case of canvassing which HiLo seemed reluctant to accept) and this attitude genuinely did effect me as condescending, dismissive and frustrating as well as a personal attack. Over a longer term I have witnessed numerous discussions in which I personally felt that HiLo unnecessarily introduced conflict or escalated what were previously relatively civil discussions (the latter half of this discussion comes to mind).

He also seemed not overly concerned regarding any breach of Wikipedia guidelines, saying re my suggestion of canvassing "He didn't give a rats what I thought" (not in itself very civil) and rejecting numerous requests and reminders to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Macosal (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo is not a net negative. I wish he had better manners, of course--there's a hell of a lot of fuck offs there but, as we have established often enough, "fuck off" on one's own talk page (including edit summaries) is allowed. It's not great, it's not indicative of collaborative spirit, but it's allowed, though a plethora of it does not reflect very well on the editor. And I say this having known HiLo for quite some time, and in at least one of the linked threads above to ANI archives I have criticized him for his comments. But overall I deny that he is a net negative. Yes, RfC must be the way to go if much of the reporting on this recent incident, or string of incidents, goes back to 2011--that can establish a pattern, but not the severity of an incident. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute disguised as a personal attacks claim. And if the OP really did say "poached", he ought not be editing the article. Eggs and wild game are "poached". Athletes are recruited, and if the offer looks superior to what they currently have, they might switch teams. The fans might be unhappy about it, but a professional will do what he thinks is in his own best interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but at the same time, it seems to me that there genuinely are strong cases for HiLo having breached WP:CANVASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT on multiple occasions all in a short space of time (see above examples), and showing little to no willingness to acknowledge or discuss this when brought to his attention (and even continuing in some of the behaviours). I understand that he felt frustrated by this discussion but that doesn't seem to justify the range and quantity of breaches. Macosal (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Accumulated frustration from such never-ending battles is why I don't edit articles much anymore. Maybe HiLo should consider vacationing from article editing also. That could mean the fanboys will win, at least this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article-editing is what gives the project's usual gang of bad behavior actors cover for their actions, though. Quite a Catch-22 we're setting up here; either be a content creator and deal with massive egos & thick skin vs. being accused of "not here to build an encyclopedia", which is what they toss at the likes of you and me. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy, which unfortunately becomes more and more popular. I am a content creator as well, and I have more overall edits than Hilo has, and three times as many edits in the article space as he has made in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're not here to create content, what's the point? Are these non-content creators self-appointed Wikipedia police? Are they judging those of us who create content? HiLo's got a record of ongoing whinging but doing nothing. I could bring up a dozen diffs in the last month, but nothing that quite compares to all the "fuck you"s I've seen on other pages he's edited. I was "surprised" that he tried to obfuscate his bad behaviour by calling it "a content dispute", clearly the original complaint relates to a serious of personal attacks. Having said that, and in agreement with HiLo himself, this venue is highly selective over what constitutes a personal attack. Given that many editors are given a free pass to tell others to "fuck off", the precedent has been set and this is a non-discussion. Non-creation pseudo-Wiki-police rule! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have difficulties understanding how you conclude that I am not here to create content from the fact that I have 40K edits in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the indentation works better now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Again, with every one of these threads, the issue should not be "should or shouldn't a person behave this way" (the discussion never goes that way anyways), but rather "Do you honestly expect any outcome from this discussion." @Ymblanter: if you do have three times the article edits of HiLo48, you must surely have been at Wikipedia long enough to recognize the futility of these discussions. Without regard for what should happen, we need to start recognizing what will happen, and just stop having these discussions altogether. If article editing is your desire, go do that; stop dropping by ANI stirring up drama against people. Whether or not HiLo deserves to be "sanctioned" for his "behavior", you should recognize he (and really many other people: it's not unique to this one) is not going to be, and stop yourselves from starting these threads in the first place. You already should know how this is going to turn out, stop trying to believe it would turn out differently, shut down the thread, and go on with your lives. --Jayron32 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I did not start this thread. I only started one thread against Hilo in my life, in January 2014, and I got so much shit thrown on me in that thread (which is linked above) and later that I had to unwatch the article I was editing and I was really feeling badly for weeks. This is not really an experience I would wish anybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo's behavior on the Chelsea Clinton talk page and a related discussion at BLPN is less than ideal as well. His refusal to listen there is considered a form of disruptive editing per WP:LISTEN. I apologize for not linking to individual comments but you really need to review the whole discussion to get the gist of it. -- Calidum 15:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone there labeled him a "troll", which is usually considered a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That's true but it doesn't mean we should ignore several days of disruptivs editing by Hilo that took place before the comment was made. -- Calidum 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • [I screwed up an edit-conflict, second try] I was the second editor who called him such. (The first hid it under a pipe to WP:DFTT.) When HiLo48 says he's there for the "fun", and has completely given up any pretense of trying to work for consensus, and responds to serious arguments with a brief phrase and runs on to something else, then insults everyone for not noticing his "refutations", he's being uselessly, time-wastingly, disruptive. Choor monster (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as Baseball_Bugs pointed out, it's hard to weigh-in on one side or the other of a WP:CIVIL discussion when the word "troll" is being thrown around by the accusing side; it's a charged word designed to provoke a reaction. Our editors are, in fact, human and react as such. And, I suspect, HiLo is human as well. Sounds like we all just need to move on. DocumentError (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Make the personal attacks irrelevant. Let's consider Jayron's point above. So, let's give up trying to restrict HiLo48. A better way is for everyone who considers HiLo48's behavior to be less than ideal to not be provoked when he goes over the mark. Instead, let's all be extra nice to HiLo, and respond to any provocations by staying cool without giving a flinch. Then if there is canvassing and he does not repond constructively to queries about that, take that up with the other involved editors. If HiLo has an outburts of anger, then consider that to be mostly a problem for himself (it's not good for his health). Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, let's all allow HiLo48 to tell other editors to "fuck off" etc, he's clearly very proud of it as it continues to do so, like a "big boy", because clearly HiLo48 needs us to do that for his "health". You're right. We should forget what others say to him and allow him to outburst however best suits him, regardless of the collateral damage. After all, I regularly tell my colleagues to "fuck off" at work, despite their or my social and mental disabilities. Not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  He is not your colleague. Here on Wikipedia you don't have a boss who has assigned HiLo as your co-worker with whom you have to share your office. If HiLo doesn't communicate well, you are free to ignore him and continue to collaborate more with other people. If HiLo behaves like a 5 year old throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way, nothing stops you from actually treating like a 5 year old child. Give him a candy and move on. Count Iblis (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yep, you don't understand that we're working collaboratively here. If someone suddenly tells someone else to "fuck off", that's highly inappropriate. Now, as I've mentioned above, many editors here are able to do that with exemption, as they massively increase the encyclopaedic contents of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the same is true here, by any means. But yes, if I could, I'd "give him a candy". Problem is, he just keeps coming back for more and keeps the swear festival going. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Saying these discussions are not productive is not the same thing as saying that we should condone telling people to "fuck off" or anything else. The issue is so much not "should people be allowed to tell others to fuck off" and so much more "have we ever seen a discussion where we get mad at someone telling someone to fuck off result in anything useful being done." I don't want HiLo to tell people to fuck off, but I also don't see how discussions like this stop him from doing so. It's pointless. Being opposed to these sorts of exercises in futility is not the same as being in support of treating people badly. --Jayron32 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• And meanwhile, he's seriously wasting everyone's time on the CC discussions with hit-and-run and liar-liar and general sniping. Really, consensus has been reached, a dozen or two other articles doing the exact same thing without a peep of complaint for years have been identified, policy is absolutely clear, and it's being dragged on with the spectre of a completely pointless edit-war hovering in the background until someone drops a hammer, stick, or whatever. Totally disruptive, totally worthless. Choor monster (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I recommend that, when you want your claims to be taken seriously, claiming that "consensus has been reached" on an article that clearly still has numerous good faith editors debating an issue is not the best strategy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. You are thinking of unanimity. The responses of the naysayers are lacking any coherence, relevance, and they dodge and weave everywhere. They are not "debating" the issue. They are not applying anything based on policy. I see no effort made at good faith in their contributions to the discussions. Choor monster (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• How is his behavior not disruptive? Of course it is, just look at this thread and the insanely long thread on BLP/N. He is wasting editors' time on stuff we shouldn't. I find it incomprehensible that some here are advocating for others to develop thick skins, instead of telling this editor to stop the bloody nonsense. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• I recall being treated very badly by HiLo48 - to the point I want no contact with him and dropped off Wikipedia for a while. Just happened to spot this while looking for something else. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• HiLo48 has always seemed like a proactive, civil editor each time I've observed his interactions (we haven't actively edited together but I've watched several pages he's active on). After reading the diffs provided it seems like this is just a content dispute that maybe doesn't belong at ANI. Unless I missed something, I don't see anything remarkable in any of HiLo48's comments or edits. Please remember, ANI is the place to bring major incidents, not to kneecap one's editorial "opponents." DocumentError (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Admission that content contribution excuses incivility

"Yep, you don't understand that we're working collaboratively here. If someone suddenly tells someone else to "fuck off", that's highly inappropriate. Now, as I've mentioned above, many editors here are able to do that with exemption, as they massively increase the encyclopaedic contents of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the same is true here, by any means."

The Rambling Man [209]

This is one of those unwritten rules of Wikipedia that we're all familiar with, but I do not recall it ever being stated so plainly. Here we have an editor accused of a pattern of rudeness, culminating in a recent "fuck off" retort. "If only he wrote more Featured Articles or contributed to more Good Articles, and so on, then he could be rude "with exemption" due to his "massive" contributions. Am I the only one that sees a "rules are for thee but not for me" dichotomy here? Tarc (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GREAT point, Tarc. It sounds like we all need to just move-on. I don't think this ANI is really accomplishing anything except to derail valuable edit time. DocumentError (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"This is one of those unwritten rules of Wikipedia that we're all familiar" There are a lot of a legitimate "unwritten" rules I suppose, but this isn't one of them. This is simply a perception that has been propagated. But anyone, regardless of content creation, is subject to civility guidelines and crossing the line enough times or showing a pattern is likely to garner sanctions. How long those stick depends on the community. There is a general, rough consensus that prolific content creators should not just be automatically blocked unless the offense is quite severe. Discussion, however is generally closed quickly. Most of the time the discussions are more heated then enlightening and people tend to be more passionate about a sanction being imposed by the anger that is natural from being the one on the receiving end of incivility, but such reaction is why most discussions about civility enforcement go wrong. That...and a good portion of the time the issue is not as much civility but not approving of cuss words on the editor's own talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"...but this isn't one of them". Sorry, but that's either hopeless naiveté or willful avoidance. Tarc (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller: There is a general rough, consensus that prolific content contributors should not just be automatically blocked unless the offense is quite severe. Discussion, however is generally closed quickly.

Can you please clarify what this means and who you' re speaking for? Lightbreather (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not speaking of or "for" anyone in particular. But the general consensus over a broad range of discussions on AN, ANI, WP:WER and many other locations indicates a general, rough consensus that editors with a high content count should not be blocked automatically in regards to civility complaints without community discussion, unless these are very obvious and egregious violations. The reason is that civility can be ambiguous. Of course...I could be wrong. I am not "Super Wikiman". ;-) However, I have spent a good deal of time reading through a good deal of these discussion from the past two or three years.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Over a supposed "unwritten" rule? Well....I'm not just smiling over the above...I'm giggling just a bit.;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this "admission" is not endorsed by me, it's a plain statement of fact, I have observed it many times here. Stating it doesn't mean I agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A plot to discredit me?

Looking to see if an editor had replied to this comment I had added to his talkpage, I just came across this discussion, which appears to me to show User:Archon 2488 and User:Lesser Cartographies conspiring to discredit me. I believe this is Archon 2488's attempt to silence me in response to my challenging him to explain why he is spending most of his time on Wikipedia converting UK-related articles to primarily use metric units of measurement rather than the British units that the original creators of the articles used, and which are in more dominant use in modern Britain and in the contemporary sources. He hasn't had the manners to respond to that message yet. Are there any policies or guidelines that can be invoked to nip this overtly bad-faith behaviour and personal attack in the bud? ProProbly (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:HARASS is fairly broad but I would suggest you don't start off with 'attempting to silence' and 'plots to discredit' when it's a dispute over the use of what units to use in articles. I know there's a relevant Manual of style section (and tons of arguments) you can point that editor to and if the revisions are disruptive and against policy, then that conduct is worth mentioning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The proper MOS is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement which is subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation. If there's an issue, AE enforcement can be the proper page in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the discussion in question took place on a publicly-visible talk page, and followed a similar discussion on my own talk page some months previously (relating to a previous SPI involving this editor, with which Lesser Cartographies was involved), I do not think this is conspiratorial behaviour. Both discussions related to the disruptive tendency of ProProbly to revert edits which were in line with the MOS; these reverts were justified by ProProbly's belief that UK articles should use what he considers "indigenous" units. This concept of "indigenous" is not part of the MOS and has not been seriously entertained by anyone but him; it seems to be just a stick for him to beat the metric system with. It is not relevant which units "the original creators of the articles used" because the appropriate choice of units is detailed at WP:UNITS, as has been explained to ProProbly on several occasions by several editors. His conduct has led to the suspicion that he is yet another sockpuppet of DeFacto, who was banned years ago for such disruptive agitation against the metric system.

It is also incorrect that I have spent "most of [my] time on Wikipedia converting UK-related articles to primarily use metric units". I have edited many articles relating by no means exclusively to the UK to ensure that they complied with the general MOS preference for metric units; in the vast majority of instances this was not controversial. In the case of US-related articles, I ensured that conversions from US customary units to metric units were provided. Where UK articles gave distances in miles, I ensured that appropriate conversions to kilometres were provided. His current dispute with me relates in part to the article on Donald Dewar, because he does not think it appropriate to give the height of the statue primarily in metres. A short discussion on WT:MOSNUM revealed that nobody shared his opinion on this, which he seems unwilling to accept. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

DeFacto sock. I'll write up the SPI on Saturday if no one beats me to it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI is here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of Processes and Editors by DocumentError

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

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

• Getting the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins for a week [210] for, he tells everyone later, other than the stated reason in the lock request. [[211]]. In other words the lock was initiated to further an editing agenda.
• Merger proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Proposed_Merger
• AfD on American-led intervention in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq
• [[WP:ANI#Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]] on the same article, at the same time against User:Acetotyce
• Attempt to get a merge of the same article plus his new Iranian-led intervention in Iraq at Military History while also trying to delete the American-led article and get sanctions for the creator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Merge_Iraq_Theater_articles
• Starting an article about Iran and suggesting starting another article about Syria to (it seems) prove the point he is trying to make with the other efforts as suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627755731
• Tagging the same American-led intervention in Iraq article for Systemic Bias before hypocritically starting Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
• Move protection request - after reverting a single move - to stop anyone else from changing his page (OWN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29
• Creating an inappropriate disambiguation page to further is goals https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Intervention_in_Iraq&action=history

Attacking other editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-I am not user:Willy on Wheels, and I believe it's customary to offer diffs of "edits to another wiki where he admitted it" [sic] instead of just shotgunning these accusations out. Here is the editor interaction report of "Willy on Wheels" and myself: [212]. Also, I am more than happy to submit to a checkuser. (Edit - it appears this accusation has now been deleted since I posted this: [213]. Sorry for confusion.)

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

If there is something else that someone feels is particularly noteworthy, please let me know and I'll be happy to address it. Ultimately I have a feeling this has something to do with a request for article move protection I recently made, here: [214]. Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If by "multiple" you mean "2" - then I am guilty as charged, as per my conversation with LP, above. Also, I think Acetotyce forgot to link to the diffs on the SPI I initiated regarding him and "another new editor" (the "another new editor" is using an alt account formerly registered to Acetotyce). I'm certain this was an inadvertent oversight by Acetotyce; the diff is here: [215]. DocumentError (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooklyn Eagle

Brooklyn Eagle (talk · contribs · count) started a discussion at Talk:Thomas More a year ago after a series of reverts. I told them "It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More" in December. They took offense to that comment.

Since then, Brooklyn Eagle made several exceptionally long-winded arguments on Talk:Thomas More about some perceived bias in the article with a few other editors including Johnbod and Tlhslobus, to no effect. Since it was apparent to me Brooklyn Eagle was not here to build an encyclopedia I chose to ignore the situation. Brooklyn Eagle went to my talk page to incite my response. I made a good-faith effort to bury the hatchet saying "In conclusion, if you felt I claimed you were writing original research, consider that rescinded." I replied on Talk: Thomas More and explained I didn't want to be part of the discussion anymore. The issue more or less dropped in January 2014.

Last month, Brooklyn Eagle showed up at my talk page again raving about my issue with their original research efforts in the previous year. I made it abundantly clear I wanted them off my talk page as I'm not arguing it any longer. They persisted. At this point, I can only assume I'm being trolled. I had intended to take this issue to WP:RFCC but the process seems to require the other editors to get re-involved when this process works just as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, posting "you make people's blood boil" and "grow a pair" to Chris Troutman's Talk page can in no way be viewed as acceptable behavior. Still, considering BrooklynEagle only averages 2 edits per month, I don't really see how the maximum sanction realistically possible for a first transgression of this type (what, maybe a 24 or 48 hour block?), would accomplish much. I have posted a message to the user's Talk page asking he better police his behavior in the hope that voluntary intervention might yield positive results and alleviate the issues with which CT has to deal. DocumentError (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As DocumentError has suggested, their infrequency of editing makes sanctions difficult to apply. I suggest just taking the high ground and reverting and ignoring them unless something more serious appears. At this point, it's just venting. Blackmane (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

But it seems, at least to my admittedly biased self, that the symbolic and possible educative value of officially telling him he has been wrong is potentially immensely important and useful for both him and the rest of us. The point is that quite likely he doesn't even realize that his behavior has been inappropriate (as I assume it has, and in more ways than just those explicitly mentioned here, though that could of course be unfair bias on my part). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you bring up a valid and reasonable point that merits further discussion, Tlhslobus! DocumentError (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DocumentError. There's also the point that if he persists in offending after that, it becomes a second offense (presumably making him eligible for heavier penalties), instead of remaining forever a first offense that is only punishable by first offense penalties. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point, Tlhslobus. On second consideration and based on the reasons you've outlined, I think I agree with your approach. DocumentError (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DocumentError.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind validation of my suggestion, Blackmane! DocumentError (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fetx2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Se-keun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Sun-hyung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-kyu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Min-goo_(basketball)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floquenbeam

I'd like to ask you to interrupt access of the user Fetx2002 who continues to change the official profile to a bit different one to wiki. U-tima (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong

This user has been harassing me in and off site over the Gamergate controversy article.
After discussion with users Masem, The Devil's Advocate, Diego and others, we were agreeing Intel pulling off ads of Gamasutra had to be mentioned [216]

For some reason only half of it was in the article at the time. That there was a thing called Operation Disrespectful Nod, a boycott of sorts to advertisers

I decided to include a phrasing by Masem with proper sourcing of the Intel matter, only to get reverted in no less than 10 seconds by Ryuolong [217] He stated "check the talk page to see why it isn't included", I did, there was nothing, I asked him on his talk page. He reverted my comments. [218]

To top it off, he HIMSELF decided to add the Intel mention some minutes later, this he disagreed with no less than 5 minutes before [219] He kept including a quote by a The Verge author when no agreement nor even a MENTION of it was discussed on the talk page, so I deleted this, only to be reverted seconds later [220] At this point I realized I was being part of an edit war so I quit. But this is the least of it

User Ryuolong has been constanly uncivil to new editors and people he calls "Gaters", he told me on social media to "learn to fucking read" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516651395512950785
Since then I've seen his twitter account (since he mentioned me, I had no interest in looking up his name as he did with me), where he has called GamerGate supporters

"gamergate douche" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/515077120431628288
"gamergate fags" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/515077648251224066,
"toxic people" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516529858176761856
"shitnuggets" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/517046919063814144
"priviliged white guys" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516814925444825088
"fucking middle class straight white men" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516811560560234496
He calls the Vivian James (the GamerGate "mascot" of sorts) drawing "nice shit avatar" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516528138159792128
And countless other examples

On wikipedia he called me "wannabe Upton Sinclairs" [221]

He says "And your mouth is still writing a check your ass can't cash when it comes to the stuff you're spewing" here [222] to another user

In a quasi doxxing remark to user Torga, he says "when the shit hit the fan and there was a thread on reddit calling out for people with existing accounts on Wikipedia to get the GamerGate page skewed in their favor, you answered the clarion call". This user never linked to his reddit account After discussing with Torga over if it was doxxing or not, Ryulong tells him to "put up or shut up" in yet another example of his uncivil and rude behaviour [223]

When he's not insulting people he finds ways to swear for no reason, like here he tells me "don't pull this shit" [224] Or here [225] "Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ" in an unproductive form of arguing

Also, as you can see above after I posted a screencap criticizing Wikipedia as a site, he looked up my twitter and reddit. He posted on ANI for this in an attempt to get me topic banned, yet knowing this was ONLY offsite behaviour, he tried to state I'm a SPA He then posted on the GamerGate talk page "so basically it's time we showed LoganMac the door" [226]

It's worth noting, this is a person who already got desysopped for "inappropriate off-wiki behavior" [227] and whose uncivil behaviour has been remarked by several other users

And as I've come to find out this user has a long history of abusive behaviour which begs the question how is he even allowed to keep his account [228]

He's been warned by several other users like Titanium Dragon [229] on his uncivil remarks, just one example user PseudoSomethinghere [230] states his rudeness.

"Should Ryulong be found to be seeking any user's real life identity, he may be banned from Wikipedia." [231] Loganmac (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac is one of several dormant accounts who have come to Wikipedia for the express purpose of pushing a point of view on Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article that is an area of contention in the video game playing community. I have been terse with him and other editors of this type due to the constant disruption that the article has come under. In addition, my behavior on a completely separate website that has nothing to do with Wikipedia (rather than several IRC channels that are loosely affiliated with Wikipedia) has no bearing on what is happening here, because I was being harassed for several days by the pro-Gamergate crowd because of what I was doing here, and I unfortunately decided to respond to them. Also, I do not see how that "real life identity" thing is of any relevance here. And I did not look up your Twitter and reddit accounts. Someone on the talk page posted links to them after he found out you were purposefully misconstruing what he said him offsite, which is the whole subject of the thread higher up on the notice board. And I did not "dox" anyone. I used the global contributions tool built into the Mediawiki software to see what other accounts Torga possessed on other projects. I have no idea if he possesses an account on Reddit. I was making a blanket statement concerning the several disruptive single purpose accounts that sprang up. This is a frivolous request and a blatant attempt to have me silenced on a topic that Loganmac wants me eliminated from and it should be shut down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Coping with the WP:SPA activists at the Gamergate articles is beyond human endurance—Ryulong and a handful of others are trying to maintain WP:BLP and WP:DUE and WP:RS but they have to repeat every argument ten times, and then repeat them another ten times when a new enthusiast arrives. Breaches of WP:CIVIL are regrettable, but they would not occur if the community were to topic ban several of the SPAs. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is one of several users who has come to the Gamergate controversy article for the express purpose of pushing a point of view on an article that is an area of contention in the video game playing community. He has referred to users who has disagreed with him as /v/irgins on more than one occaision, and has shown some major issues with ownership of the article. Even while the article is undergoing dispute resolution, Ryulong has steadfastly refused to allow any implication that the article might have neutrality problems, reverting attempts to tag the article despite ongoing dispute resolution over this issue - dispute resolution he has characterized as a farce and refused to participate in, claiming, despite my and others repeatedly pointing out that sites including Forbes, The Telegraph, Tech Crunch, and even Taiwanese paper Digitimes noting that the point of view he advocates for is not the only one on the issue. Given that there have been issues with harassment of people reporting on this, frequently by people using similarly derogatory language, up to and including harassment of Wikipedia editors on this issue (the Wikipediocracy doxxing incident), it is a bit of an issue. He claims that it is a "minority viewpoint", despite the fact that an enormous number of editors have come by noting the issues with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. He has some ownership issues over the article, and reacts aggressively and derisively to people who question the neutrality of the article.

He needs to participate in the DRN, which is the appropriate avenue for this discussion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon was previously banned from the article due to the fact he could not keep within the bounds of WP:BLP. This is just him piling on due to a current content dispute with him on the page because of his insistence that the article lacks a neutral point of view or that it is giving undue weight to one side of the debate and not the other when this is not something that Wikipedia can correct due to our own policies and guidelines. I am not participating in the WP:DRN thread because it is simply an attempt at forum shopping by editors who are attempting to POV push. I am not exhibiting WP:OWN on the article. And this is just Titanium Dragon extending the content dispute into another venue. The fact that he rewrote what I initially wrote concerning Loganmac is really childish. His claim of me using "/v/irgin" is ridiculous; it's what the users of 4chan's /v/ board call themselves on their own, just like you have "/b/tards" or "/pol/acks" or "/fit/izens" for other boards. And for fucks sake, you are just repeating the same shit that was said to me constantly over the past week on Twitter when I was harassed time and time again by new gamergaters on this issue: I am not advocating any fucking point of view. Simply because I have noticed that the misogynist harassment is an aspect, as is described by multiple god damn sources on the article itself, means I am an SJW or whiteknight and do not think that the ethics concerns have any merit. That is what you are insinuating and that is a fucking bold faced lie. That is what everyone who went out of their way to find my god damn barely used Twitter account said to me. I should not have to deal with this garbage anywhere. Not on Twitter. Not on Wikipedia. If anything comes out of this discussion, it better be topic bans or site bans for the bulk of the single purpose accounts (either newly created or dormant accounts who have turned into single purpose accounts) who are insisting that Wikipedia is wrong despite the fact that so many other editors have pointed out that their insistence is incorrect but it has to be said every day because someone else comes along and makes a new thread on a topic which was discussed hours before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

suspected banned user edits

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

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