Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive878

Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

short story

OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are WP:HOUND, and WP:AGF/WP:NPA. He is also WP:CANVASSING about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". On his userpage he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY.

At this point I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but does not understand WP. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE but I am not bringing that case, at this time.

longer story

WP:Canvassing

David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.

• 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif
• 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif

These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to an RfC that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)

I provided David formal warning of canvassing here. I also made a note on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page and added a recruiting template to the article.

• After the canvassing warning, in this discussion on another user's Talk page, David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - which is canvassing, in my view.

David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, one of those already linked above.

• David contributed this to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.

• And then, David left a message on another editor's Talk page tonight that I consider to be canvassing, that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.

• WP:NPA / WP:TPG

• David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:

first with this beauty, which i removed per NPA and provided David with a warning on this Talk page

and just now, this, which was also removed per NPA by another editor.

• Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the Genetically modified organism article, which i reverted. I provided that user with a Welcome template, and I added another note informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so I provided an edit war warning. (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are here if anybody wants to see them)

Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. This first started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a continuation of WP:CANVASSING and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor was edit warring. David then wrote a message to me on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting.

• In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in only two real discussions about content.

• one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Substantial_Equivalence
• the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is here.

In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him, he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT in the subject matter.

• The behavior is all, classic WP:ADVOCACY. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.

I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on motivations and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is very unwikipedian.

deeper background here, for anyone who wants it Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.

• I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. This thread is focused on David's behavior demonstrated above, which is out of line.

• Anyway, as I mentioned above, I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors. I would like the warning to include instruction to discuss content, not contributors.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -A1candidate 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, as i did describe above. added some Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of accusations thrown against David Tornheim for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you apologized to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -A1candidate 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, this board is next, as I have told him.

But this is about david's behavior. I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning. Support temp block and warning. I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by WP:Votestacking) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The WP:TRUTH behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Wikipedia works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and maybe could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:

• [1] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
• [2] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
• [3] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [4] David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [5] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
• [6] At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.

This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose temp block and warning. I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in Wikipedia:Boomerang, and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."Dialectric (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Dialectric, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Wikipedia should fall for. For example, this edit states in Wikipedia's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is not illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from some British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of genetic engineering, it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

*note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. this section is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where David added his comments below. Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi JzG I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Don't support. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Wrong place The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • • yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's behavior

(note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

• Response to Allegations: I have been on Wikipedia since July 2008 [7] and have worked on a number of different articles.  I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.

I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the GMO articles and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow WP:DONTBITE, especially those that raise WP:NPOV concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:

"There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." here

Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable here.

Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of WP:NPOV for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.

The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:

• Unmismoobjetivo (talk) here
• LesVegas (talk) here
• user:Arsenal lb here
• Gaba ^(talk) here.

English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR here. Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' here and here. Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups here. This is POV pushing.

Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors WP:OWNER (or WP:GANG) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,

User LesVegas identified the WP:NPOV problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article here and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog here. The user attempted to put it back here, and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later here, despite the fact that the user did discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages (here) and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have WP:NPOV problems.

Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." here.

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so here. The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV here at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement here). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount here, which violates the rule of WP:DONTBITE, especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.

When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.

Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is here

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog here, I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem here, here and here, while urging the user not to give up on editing the page here. Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Wikipedia confirmed here. Again this is a problem with WP:BITE. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.  I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.

The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved here and here. I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested here, for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection here. The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" [an opinion not backed up with WP:RS] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a WP:TAG team to accomplish 3RRR.

In summary, I think there are some real WP:OWN and WP:GANG behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with WP:NPOV that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.

Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (WP:BITE) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect the neutral point of view as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).

We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.

Wikipedia notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.

This is not Wikipedia's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses

articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are:

Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified crops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Monsanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am the one against whom David is complaining: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The complaint is: violations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE

• some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
• With regard to claims that I WP:OWN the subject matter...

It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.

And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. Here is a breakdown. i am aware of this.

but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, here. i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like

*the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (here and here.

*The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.

• to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with very strong emotions and views and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is very typical - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is not my fault if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. WP:BITE does not say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
• That said, I try very hard to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, specifically for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):

this from 7%266%3Dthirteen

this from Yobol

this from Brangifer

this from DocumentError

this from IRWolfie-

this from Epipelagic

this from SandyGeorgia

With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the Seralini affair, which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.

I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are here.... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that.

I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Canoe1967, El duderino, The Banner, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example Gandydancer and Groupuscule, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like Semitransgenic. IjonTichyIjonTichy and Dialectric have shown up more recently.

Lfstevens is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. Guettarda also recently came by.

Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - Sunrise (not so active on them anymore), Aircorn (not so active on them anymore), SylviaStanley too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)

Tryptofish (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.

What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.

I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This is, finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.

finally, i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some strong accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom.

As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames?

One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about Formerly 98) are these two statements:

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

and

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about Formerly 98-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.[8][9]

Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC.

I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is now the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's concerns

SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions:

• Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Wikipedia. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this.
• David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.
• As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors.
• Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter.

Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving one article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for that feedback. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Wikipedia style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.SylviaStanley (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC

• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Moved from section above, wrong person

• Oppose Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am preparing further response.David Tornheim (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC). (It is now posted below. David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left WP:WALLOFTEXT here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the WP:WALLOFTEXT. I wish you had considered that before creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above:
• [10] <---Bullying?
• [11] <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed?

Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI, and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a snowjob as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few.

• [12] <---reverted (Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS) Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals..... [13]. How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
• [14] <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage violates a guideline is not cause for a revert. How does one violate a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) [15] Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per WP:OWN which actually is a violation of policy.

Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to WP:PAG. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the quack-watch cabal is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of Judge Roy Bean and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century mobocracy which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello WP:OWN and WP:NPOV - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "police state" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics.

In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it. The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at BP, Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. Here and here he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, Coretheapple said this about Jytdog's approach: I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." and some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda[as Jytdog categorized his role].

I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). petrarchan47tc 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of primary studies? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove Escitalopram and venlafaxine for the prophylaxis of migraine headache without mood disorders, One hundred and twenty cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment, and Persistent sexual dysfunction after discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Wikipedia. The only "BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS" are yours above. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches [22]. The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, a book published by IOS Press, [23] which would fall under A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Atsme☯^Consult 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly primary and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". Studies and RCTs are primary sources. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a report by the authors based on a website they set up to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". Case reports are primary sources. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --RexxS (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. WP:MEDRS reads: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It further explains: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the freedom to do so in an open editing environment. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's WP:OWN behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a citation needed template for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at WP:FRINGE: ...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries." I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. Atsme☯^Consult 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of WP:MEDRS states: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is vital to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Wikipedia to do so. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply by David Tornheim:

I am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above:

"comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” (posted here)

I do feel harassed by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI (here and here)—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. (see)

How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while, and cannot be accused of WP:SPA, and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog WP:OWN the articles.

I disagree that a determination of whether WP:BITE has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is WP:FRINGE. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by WP:BITING people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Wikipedia policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, WP:UNDUE, etc.

It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Wikipedia are never “done” (WP:PERFECTION and WP:EDITING). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Wikipedia policies make it quite clear that users should be WP:BOLD and correct articles that have problems (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (WP:PERFECTION). WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced."

To Guy (Help!): you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).”

Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog here and/or KingofAces here). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated.

What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of WP:BITE from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this WP:BITE behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking.

I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his WP:OWN , WP:BITE, and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” WP:The_Truth

-David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to close

• Support as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is not setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of WP:MEDRS as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what guidelines are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. Atsme☯^Consult 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about Wikipedia guidelines. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, guidelines are guidelines, and they are suggested best practices. No matter how good the intentions of MEDRS are, it's a guideline that can be abused to promote biased views. The same is true of the FRINGE guideline. Neither of these things are policies nor should they be treated as such. What tends to happen is that editors like yourself yell "MEDRS!" and/or "FRINGE!" when there is the slightest bit of criticism against a medical view or perspective that has substantial opposition and or alternative views. Often times we find that these so called "establishment" medical views are corporate-funded and distorted, such as AAAS uncovering the manipulation of NIH health guidelines by the sugar industry from 1959-1971.[24] Sorry, but medical content is not immune from corporate bias, and both MEDRS and FRINGE are abused to perpetuate this bias, which is why we rely on the NPOV policy above and beyond any project-promoted guideline. It is of note that GMO critics have made the same claims about corporate bias in the "established" GMO literature. MEDRS and FRINGE are frequently cited to prevent other perspectives from being presented. Merchants of Doubt covers the specifics of how this works in the real world. This is why, at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, with some editors trying to falsely elevate guidelines in order to bypass the NPOV policy and filter out critical viewpoints outside the consensus established by Big Pharma. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing contrary about it: guidelines are indeed documented best practice, as agreed by the community. There's nothing "suggested" about guidelines; they are not optional to be disregarded at will as you seem to think. Don't bother deflecting by going off on tangents, just concentrate on your campaign against MEDRS and your attempt to criticise an editor who followed "best practice" by removing claims that cited only primary sources. Let's be clear: do you support the notion of using primary sources to insert medical claims into Wikipedia? Yes or no? Then we can see what your agenda is here. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not belabor the point that guidelines are not policies because the tone of your responses is somewhat elevated, so I will end my participation in this sideline discussion by suggesting that you review WP:MEDRS wherein it clearly states: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research). I try to adhere to policy and use guidelines for...well, guidelines. You might also want to read: Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Enforcement and WP:IAR. To keep reverting and/or deleting the edits of others simply because you think the passage isn't properly sourced according to a specific guideline could very well be considered disruptive. Not following a guideline isn't the same as violating policy, the latter of which is subject to enforcement. Atsme☯^Consult 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is WP:Dispute resolution. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" about content. ANI is not the place for that. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
      • • Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a content issue, it's a conduct issue and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
          • It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have zero involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from two years ago, when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
            • It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are not content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support in agreement with DR. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support; overdue. It is not the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their own behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See The Mote and the Beam. NE Ent 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I disagree that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA behavior is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with WP:OWN and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, which is indeed this forum. There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Serialjoepsycho I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of this (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution here and here. The canvassing warning I gave David points to Wikipedia:Canvassing and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think its wp:teahouse and WP:ADOPTif he's not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

fwiw, Serialjoepsycho... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while i might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that David take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support close with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT, or Wikipedia:Co-op, or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support close. This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing WP:FRINGE ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is really confusing. Yesterday, I saw this was closed. I mistakenly read that to mean it was like a court case, that it was closed, over, final, done, resolved, a decision was made, etc., and I (and others) could continue other more productive work without having to monitor it. I mistakenly also believed that if a new case or issue was to arise, I would get notice and new arguments would begin there. I am really glad I looked again, or I wouldn't have known that the resolution had unraveled and that a whole new set of voices have appeared shifting the balance yet again with old voices taking new positions vying for a resolution more to their liking hoping the new voices would side with them and those who disagreed might lose interest. To be honest, it seems pretty chaotic. I like the legal system a lot more where you have a non-partisan neutral judge who is an expert in the law and is supposed to give decision based on the law, work on specific time constraints and limits on the amount of material submitted and the relevance of that material rather than this chaotic free for all that is very partisan that seems to keep going on as long as anyone doesn't like the result... That said, I guess I need to respond yet again...David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC))
• As you can tell above, I am frustrated this was re-opened. However, there may be some value to that. I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. I did go to WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT and Wikipedia:Co-op and utilized all three as recommended above. As I said above, partisanship seems to be compromising the resolution process. It seems Jytdog and his supporters want me punished/warned and Jytdog to not be punished/warned, and my supporters want Jytdog punished/warned and me to be off the hook. (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) From looking at what Jytdog wrote here, it looks to me like both Jytdog and I will be willing to admit responsibility for the problems between us if the other does the same. I will be willing to go there if: either:

(1) neither of us is punished

(2) or both of us is punished/sanctioned/warned equally.

It would be grossly unfair if one was sanctioned and the other not sanctioned. That will only infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road. I am hoping there is a way so that we can all be on the same "side". This does not need to be a "war" or a "battlefield". (struck word "partisan" and suggestion of "sides" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

SO INSTEAD I PROPOSE THIS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE:

(1) Everyone who has been partisan stops adding material and arguing with each other, including my supporters (<<<THANK YOU!)and Jytdog's supporters:

Kingofaces43 (talk)

Dialectric (talk)

Guy (Help!)

The Banner talk

Viriditas (talk)

SandyGeorgia (Talk)

SylviaStanley (talk)

Capitalismojo (talk)

Atsme☯^Consult

petrarchan47tc

RexxS (talk)

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

John Carter (talk) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

(2) No new users come into the discussion except by mutual agreement of Jytdog (talk) and me.

(3) Other than Jytdog (talk) and me, only those who have shown a strong middle ground (i.e. noting problems of both parties) stay:

Lfstevens (talk), A1candidate, NE Ent. In fact, I would be okay with just a discussion between Jytdog (talk), NE Ent and me

(4) The goal of further discussion per NE Ent "is not...to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other." Indeed. That will not accomplish anything. However, I also think that to "reflect" on behavior will not make the problems go away.

(5) Instead, the goal of continued discussion here will be to IMPROVE COMMUNICATION between Jytdog (talk) and me, using a NEUTRAL 3rd PARTY. I propose NE Ent for that.

Jytdog: What do you think? With the help of neutral third party (NE Ent) and possibly also Lfstevens, A1candidate, I think I could answer the question you asked me here.

David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

David, there are many things wrong or just odd about what your write above. Generally, you just don't understand how this place works, and you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you. I won't address everything, but I really object to your (again, and wrongly again) guessing about my motivations and what I will do; you speak only for yourself when you write "That {namely one of us being sanctioned and the other not} will infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road." And there is no competition here; nothing here is about "winning" or "losing" and I am sorry you view it that way. I have brought up issues with your behavior; the community will decide if those are real issues or not, and if so what to do about them. Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around. All that said, if you want to talk with me through some third party - if that would help you somehow - I would be open to that, as weird as that is. I recommend that you do not try to work with A1 on that, as A1 and I are often on different sides of disputes over alt med health content. But this is not a content dispute where mediation would be helpful. The two times you have actually raised content issues at articles, we have worked through those fairly well; we don't need DR/mediation. My issues are with your campaigning/canvassing, and your following me around accusing me of COI. You think I have issues with OWN. Those are things the community can and should look at it and make decisions about. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you really need to talk to me in such a condescending manner? That is not helpful saying "you just don't understand how this place works" and "you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you". I have listened to plenty of advice and used it, even in this discussion. Guessing about motivations? What about you and all your claims here that I am an "activist" and that I am applying activism to the articles? While you are a self-admitted biology scientist working at a University in real life and are practicing your slanted views of the science of GMO's in the articles, and trying to convince everyone you are neutral and objective when many can plainly see that you are not? You said to me that at Wikipedia "we don't care what you do in real life". Well, if that is so, why did you bring it up? It's a double-standard.

I have not gone around accusing you of COI. You don't need to have a COI to put PR materials supporting GMO's in the articles any more than those who put Arturo's work on BP into the BP article. The people who did that might think BP can do no wrong and that everyone else who has something negative to say about BP is an "activist", a "charlatan", "crank", "Luddite" or WP:Fringe or anti-BP, anti-Oil and part of the conspiracy of the "War on Oil". If you believe the PR materials from industry are true and incorporate them, that doesn't mean you have a COI. But the article becomes slanted if it is composed of PR work from the industry. That's what I said on Jimbo's page--that the articles are slanted and pro-industry. I have never accused you of COI. I said the material is slanted. And when new users try to add material critical of GMO's I tell that that you and your colleagues will oppose addition of material that is critical of GMO's, why and how, which is telling them the truth about what happens on the GMO articles. I don't see why the users should not be informed of what is going on, why they are going to receive unreasonable opposition to reasonable proposed changes, and why they are getting allegations, threats and hints not to be BOLD on their talk pages. I think they have a right to know that when you show up trying to scare them off.

"Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around." You speak as if the two are *completely* unrelated. They are not. That's why BOTH of us are here. I have said time and time again that my behavior that you call "stalking" and "canvassing", is my attempt to mitigate the damage you do in dealing with new users. Something quite a few others have noticed as well and brought plenty of supporting evidence for. I have asked others here specifically the best way to deal with that if you or anyone else treats new users inappropriately or condescendingly or with threats of ugliness as you did early on with me, and I am awaiting advice on that. Calling it "stalking" and "canvassing" is not useful feedback. I do not understand why that is not obvious. It seems to me you think you have a right to talk to new users on the GMO articles as you please, but if I talk to the same new user, that's not okay, then it is "canvassing" and "stalking". If rather than accusing me of stalking you said, "Yes, David, maybe I was too rough on the new user. I'm sorry for that", this entire ANI could have been avoided. But instead, you got mad at me for confronting you about it and can't see that the two are directly related.David Tornheim (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) here is David's post to the teahouse, which ends with "In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?" And here is the new coop project David started - a project to "deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles." Oy... more of the same campaigning behavior. But maybe someone will give good advice. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope they do give some good advice. Back when this was happening with the BP article, and if you were as new as me and wanted advice on how to deal with the WP:OWNers of the BP article who insisted on the BP PR materials, and you knew the owners were going to drag you to ANI accusing you of "canvassing" if you tried to talk to anyone but the owners about the problem of slant, how would you word it when asking for advice?David Tornheim (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

First, if i were inexperienced as you, i would be way more tentative than you have been, and would hold back from drawing big, strong, global conclusions. I would go ask at the teahouse, "I think article X is messed up and not NPOV...how do I fix it?" They would tell you to WP:FIXIT - the same advice you have been given many times, which is focus on content, not contributor. Deal with actual content, one thing at a time. If you think some content is missing from an article, or some content is being given UNDUE weight, try to fix it, one bit at a time. One bit at a time. If people object to your edit, listen to what they say, ask for the basis in policy or guideline. Go read the policy or guideline, and try to understand its heart. Go back and look at the source and content under discussion, and really consider it again, in light of PAG. Let the source and PAG and what other people say, speak to you. If the objection still doesn't make sense to you, ask (really ask) more at the article Talk page.' If the responses still don't make sense, start working WP:DR, which is usually to go ask at the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, or relevant content noticeboard, and try to understand, and really listen to what other editors say. Once you have done all that, and the objection still doesn't make sense, use whatever next WP:DR process makes sense, to deal with that specific content. One thing at a time. If in the course of that, you find that some behavioral policy or guideline is being broken, bring that specific behavior up to the editor at his or her talk page, focused on the concrete behavior, supported by diffs (not focused on their motivations- as I have told you, we do not do psychoanalysis here, we don't speculate about what motivates somebody - we focus on concrete behavior, and actual content and sources) and citing PAG. If the editor doesn't change his or behavior, and you are able to establish a pattern of that behavior, you can bring a case here, at ANI, about that editor's pattern of behavior, concisely, supported by actual diffs showing the behavior, and citing the actual PAG that is being violated. Simple, concrete, step by step. Without all the dramatic, global language. Simple. Concrete. That is how we work here. Instead, you have charged into this topic with a very strong, glaring even, pre-existing POV on GMOs, and have thrown around these big claims around about corruption, POV, etc. in every place you can find. You are a campaigner and you have made me the target of your campaign. It is ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian. Not what we do here, not how we act here. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

responding to this above, at 13:15, 12 March 2015. david, you alone are responsible for your behavior, as I am for mine. I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat. I am a human, and an editor here, just like you. Your focus on me is bizarre and is your choice, and the way you are dealing with your concerns about my behavior, is not how we do things here. And you do not understand how WP works. I and others have kept asking you to deal with actual content to which you object, instead of running around making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil. And again, the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. I am getting close to asking for an i-BAN or topic ban; you show no signs of respecting the community and its norms, or allowing the community to judge and act, and instead you are continuing your campaign, full steam ahead. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (note what this is responding to Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

I was not continuing any "campaign". I followed the advice of two users above who said I should ask my question at the forums they suggested. "I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat." I never said you are. And neither am I. "I am a human, and an editor here, just like you." And so am I. Where did I suggest otherwise? You are imagining things. Talk about ascribing motivations to others. "making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil." I am not trying to fight "evil". I am trying to deal with the case where the WP:OWNers of the article, lead by you are unreasonable. the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. That's not true and you know it. We talked a number of times, and nearly every time you rejected anything I suggested adding using the same reason you almost always do, it's written by an "activist" organization. Therefore they should have no voice. Anyone who criticizes GMO's can't have a voice. So then, all you can get in the article is things filtered through the people who support GMO's. At some point we need to go to RS and/or NPOV forums to address that. I don't know enough about those forums to do that at this time. Anyway, this discussion is not productive. All you do is lodge more allegations as you always do. More intimidation and I'm really tired of it. I hope neutral moderators can see how difficult it is to try to talk to you. David Tornheim (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave the links to the two actual edits that you have made. Two. And on the other stuff, your words speak for themselves: "in other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?", teahouse and see the difs and what you said in them, in my original post, way, way above. Really, go read them. Canvassing, campaigning, from day 1. This thread is about your behavior. It is not about content. You are not dealing with how bad your behavior has been - you just keep making excuses for it - and you keep doing it, even today at the Teahouse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and you alone are responsible for what you do. Just like I am for my behavior. As always, I will be happy to discuss content with you, at the articles and their talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - David Tornheim, I joined this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and have never collaborated with you to my knowledge. I have collaborated with Jytdog, and will admit that we have not interpreted policy the same, but that does not make me partisan against him. The only partisanship I have or have ever demonstrated on WP is to WP:PAG, particularly to policies that affect BLPs. Your list gives the wrong impression of me as being partisan to a particular cause or editor, and I imagine others on that list may feel the same or similar. Please remove or strike my name from your list. Atsme☯^Consult 12:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To Atsme☯^Consult: Sorry. Thank you for the feedback. You are correct, "partisan" was the wrong word, is far too charged and an unfair description of your participation and that of others. The idea of two sides is also equally problematic. I especially regretted my use of the word "partisan" shortly after I posted it and have since contemplated how to fix it to convey what I meant in terms of why resolution of the conflict between Jytdog and me would likely go smoother and be less charged if just NE Ent was mediating it without further evidence brought in and without new conflicts between various people who have entered the discussion making it even more complicated than it already is.

For simplicity, I will strike the reference to both partisan and sides. I thank you for your input into the discussion and apologize for using an unfair negative label to describe you and others.David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, David Tornheim. I wasn't asking for an apology, and will humbly accept the one you volunteered. It was an extremely nice gesture considering a strike would have been adequate. I hope my typewritten words didn't sound harsh, but if so, I apologize to you. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Jytdog I've been meaning to ask you to provide evidence for your categorization of me as "anti-GMO", or correct your initial statements to reflect your mistake, lest this branding follow me around WP masquerading as fact. You are now the first and only person, both online and IRL, to refer to me as anti-GMO. You already apologized for doing this at BP, when you became the only person to ever call me an environmenalist, but no lesson was learned. As Core suggested a couple years ago, "I strongly resent [Jytdog's] effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here." petrarchan47tc 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan. First let me say that I am sorry that David's canvass of you woke up all these old conflicts. I don't want to extend this already too-long thread, so I posted a response on my Talk page (you asked me not to post on yours, I think) Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You have highlighted cases where I challenge industry slant in GMO articles, your control over GMO articles (with your thousands of edits), and where I show that the idea of "scientific consensus" has been called into question. None of this can be construed as having any idea as to my personal view on GMOs, but rather my view about NPOV on WP. I haven't come to a personal conclusion about GMO's, so I am sure that there is no evidence proving I have. If you want to categorize me as "anti" industry slant, I accept. But no, I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-NPOV. WP readers come here to read about all sides of the story, but instead we are engaging in censorship, as Atsme mentions above re MEDRS. The first time I heard of MEDRS was when I attempted to update the Monsanto article here, and was quickly reverted by you. At the noticeboard you suggested, I am told that MEDRS prevents this addition. MEDRS is meant to protect readers from bad medical advice - but in this case the only ones protected are Monsanto stockholders. Your opinion seems tethered not to WP rules, but to how GMO's and biotechs are described to the reader. I have observed that you use drama and bullying to distract from this fact (David's talk page is a good example). I hate that people have to deal with this, but I don't hate you, as you claim on your talk page. :) petrarchan47tc 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs on my page are plenty clear as to where you come from. MEDRS is about health, not just medicine, btw. And that Seneff article you wanted to add, that I reverted, that was shot down dead as pure flake science. As long as you keep wanting to push that kind of content into WP you are going to be frustrated. I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I deny having an anti-GMO stance and ask again for you to strike that claim. From your edits previous to the above, I see you are ambivalent about how to avoid responsibility for your ad hominem label. First you decide it is about "scientific consensus" and compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?) here. Then you decide that I had baited you and you are not taking the bait here wisely removing the Hitler reference. But you can't help but compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?), so it comes back in here. Then you decide that the reason you can't be held responsible for name calling is that I am here to "right wrongs" and predict the future. here. An hour later, that all has to go, and you conclude these are not the real problems, that the real problem is that I'm helping Atsme with "conspiracy theories" and "Fringe" theories. here. petrarchan47tc 09:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (amended by Petrarchan47 in this dif, but changes were made without redaction marks; I showed redaction. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC))

Errm - nowhere were you called a "nazi" and I strongly suggest you retract that accusation. I take it you are not familiar with WP:REICHSTAG? It has nothing to do with nazis. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:REICHSTAG has just as little to do with Nazis as it has to do with Wikipedia. It is a joke essay and has no reference to this discussion. However, the Reichstag building is associated with Hitler's rise to power. I'm not sure how you know what Jytdog meant by his comment, nor why you seem to speak for him and, along with his other buddies, fight his fights. Your participation here and at J-dgos' talk page does little to help your friend fight the accusations of WP:GANG behaviour and bullying. Indeed, it exemplifies them. I will correct references to Nazis and assume that I misunderstood his motivations. I doubt that I will receive the same treatment for my simple request. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

writing screeds on jimbo's page has been linked to that essay many times. i referenced it myself in my response to David's continuation of your most recent post on his page. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the level of cheap-shotting (citing comments I over-wrote as my thoughts/feelings evolved) and sheer ignorance, all twisted up into a self-destructive angry ball is typical and makes me sad every time I see it. it is just sad. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

would an admin please close this thread? it is just devolving. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles

Madvillain2009 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles. Even after I warned him not to add unsourced content ([25][26][27]) and some other users also tried to stop him from adding unsourced content to album articles or BLP articles ([28][29][30][31][32][33][34]), he keeps adding unsourced material ([35][36][37][38][39]). I'm not sure if he is the same person as Madvillain2010 (talk · contribs) or Madvillain2012 (talk · contribs), but I believe it is time to seek administrator intervention for Madvillain2009's lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability. 114.150.49.100 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a previous ANI discussion about User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD here- it was effectively ended because they claimed to have retired. However, this user is now back, and their conduct doesn't seem to have improved.

He claims to have uncurated one of my edits 1, without giving reason for it. Doesn't look like it was actually uncurated either.
Attacks on User talk:Maruff: 1, 2, 3.
Strange replies on User talk:Vanessa Shoshaj: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Given that the user admitted to abusing multiple accounts in the [previous discussion, I believe that they should be blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, the userpage Vanessa Shoshaj was an attack page (speedily deleted by RHaworth), including accusations of being a sex worker. These "reviews" were entirely inappropriate. This user is NOTHERE. Recommend indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've revdelled part of the history of the User:Vanessa Shoshaj talk page as continuing the allegations on the now deleted article Vanessa Shoshaj and I suspect that this user might be SSB anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An indef block definitely seems to be warranted here. This is certainly a WP:NOTHERE case. --IJBall (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely for persistently disruptive behaviour. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor on a reversion/spam spree

Can some admin review the recent edits of Gamera1123, who seems to be on a reversion/spam spree? Posting without attempting prior discussion with user, because the fast pace of edits may require a quick response. @Ohnoitsjamie:. Abecedare (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note:User:Drmies has blocked the user (don't know if they saw this report or not). The edits need to be reviewed to see if a mass-rollback is required. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Temporary block applied: 48 hours while we figure out if this is a kind of sock of User:Factsearch (those edits looked eerily familiar!) or if there's something else going on, like someone just hating on Ohnoitsjamie. Factsearch didn't care for whales, nor did Gamera seem to care for energy companies and policy. Note that I rolled back a number of their edits but not all of them--I stopped before I got to the whales, I think. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell on their talk page, they were given a warning regarding their addition of external links which might have set this revert spree in motion. I've rolled back a handful of the reverts as well. Nakon 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question is, how did this go on for so long without attracting attention by any of those vandal-fighting RC patrollers that have their automatic Twinkle weapons locked and loaded constantly? Don't they see someone reverting the edits of someone older than Methusalem without edit summary? Nakon, thanks--it may have been this one that Ohnoitsjamie saw and reverted. Anyway, I strongly urge Gamera1123 to start talking (on their talk page): please explain what's going on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the account was compromised. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious when I see any user canvassing links to some sort of atlas/almanac/area code page. Apparently I struck a nerve when I reverted a few link additions from Gamera1123 that looked spammy. I highly doubt this is related to User:Factsearch or Bignewsnetwork; it looks like they were just reverting all edits of mine where mine was the most recent. Given how pointy and time-wasteful Gamera's edits have been, I think 48 hours should be extended to indef. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

doxing attempt report

User 70.83.108.59 has attempted to dox me on the trajan vuia page. [40]. His attempt, including a link to a picture which he thinks is me. Probably the same vandal who was using 70.83.124 to post on this page, but was blocked for 6 months for doxing a user on the wright brothers' page on Feb 1. I can't supply a diff for that because Binksternet immediately erased that, unlike the current case which he has let stand on a page he is monitoring. Interesting how he only observes the rules when they don't interfere with his own personal campaign of obstructive edits and abuse.Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note, I have redacted the comment per TPG and NPA. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this qualifies for WP:RevDelete, but I think RD3 should apply. Any thoughts on the matter? -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is going on here , the truth about User:Ion G Nemes is that all hs editing is disruptive: he persistantly attempts to edit Traian Vuia to reflect his own higly biased view of the subject, and does not engage on the talk page. Not that there is any point in blocking him as a disruptive SPA who is clealy not here to build an encyclopedia, because I'm sure he'd pop up under another name.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And here comes the doxers pal to wikistalk and abuse me! Do I have to make ANOTHER report for this too? Longtone's abuse is RIGHT HERE FOR YOU TO SEE. I really want to know what this kid's problem is. And I'd also like to know why he's so sure you won't do a damned thing about his wikistalking and abusing me RIGHT HERE ON THE ADMIN PAGE. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nerdypunkkid

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

User:Nerdypunkkid is an editor who has created a several promotional articles about non-notable or barely notable subjects. (articles created) The editor has also gone on a couple of sprees adding very spammy links to articles without any common connection (it was another editor's recent warning which brought my attention back to the problem). I think this is an undisclosed paid editor. I've tried to ask the editor about the spam a couple of times, once in October[41] during this AFD, and once again today,[42] but no response. After cleaning up Caroline Klebl I think this editor is doing more harm than good. In addition to that, there may also be sockpuppetry involved. User:SimpleBlueBlazer readded some links to the same site to the same articles just today (new:[43] old:[44]; new:[45] old:[46]). This was a couple hours after Nerdypunkkid finished his/her batch, although there was no other overlap between the two accounts. I think the promotional editing is more serious, which is why I'm taking this here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red behavior at Helmut Diez and related pages

I'm not sure what to do with this case, but I believe it needs attention.

User Rhode Island Red is angling hard for the Helmut Diez article to be deleted, and is attempting to make it as worthless as possible in an attempt to get the deletion to stick.

I don't know who Helmut Diez is, nor do I know if we should have an article about him, but I do know that as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering.

Why am I not assuming good faith here?

1. Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a good version, albeit roughly translated from German, to the current incarnation being discussed at the open AfD. Yes, I am aware that a bad translation needs to be made better. But I'd like to see some sort of discussion as to whether or not the article or its subject is worth that sort of time investment before tackling what would in the end turn out to be a fruitless endeavor.
2. Rhode Island Red not only PRODs the article, but seconds his own PROD.
3. When Rhode Island Red finally opens the AfD, he not only deletes material to make the appearance seem worthless, he stuffs the ballot box by voting on his own motion there, too.

Whether or not Rhode Island Red is intentionally acting in bad faith, I cannot say. All I can say is that he is preventing any discussion and attempting to force his will by taking it upon himself to get this article deleted, by any means necessary. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with it, but for context it looks like there's a recent failed dispute resolution case on the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's mindboggling that Jsharpminor would call attention to his violation of WP:AGF by filing a petty and baseless grievance like this. Material was deleted from the article, consistent with WP:BIO because it was poorly or improperly sourced or failed verification[47] and was written incomprehensibly about a subject with no apparent notability. It was deleted long before the article went to DRN 2 weeks ago and before it was nominated for deletion. JSharp seems to be implying that I removed acceptable conetnt content from the article to gin-up the deletion nomination process but that's demonstrably false.

I find it offensive that someone would petition against an editor in this manner, particularly when I was acting in good faith and engaging constructively on the talk page and at DRN, when the issue is nothing more than a content dispute in which the other disputant (Hans) has yet to make a compelling case to support the notability of the bio subject or the inclusion of poorly written, poorly sourced, and irreparably badly written material. I explained at great length how/why the material conflicted with WP policy and that the onus is on the editor who wishes support the inclusion of contentious material in a bio.[48][49] I nominated the article for deletion, after going through lengthy but fruitless discussions, because doing so would bring much needed additional scrutiny to the article from other editors and finally resolve the issue -- a complete logical part of the WP process. I made the nomination right after Hans abjectly failed to make a compelling case for his edits at DRN. All one has to do is read the admin's conclusion to the dispute 2 days ago.

"The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration."[50]

Needless to say, this grievance on the part of Jsharpminor is completely unfounded -- obnoxiously so. In other words, nothing to see here (except one editor abandoning WP:AGF for no reason and making a bewildering attempt to intimidate another productive editor who's following proper procedure). Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jsharpminor, I see that you have described your impressions very precisely. A kind of behavior, which I would also call detrimental for our collaborative project. One of his ways is to invent one reason after another to make us believe that the article's subject is not notable. First it was the language of the sources, then their notability, even in which library you can find the sources became a core argument (he seems to believe that only the library of congress has got adequate literature in its magazines) and so on. If he really believes what he is telling us all the time, he is probably too illiterate to understand, what we are talking about. I never thought of lawyering, becausse I don't know the exact meaning. So, I cannot decide, if you are right or wrong. Destroying an article is no good thing, destroying it during a discussion of this kind is one of the reasons why people of that kind keep good authors far away from participation. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hans, you know full well that I did not "destroy the article" during discussion. The page was edited prior to your bringing up your dispute with DRN -- the chronology of events and the diff edits I posted above make that abundantly obvious. Nor did I "invent" anything. You're completely ignoring the fact that the outcome of the DRN went against you and echoed the concerns that I had raised. I'm following procedure to the letter.[51] If you think the subject is notable, which the evidence strongly indicates is not the case, then you must make an attempt to prove it, and so far you have failed to do so. But this isn't the place to argue about notability. The article has been nominated for deletion so you had best make your case at the deletion discussion page rather than attempting to pile on in this non-incident witch hunt. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, now I'm absolutely surprised: You see yourself as a victim of a witch hunt? I really do not know why I have the same impression, but exactly the other way round: You are the witch hunter, and you try to intimidate me, whenever you can. You make use of your advanced knowledge of the incredibly complicated processes here, and whatever I bring forth you don't accept it - with a variety of "reasons". And you seem to believe that anything is allowed here. Simply compare the article and my sandbox, or have a look at the step-by-step destruction with the help of the article's history, and everybody, who is capable to read can see what you are doing here. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again Hans you're ignoring the writing on the wall. The moderator at the DRN made it clear that the material you were proposing was problematic for a a variety of reasons, seconding what I had told you. When you ignore the outcome of the process you initiated, try to make yourself look like a victim, and blame me for the result, you do a disservice to yourself and all other editors involved. Again, I urge you to focus on trying to demonstrate notability of the bio subject lest the article disappear forever. Concentrate on content instead of personal attacks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that Jsharpminor violated WP:AGF and made a completely unfounded ANI report and personal attack (i.e. "as long as Rhode Island Red is in the dispute, any intelligent debate is going to be lost in a flood of bad-faith wikilawyering", an apology is in order. I'll be waiting. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, where do I begin here?

1. Assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary.
2. When an article is up for AfD, the article must not be blanked, and [the AFD] notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules.
3. BLP only justifies removal of controversial content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass WP:N.
4. Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism.
5. Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not WP:RS, others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on.
6. You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it.
7. The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point about which you and I are in agreement. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical.

You are free to wait as long as you like for your apology. I will accept one only if it is accompanied by your ceasing of the specific behaviors mentioned here. It would be much more productive if you would actually allow the community to view the actual article in question and decide whether to keep or delete it; not the bastardized stub that is left after you get done decimating it. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary".

Except there is no legitimate evidence to the contrary. You just gave yourself carte blanche to dismiss AGF at will.

• "When an article is up for AfD, the article must not be blanked, and [the AFD] notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. Blanking the page first, and then submitting it for AfD second, is just a way to lawyer around the rules."

The article was not blanked after it was nominated for deletion. Questionably sourced, trivial and illegible text was removed weeks prior to it going before DRN, where it was then reviewed in detail, and then subsequently nominated for deletion. You’re ignoring the actual chronology of events to suit your own manufactured narrative and egregious violation of AGF.

• "BLP only justifies removal of controversial content, not just content that you happen to think doesn't pass WP:N."

Your assertion is demonstrably false (and I never cited WP:N as a reason). The relevant WP policies refer to “disputed” not “controversial” content, and there is a world of difference between the two. You would have known this had you bothered to read the diff edits I posted above, talk page, or DRN where I reiterated the policies that justified the content deletion.[52][53] I’ll make it easier for you and post them again, lest you keep repeating the same off-base accusation:

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: “To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.”

WP:SOURCE: “Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.”

WP:ONUS: “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

WP:NPF “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.”

WP:NOENG: “Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.”

Is that clear enough for you now?

• "Edit warring to delete large blocks of information from a page is not constructive; it is vandalism."

Were you just sharing a bit of well known WP trivia or was that a backhanded accusation? I didn’t edit war and I certainly didn’t vandalize the article. You’re the first to make such a charge, and it was scrutinized closely by a moderator just last week during DRN.[54] Is your logic that making 20 false accusations might create the perception of one legitimate one? That's some questionable calculus.

• "Some of the sources are problematic, this is true. Some are not WP:RS, others don't make significant mention of Mr Diez. However, deleting the references for the article along with everything else, is problematic because it doesn't allow anyone to see what's going on."

Virtually all of the sources were problematic. Of the 27 hyperlinked references provided by Hans previously all 27 failed a verification check,[55] and when challenged during DRN to provide even a single sentence of content that was reliably sourced, comprehensible, and noteworthy about the bio subject, he was unable to do so.[56] This too should have been painfully obvious to you had you read the DRN that I pointed out. As for not being able to see what’s going on, how hard is it to go back and look at a previous version in the edit history? Hans already provided the link. It’s not like it’s hiding. Mercy, what a burden! About 1/100th the effort it’s taken me to respond to this ANI.

• "You are not "following procedure." You may be following the letter of the law in some instances, but you are clearly violating it in others, and certainly violating the consensus spirit of it."

I am in fact following procedure – i.e., the letter of the law -- as well as the spirit. I’m not sure what sort of personal standard you hold editors to or how you assess spiritual violations, but the standards I adhere to assiduously are WPs policies and guidelines, and I have done so in this case. There has been no consensus to violate. The closest thing to a consensus was reached at DRN and it echoed my sentiments to the letter. I have clearly NOT violated the consensus spirit of anything.

• "The moderator at DRN gave up and said that the article needs to be taken to AfD. He said that there are notability concerns here, and this is a point about which you and I are in agreement. The only point on which I disagree with you is that you are trying to take it upon yourself to turn a C-class article into a stub for the express purpose of proving that it is bad. This is circular and unethical."

He gave up because despite pleading for days on end, Hans couldn’t provide a single sentence of decipherable text that was noteworthy and supportable by reliable references.[57] You shouldn't speculate about what you think my motives are. I did not delete material to prove that the article was “bad”; I deleted material because the material was "bad". In conclusion, I call BS on every accusation you made. Your charges are so off base that it begs the question as to why you would even bother to file such a superficial and petty ANI. It's still not too late to atone by apologizing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's have another go at this.

I'm starting the arduous process of sifting through the article, and I'm slowly being able to sift through the data. However, you would do well to keep the following in mind:

1. Sources for English WP do not need to be in English.
2. BLP does not require deletion of all unsourced material – only what's contentious and possibly untrue. No one is disputing that anything in the Helmut Diez article is factually incorrect; in fact, it likely is all correct, though possibly colored with a bit of marketing puffery.
3. It looks bad to second your own PROD nomination.
4. It looks bad to vote "yes" on your own AfD.
5. It is unconstructive and possibly even vandalism to continually wipe a page that another editor is actively working on.

In the end, you're probably right when you contend that Helmut Diez is an unsuitable candidate for a Wikipedia article. However, the manner in which you're trying to run around and force the issue is likely to generate responses from uninvolved editors. It throws up big red warning flags, and invites editors to ask you to stop. I suppose if you thrive on conflict, you're welcome to keep going the way you are, but you should expect to meet lots of resistance at every step when you try to steamroll process. The wheels of Wikipedia justice turn slowly, and trying to circumvent process to make them go faster will only cause unnecessary pain and distraction.

Let the AfD go forward with the article fundamentally unchanged from how it is. If you want to make minor corrections, I won't tell you not to. The article will probably be nuked. In the mean time, please refrain from blanking it further. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone who abandons the assumption of good faith seems to have an excuse that in their mind that justifies it. You've managed to misrepresent pretty much every relevant detail in this case, and it serves no purpose since the situation is now resolving itself through proper channels -- as a direct result of my input on the DRN and my nominating the article for deletion. For now, I'll simply refer you back to my original rebuttal which negates the bulk of your accusations. No point wasting more time responding while you clutch your pearls about non-existent conduct issues, acknowledging that the article is likely to get nuked. I wish I could say it's been fun. I'll still accept that apology when you're ready. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Wasn't it you, who started dreaming of a witch hunt? After all this, nobody except you can Assume good faith any more on your side, and I could imagine that Jsharpminor is not completely wrong. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And again, Rhode Island Red, one of your contortions: It was me who put the case on DRN, and the result - only a little bit different from what you expected - can be seen here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_110#Talk:Helmut_Diez. In short: "Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution ..." --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hans, instead of doubling down on this BS ANI, you should be concentrating on the editorial issues at hand -- i.e., defending your claim that the bio subject is notable by providing the requisite details that have repeatedly been requested of you on the talk page and during the DRN, which you have so far failed to provide. I don't dream of a witch hunt as you suggested; I dream of no longer having to waste WP resources on a substandard article about a non-notale subject that should have been deleted long ago. Additionally, you now seem to be alleging that I "contorted" something about the DRN. Would you care to elaborate on that, or are you content to just sling mud from the sidelines? If you're going to accuse someone of doing something improper, have the decency to be specific. Once again, I'll post the conclusion of the DRN so there's no ambiguity, as you now seem to be trying to misrepresent what was said:

"The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration."[58] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- Rewrite of Article with RELIABLE SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE

I saw this claim early on by the user who brought in the allegations:

Rhode Island Red deletes material from the article. Compare a good version, albeit roughly translated from German, to the current incarnation being discussed at the open AfD

It appears each is at an extreme. The "good version" needs to be better sourced as was pointed out by Rhode Island Red here. My suggestion is that the user who brought the ANI close the discussion with apology for inadequate sourcing, fix the sourcing problems, show us a "good version" that is properly sourced, and let us see where we are then.David Tornheim (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just to let you all know that "palestine" does not exist, and I'm removing it from Wikipedia. Thank you.101.160.175.244 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article called Palestine, and it appears to be a real entity, not a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bugs. IP has been blocked for vandalism. -- Diannaa (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP account needs its user talk page access revoked as well, as it's using it to make personal attacks. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willy Moon

Follow a bit of controversy on the New Sealand X-factor show the article for Willy Moon has been the subect to vandalism this has made its way to a FB page with 100,000+ fiollowers[59] can we get some more eyes watching this page Though I suspect that full protection may be a necessary option. Gnangarra 07:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) See below... Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)revdelled, nothing to see, anymore Kleuske (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

122.148.163.131 / Pabdelma / SweetPoet345 : disruptive, vandalism, incompetence

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

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

SweetPoet345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated attempts to create articles with insufficient competence, beginning with lack of minimum English language skills. An example of their idea of a good Wikipedia article can be found here. Multiple disruptive/vandalism warnings by multiple editors. Significant disruption at WP:HD, creating at least seven sections, two of them containing nothing but profanity. I was prepared to ignore until they came back with a brand new username. (Redacted). Help. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, the aforementioned user page has been deleted, I guess because it contained the user's full name and address. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I emailed oversight. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And I've just blocked SweetPoet345 as an obvious sock account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tumadoireacht and Circumcision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tumadoireacht was blocked in December last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the Circumcision article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting[60] of an admin (Zad68) for warning another editor about the WP:TPGs. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure Zad68 is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?JodyB _talk 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same JodyB who states "Marginal ideas and thoughts have a place but should be plainly shown to be marginal. If sourced, the reader can investigate for himself and determine whether the thoughts are correct" on his home page - even if not that JodyB - WP policy is positively disposed towards including the views of "activist" groups that is, in this case, those who question, from a scientific or human rights or other perspective the cutting off of the tips of male child genitals.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to this edit which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this[61] (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this[62] where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that WP:MEDRS applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Tumadoireacht has been engaging in personal attacks and general battleground behavior on the topic of Circumcision for a long time now, as a short persusal of Talk:Circumcision and its archives will demonstrate, but here are a few examples from the past few months:

  Any editors out there (apart from the good 'ole boys)

  Be aware that you are most unlikely to be permitted to make any change, however well referenced, to the Circumcision article whether it is better structure, wording, references or content, unless it augments positive views on Circumcision.

  Doc, Flop, Gop or one of the gang

  cabal behaviour

  concerted cabal.

  Tumadoireacht seems to have given up on proposing actual changes to the article entirely in favor of vague complaints and talk page sniping. It is time to see if he can be more productive on some other topic. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing worded changes to the article is the last of a list of eight ways the Talk Page Guidelines mention under the title "How to use article talk pages"

In his eagerness and haste Mr Ollie has failed to notice that at least one of my contributions which he chose to quote from most selectively IS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC WORDED CONTENT CHANGE. Is it" time for Mr Ollie to see if Mr Ollie can be more observant and productive on some other topic ?

My proposals for article content change are evident and numerous not "vague" There are about an equal number of cogent pertinent aspects of Circumcision which about a half dozen editors refuse to permit mention of. These same editors on patrol misrepresent WP policy on Primary Sources and on non medical aspects of the subject to any editor attempting to address this obvious imbalance. The WP policy for instance on both scientific and human rights activist groups ( in this case those who are against this from of genital cutting ) is a good example- it is quite contrary to the picture painted by Alexbrn et cetera. It is not "problematic" as Alexbrn chooses to label it, to point out these aspects of the article, in an attempt to improve it. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I have been half-heartedly monitoring Circumcision and its talk for years and Tumadoireacht is not helping. As MrOllie shows, current activity is centered on sniping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Users editing is disruptive. They have not made constructive suggestions with good references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is Circumcision articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning me would help. Yes it would help- it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with me for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that I have raised some genuine issues here, and did in fact, originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page. In the interests of attempting to find consensus I have largely stopped editing the article - all gets reverted by the patrol. On the question of proposing worded content - the pattern of the concerted pro circumcision group is as follows - "we/i have reverted or refuse to allow your edit because your source is too old ( older sources already used for pro C content) your source is a primary source( primary sources already used for pro C content) your source is non medical" ( non medical sources already used for pro C content) - then "your content is 'against XYZ policy" (which often has no relevance but serves the purpose of putting off the would be editor) and then when such inhibitings fail - sarcasm such as this to a new editor

"Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you."

Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by allegations of conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest and the heavily content-opposed editors from the subject area gather at a noticeboard and attempt to establish a false consensus.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I feel a lot of the editors of the circumcision article are blatenly biased in favour of circumcision. It is helpful to have editors from both sides of the debate. For a cabal of those same pro-circumcision editors to ask for his dismissal is typical. Tremello (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Tremello is a single-purpose account (SPA) regarding circumcision and related topics; please refer to the user's edit history, and the linked page for Wikipedia's definition of an SPA. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not poison the well zad. Assume good faith. I am here to create a neutral article. Tremello (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Hello, I was discussing secondary sources for the part of the article on economic benefits with Tumadoireacht. I don't know what happened before but it seems this specific complaint here is that Zad came in to the discussion to tell us to stay on topic . . . kind of ironic because he could have just made an on topic post, such as showing what he might think a secondary source was. And I think instead of trying to get someone topic banned, everyone who has voted here could help wikipedia better by going to the talk page in question and discussing the topic. I read the guidelines here . I think if anything, give Tumadoireacht a "final warning". To Tumadoireacht: I don't think there is any kind of "criminal cabal" on wikipedia that is pro circumcicion. I think the cabal exists in real life and gets trickled down to wikipedia. Either way, this isn't the battleground to fight a great wrong. What do the sources say? You have many good sources. If any other ediots on wikipedia make you angry, I say "kill them with kindness" by that I mean be helpful by giving good sources that they cannot deny. Popish Plot (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

References

• Support topic ban from WP:MEDICINE-scope content as first choice, and from this topic in particular as a second choice. NuclearWarfare blocked Tumadoireacht just three months ago for disruptive editing (see discussion here), but the editor has returned to the exact same problematic editing behavior as before. He simply cannot or will not accept or understand Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, personalizes nearly every comment to the point that it seems he's incapable of just holding a conversation about the topic and the sourcing, and regularly uses the article Talk page to air his personal views on the article topic with highly-charged rhetoric. Most of his comments are just paranoid complaining about what he perceives as a "cabal"; when asked repeatedly to actually provide a specific, actionable article content change suggestion, backed by a genuine reliable source, he never delivers. Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Zad is an industrious,productive, meticulous and often painstakingly helpful editor and admin. Unfortunately he has a blind spot when it comes to this subject. He can be regarded as the leader of the group of editors who maintain this article in a currently highly both positively and medicine focussed selective stance on the subject of `circumcision. He exhibits a mean spirited obstructive streak when the unbalance of the article is explored, attempting to characterize good faith teasing out of the articles weaknesses with the worst either mistaken or deliberately misdescribed negative interpretation. This habit is uncharacteristic, but still unworthy of such an eminent and valuable editor. Zad's proposal to ban me from all medical related articles is interesting. It dovetails neatly with Alexbrns idea to ban not just from this article but from the twenty or so related Circumcision and genital cutting articles, the two lads thus presenting a sentencing spectrum. The really funny part is that one of our chief bones of contention is whether Circumcision is primarily a cultural rather than a medical act - a conversation which is currently occurring on the talk page but which Alexbrn's shunning proposal seems to be inhibiting his and Zad's participation in. Lets list the points Zad has raised

1/Previous "conviction"

2/No change

3/Non acceptance of WP sourcing standards

4/Personalizes most comments

5/Incapable of holding a conversation about the topic or the sourcing

6/regular use of talk page to air personal views

7/most comments are paranoid complaining about the cabal

8/never delivers actionable content when asked

9/this editor a useless waste of time.

I suggest any editor can find these charges to be exaggerated or plain untrue by reviewing my many engaged and good faith practical proposals and conversations/debate on the talk page of the article. Further I suggest that Zad himself engages frequently in the numbers 3 and 4 and 5 behaviour which he professes to abhor.

On a more general point it might be a positive influence on the article quality if those editors or groups of editors for whom circumcision has a religious, cultural or ethnic imperative or for whom it is second nature, made a conflict of interest declaration, or if not willing to do this, then at least allowed themselves (and thus the talk page and article) to examine ideas about its downsides.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the type of content that Tumadoireacht, by and large, generally attempts to add to the article. However, the way he is going about it is unhelpful—routinely using non-MEDRS compliant sourcing, casting aspersions to other editors, and most importantly, not changing their behavior in response to requests from other editors. This is a serious matter, and I think it merits a block if not a topic ban. I have acted before as an uninvolved administrator, and I reserve my right to continue doing so in the topic area even despite this post. NW (Talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose topic ban I don't see the behavior issue as per these diffs. They are just opinions. Discussing views is not a basis for topic banning. Zad's comment here "Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit" seems more of a behavior issue (PA) than info (diffs) presented here. If there's more, please enlighten. (UTC)--Pekay2 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support for topic ban. I'm only coming into this glancing at the diffs provided at the beginning of this post without looking into the actual article and I am seeing some decent amounts of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ASPERSIONS towards other editors. It's one thing to bring up perceived problems about other editors in appropriate venues, but not to do so in that manner while trying to affect content as well. If this user hadn't been blocked already (and very recently) I would have wanted to see very clear diffs showing even stronger disruptive and tendentious behavior than I'm seeing now to suggest the ban, but given the past block, it seems apparent that the editor's behavior isn't improving. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be that I mention too often the possibility that there is a group of editors staging a co-ordinated campaign to present a positively selective view of Circumcision within this and related articles. I can stop doing this. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Tumadoireacht barely focuses on the article content, except to call it biased, and usually negatively focuses on the editors he disagrees with. Almost every time a Wikipedia rule is validly put forth by editors that Tumadoireacht considers part of "the cabal," he does not seem to understand the rule and/or disregards it, and instead rants about the editors' supposed biases. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Crusaders have to be sent away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22's assertions are easily disproved - look at my edits and talk page entries and judge for yourself. There is a habit that some editors engage in -mentioning a WP policy when they encounter content they disagree with and then getting cross or going silent when the actual content of that policy is brought to their attention. The undue weight policy may be the best example. Those who love to use it as an inhibitory tool do not realize or choose to forget that it applies mostly to proportionality and not to utter exclusion of minor views on a subject. As for Baseballs Bugs cryptic quip - no crusader here folks - just looking for a balanced article that references all aspects of Circumcision -not just the medical ones and not just the positive ones.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What you call "negatives", i.e. unsterile conditions or botching it, are issues with any surgery, they're not peculiar to circumcision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@BaseballI think you are misunderstanding the use of the word negative and misunderstanding the difference between medical and societal circumcisions also.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from WP:MEDICINE-scope content per Zad. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that you had enough on your hands defending your own behaviour and reputation on this page at present Jytdog but I am not surprised to see you here chiming in.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the difs presented and your behavior; the topic ban is well warranted. I hope you can find happier fields to work in within Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And I,Jytdog, in turn, wish you the same happiness in attempting to successfully carry out your undertakings to modify your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, given elsewhere on this page. The many areas of health related articles, including Circumcision, where you have had problems in the recent past will undoubtedly benefit.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Even as this thread runs, Tumadoireacht's tendentious contributions continue.[63] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you really know what tendentious means Alex?

- it does not mean another editor on a talk page proposing content that you yourself or your friends simply do not like. Are you aware that accusing others of tendentious editing thus may be naughty?

 ?. On those now very rare occasions when I edit the Circumcision article, I work the 1RR which is the opposite tendency. Please re-examine your own recent behaviour here and elsewhere after revision. "Like sands through the hourglass.. so are the Days of Our Lives."Blah blah et cetera--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This proposed ban is totally wrong. That will not solve the real problem, which is draconian censorship of negative information about male circumcision. I oppose the ban.

184.46.139.238 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ban Zad68 and DocJames

The editors who should be banned are Zad68 and DocJames. They evidently have religious bias in favor of male circumcision that causes them to exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Yes a boomerang indef topic ban of User:Sugarcube73 would be reasonable. The came here making claims without evidence stating that I have a "religious bias in favor of male circumcision" and "exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision". However, the article in question states "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure" Hardly a statement in favor of the position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Doc, I've no doubt this section was bad faith, and a poor attack but do you really think Sugarcube needs a topic ban or are you just responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes. (because there's no tone on the internet I want to be clear I'm not judging either way just want to be clear)SPACKlick (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sugarcube is attempting to comment on the religion of editors on Wikipedia. I have never disclosed a religion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose and boomerang terribly POINTy and disruptive. 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:JimmySavileFan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Judging by his userpage hes a definite troll. I say an admin needs to indef him. 146.199.60.249 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bryce Carmony and civility

Background: Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been trying to merge most "Criticism of..." articles into the main article, with no concern for why they had been split in some cases such as Criticism of Facebook. I and a few others, including User:Lukeno94 and User:Andyjsmith, tried to discuss the mergers in various places. Bryce removed several attempts to communicate, calling them spam and harassment. I asked User:5 albert square to keep an eye on him, because she had blocked him last.

At 21:07 UTC yesterday, she blocked him for 24 hours with the rationale "argument is getting a little WP:POINTY". Since then, we've had many personal attacks, massive walls of text, Lukeno94 and I trying to explain his errors, and an arguable 3RR violation. Apparently Bryce feels that IAR covers this violation of WP:BLANKING. In general, this user has just been uncivil, and I want a resolution. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 04:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bryce simply will not listen to anything anyone has to say, and any attempts at discussing issues with them will eventually be dismissed as being spam and/or harassment - which is ridiculous, because there is no way on earth that anything has been spam, and the claims of harassment are almost as unfounded. They seem incapable of understanding that the issue centres around their lack of WP:BEFORE, in that they were nominating large pages for merger every 10 minutes or so at one point - a rate that clearly shows they never even attempted to look up the histories of each article, or to determine whether a merger may actually be appropriate. And the actions of User:Aladdin Sane, such as this attack post, have been little better, and have only made the situation worse. I'm not sure if any further sanctions are warranted for Bryce yet, but someone needs to talk some sense into them - I tried, but failed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Bryce Carmony is a truly terrible editor who has no place on Wikipedia. This is the second time in two months that his behaviour has been discussed here, and since January he has been blocked four times. His edits are often very clumsy, his manner is irrational and extremely aggressive, he wilfully misrepresents (often abusively) any attempts to discuss or challenge his actions, he refuses to follow guidelines and he is quite prepared to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The worst thing is that he (wilfully?) misunderstands fundamental issues and will not accept that he might be wrong - in many ways the apparent stupidity of people who disagree with him seems to be one of the sources of his anger.

His activities on Wikipedia have fallen into two phases, both based on irrational notions.

1. Until his 1 month block last month he spent his time removing "unnecessary words" from articles. In some cases this led to improvement by removing verbiage but in many cases it damaged the articles. He even edited direct quotes. It came to a head with a row over a single word which led to a short block. When the block ended he deliberately damaged the article in question, leading to a one month block.
2. In his current phase his target is articles with the word "criticism" in the title, on the bizarre grounds that since in the phrase "criticism of X" the word X is the subject then so too in an article with that title the subject must be X, and since criticism is of necessity POV then that article must be a POV content fork of the main article about X and should be merged into the main article. This idea led to a wave of drive-by tagging and now to a sustained effort to merge some major articles including carrying out one merge against consensus. When challenged his response was a disruptive edit that earned him his most recent block. He pretends not to understand the reason for the block.

We dare not leave him alone to have his fun since experience shows that he will take silence for consent. We cannot persuade him since he rejects all discussion. Blocking makes him froth at the mouth but does not drive the message home.

We should show him the door. andy (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy I would like to take this oppurtunity to engage in you the discussion that you feel I try and avoid. NPOV puts forward 3 standards. I apply these standards to every article. The idea is that every article meets these standards not two articles combined meets them. This is the discussion I try and have with you. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've had no interaction with this person and no involvement in any of the articles under dispute, but I've just read through the user's talk page since January (It's not archived so you have to keep checking past revisions). What I see is a shocking refusal or inability to listen to anything anyone says, coupled with an apparently unshakeable conviction that he can't possibly ever be wrong, and repeated personal attacks on anyone who tries to engage in discussion. I hate to say it, but this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people. Squinge (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of process, I hope no action will be taken until Bryce Carmony has the opportunity to respond to these complaints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I offered him the chance to write something on his talk page that I'd put here when I notified him about the discussion. Response was negative in tone. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see he removed your comment. And judging by his recent addition to his user page, it appears as if he wants to focus his editing on merging "Criticism of" articles with their primary subject article. I think properly merging articles, even when warranted, is a tricky job and should be undertaken by more experienced editors. But that's just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A huge issue, irrespective of experience and attitude, is that he is a very clumsy editor and frequently writes very poor English. This edit is typical, introducing a grammatical error and a spelling mistake in two short sentences. And this edit which leaves a single, almost meaningless sentence as the sole content of the article. I doubt that he ever checks what he writes, and as has been pointed out he simply will not accept that he makes errors. andy (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course I make the occasional error. No one is perfect and the point of Wikipedia is that no post is the last. When I see an editor make a mistake like say that Isaac asimov is "the most prolific writer of all time" I'll chuckle to myself, think of how I can improve it, and edit accordingly. I'm not perfect but I never have claimed to be. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes my point, I'm afraid. The article in question never did contain the phrase "the most prolific writer of all time" but merely said that he was one of the most prolific writers. You deleted this without checking, as you so often do. In fact this claim was made in a wikipedia article about prolific writers and was properly sourced. You edit clumsily and without any kind of checking, frequently damaging articles, and then say anything you like to try to justify your actions. andy (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Asimov&diff=prev&oldid=590127928 "One of the most prolific writers of all time" Which is impossible to verify since the future is unknown. the point is that when someone writes something like that, it's not a big deal. we can easily improve it. Andy I feel like you're upset. I'm sorry if I offended you. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Liz here, that nothing should be actioned until Bryce Carmony has had the chance to examine what's being said here at ANI and respond as he sees fit. He clearly wants to contribute constructively, and we shouldn't close the door on anyone who wants to help until all other avenues have been exhausted. Squinge (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, something I feel I should have put in my original post is his insistence that "admin abuse" and hostile editors are the reason that women don't edit Wikipedia. Personally, as a woman, the implication that we're more likely to run off than men in a mildly hostile environment is insulting. The gender imbalance has a number of causes, none as simple as this. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you look back in his Talk to February you'll see that his problem at that time was with Irish admins rather than misogynistic ones. He wasn't, as it happens, under attack by Irish people at that time, AFAIK, any more than he is currently under attack by alpha males. The problem is that when he feels cornered, which is frequently, he says anything that he thinks will gain traction. Sometimes he's ultra-reasonable and compliant and sometimes wildly aggressive, but whatever it is he then goes straight back to doing what he wants. So don't waste your time thinking about the sexism thing - he doesn't mean it anyway. andy (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made him aware of the discussion, he has said he will comment when his block expires, which it should have by now.--5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Fellow editors,This is Bryce, I hope I did not keep you waiting I had family over for dinner. Let me start of by saying that I assume that your criticisms, and proposed bans are all made in good faith, that while I disagree with you, I know that you all have wikipedias interest at heart no matter if any of your actions are misguided. That being said let me say that my intentions are only to make Wikipedia better.

• I have been accoused of disrupting Wikipedia, an accousation I feel is without merit. My actions have been in the interest of and informed by the Neutral Point of View Policy. for the sake of the discussion I will recap the policy for you.

• The Point of view article is the the bedrock of Wikipedia. the ideal that has enabled us to coordinate millions of individuals to creating the greatest free encyclopedia that the world has ever seen. Due to it's importance the NPOV policy can not be supersede by a consensus of editors, and it cannot be overridden by any other policy (Including Ignore all rules).

• There are 3 standards laid out of how information in an article must be presented. 1- Fairly 2- Proportionately and 3- As far as possible from bias. the conjunction And is used (as opposed to or) so all 3 standards must be met, a violation of any of these 3 things is sufficient to create a NPOV conflict. I submit evidence that "Criticism of..." Articles violates information being portrayed fairly.

• under article structure a warning is given that"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

• Criticism of articles are not only in a different section but go so far as to remove text into completely different articles. making the main article disproportionately portray non criticism and unfairly resigns criticism to articles that are void of the structure and information needed to create an encyclopedic article. defenses of this practice have been offered such as WP:article size, but as NPOV has a supremacy clause article size is void as a defennse for violating NPOV.

• The solution is easy to achieve. instead of breaking up a single topic into 2 articles ( criticism and non criticism ) we break up a large topic into smaller subtopics. For example, Apple could have ( Apple Controversies, Apple Litigation, etc ) Often lawsuits are put into "criticism of articles" implying that lawsuits in themselves are crticisms. Criticism of articles include "Controversies" as criticism. Criticism of google states that simple the existence of a competitor is a "criticism" posting the information for "Scroogle" as a criticism.

• NPOV is just words on a page, the only way it is given power is when we as editors take the words to heart and act on them. If we abandon NPOV when an article gets long or when someone sources an unflattering reality, then we resign wikipedia to fail. I do not believe in personal criticism, but I do believe in editor criticism, any editor who violates NPOV should be reasoned with and persuaded. If you feel that "Apple Inc." is fairly protraying all sources by banning criticism, if you think Google is proportionate when it bans criticism from the article, then say so, and we can discuss the matter. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't really address the point of this ANI, which is your behaviour. Blackmane (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to get into a petty argument, if anyone thinks I'm rude I apologize , I never insult people personally I just disagree with editors and I respect any editor who disagrees with me to voice their opinion. I want to make wikipedia more inclusive not less so I'm not here pushing for bans. If people's feelings are hurt I suggest they be bold, wikipedia needs every single editor here and 10x more so I'm done wasting time talking about non issues. If you are assuming bad faith just say so nowBryce Carmony (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bryce, you claim you "never insult people" - I'm sorry, but that's a clear lie. This is a clear personal attack against two editors. Also, you are still making these merger proposals, such as [64]. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce, regardless of whether or not what Luke has pointed out above is a personal attack, it is still a civility issue. --5 albert square (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Luke, I don't insult people personally, there's a difference between a personal attack, and a criticism about someones capacity in their job. I'll use an example to try and help you understand. "George W. Bush is a bad president" is not a personal attack. it is a crticism. "George W. Bush looks like a monkey" is a personal attack. I have the right to think certain admins are bad admins, you have the right to think certain editors are bad editors. If you need more examples to help understand the difference I'm happy to help you out. I assume good faith and that your concerns about avoiding "personal attacks" are well intended. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• How dare you respond in this arrogant and self-important way? Several serious-minded editors have called your behaviour into question and your response is to say that they are all "misguided", the accusations are "without merit", this is a "petty argument" and it is a waste of your time. And you have the presumption to lecture us on the principles of wikipedia? I agree with user Squinge: "this looks like someone who is simply incapable of working collaboratively with other people". andy (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, let me start by saying I assume good faith, that everything you have written here comes from an earnest desire to improve Wikipedia. There's not a doubt in my mind, however, I think your actions are not productive. I am trying to focus on a important topic. If your feelings have been hurt, I earnestly appologize that I made you feel bad. But let's focus on what's important. we have 500+ articles titled "controversy" a article format I strongly favor, and 150 articles with "Criticism of" a title I believe undercuts Wikipedia NPOV by segregating a single topic into two POVs creating a content fork. If you would like to write a few more posts that I'm arrogant, if that would make you feel better, by all means let it all out I encourage you. But I would really value your feedback on this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposals

Topic ban

• Since Bryce is still continuing to propose these mergers despite being advised against it, and is clearly not listening at all, I think we have only one option here (short of throwing an indefinite ban hammer); For persistently creating barely-valid merger requests after being told not to, whilst showing no signs of following WP:BEFORE, Bryce Carmony is indefinitely prohibited from making any merger requests, broadly construed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How are the merger requests invalid? I've gotten support in multiple articles supporting the merger. see Yahoo! for a case where people agree that we need to merge. Everyone says that my mergers have no merrits but no one will answer these questions:

• Does banning criticism from Google give readers of the Google Article all information presented fairly?
• Does banning criticism from Google represent all information in the Google article proportional coverage?
• Does banning criticism from Google show a lack of bias in the Google article?

take a moment to answer those questions honestly. I assume good faith that your concern over these mergers is well founded, but I think you are misguided, I'm happy to engage in a conversation but if you refuse to discuss NPOV then there isn't a lot I can do. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was on the verge of supporting this proposal until Bryce Carmony's most recent edits. This is not a person you can do business with. He will simply find another way of "fixing" wikipedia which will be equally disruptive. It also does not address the substantive issue, which is his attitude. His responses in this discussion show that he neither understands nor cares about our concerns. So I'm going to make a counter-proposal for a ban. andy (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, once again, I assume good faith, I believe in my heart of hearts that everything you're saying you believe to be in wikipedias best interest. I care about your opinion, I have repeatedly reached out to you in article talk discussions to try and get your opinion. If you feel like NPOV is best represented by segregating a topic into two articles with different POVs please say so, we can start from ground level. and take the policy page sentence by sentence and discuss the meaning, whatever it takes for us to see eye to eye. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, then why not reach out to me one more time by explaining this edit?

Absolutely, Andy I have been working on trying to find a way to increase the amount of female editors on Wikipedia, a local coffee shop I frequent I've had multiple discussion with friends about why they don't edit Wikipedia, one of the reasons I got was the hostile environment, I think 5AS is a hostile admin, I think you're a hostile editor. I assume good faith and know that both of you have the best intentions for wikipedia, but I want to extend a challenge to you, to be less hostile, and to be more inviting at Wikipedia, if someone starts a discussion about a core policy, engage them. I do my best to respond to any discussion from anyone here because I want you to know that I care about what you think. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't. Andy you are willing to ban editors over a single word in an article. I don't mean this in any way personal but as a professional opinion, I think you are hostile. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't believe that this will resolve the civility issues.--5 albert square (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Six month block

Proposal: Six month ban. There is no evidence that this user has learned from anything that anyone has ever said to him on wikipedia, nor from any previous bans. There is plenty of evidence that he could not care less about our concerns. His arrogance is breathtaking, his attitude to other editors is deplorable and his editing is mediocre at best. Clearly, no sanction short of a ban will have any effect at all but a lengthy ban might, just might, make him stop and think. I doubt it, but for sure nothing else will work. andy (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I assume good faith in Andy, I know that he feels this ban proposal is best for Wikipedia, I politely disagree. As editors we are encouraged to be Bold. I do not consider my actions reckless, if you look at my merger proposals you can see an evolution to them, I take every objection and consider it truly. I try and make the mergers as easy as possible and break them down into small workable units. Look at the proposal for Yahoo! for an example of this. I am being bold and starting discussions on an issue. do we want these 150 "criticism of" articles to become 5,000 Criticism of articles 5 years from now. I think its important that we take a moment to really think about it. to truly go over our policies and look at what we want to do. If I have offended Andy in my boldness, I do apologize, but let's use the opportunity to look at this discussion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whilst I would rather go with the topic ban to give Bryce one last chance to sort themselves out, I also support this as a second option, particularly in lieu of their responses here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith in Luke, I think he means what's best for wikipedia when he suggests I be banned for 6 months. that being said, I have to disagree. I ask questions about articles and NPOV. Luke if you could indulge my question, do you assume good faith in me and my actions? do you think I have wikipedias best interests at heart or do you think I want to make wikipedia a worse place. I value your feedback and would love to hear your response. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• You can cut that kind of sneering tone, thanks. That's one of the many reasons why you are a disruptive presence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith, when luke says that my tone is sneering, I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree. I am being sincere Luke, sometimes when we read words on a screen we put our emotions into those words. I want to avoid that and be as unambiguous as possible. I value your opinion, every edit I make is to improve wikipedia, if my boldness has offended you I sincerely, truly, and wholeheartedly apologize to you. I hope you don't read this as a sneer. it is not how I intend it. If you would like to discuss NPOV we can, if you aren't interested in that that's alright as well. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• You can also drop the trolling as well, because no one is going to buy the rubbish you're writing above. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Luck, I assume good faith in you, when you call me a troll I know that it is because you have Wikipedia best interest at heart. The only thing you could do to make me stop my good faith in you is if you were to blatantly vandalize articles. You've never done that so my faith in you is complete. I have to disagree with you, I am not trying to troll you, I am not trying to sneer at you, I am not trying to disrupt your work at Wikipedia, the only thing I am trying to do is work with you if you'd like, or without you if you wouldn't like. To improve the work in progress Wikipedia. You say that my mergers are without merrit, but when I look at mergers that gain support for example User:andyjsmith agreed that we should merge criticism of communism and communism , my meger for Yahoo! has 100% support so far. I hope you see that my efforts are sincere. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is another example of the way that you lie and misrepresent in order to make a point. I certainly did not agree to that merger. You carried it out without consensus but since it was a very short article anyway I did not object. I confined myself to cleaning up the mess that you left behind after a clumsy series of edits (which points up what Liz was saying earlier in this discussion). andy (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It's hard to tell what you mean sometimes. Do you support creating "Criticism of communism" as an article? returning it to the 100 words that it had? I don't want to "lie" about what you mean. If you want to revert the edits and go back to it. Let's go back and we can take it up in discussion. I assume good faith in you Andy Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce, when you repeatedly say things like "I assume good faith, when luke says ...., I know he means it in the best interest of wikipedia, that being said I have to disagree", can you really not see how condescending that is? Squinge (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, this discussion isn't about the merge proposals themselves, it's about the way you interact with other people. And your style of interaction over the past few months has been truly horrible. I think that's what you need to focus on here, and not the actual merges. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it condescending at all, being 100% honest if Luke were to tell me that he had good faith in me, I would appreciate it. Squinge, I have good faith in you, I don't mean that to be condescending I mean it sincerely. I want us as editors to look at these words on these pages and to take them seriously. I attend a university where professors mock wikipedia every day, I wear my Wikipedia sweaters and Track sweater ( the blue one I dunno what it's called ) becuase I'm proud to be apart of Wikipedia. I want people to realize how amazing wikipedia is, and I want wikipedians to believe in the words. when we say "neutral point of view" I want us to mean it. I am bold, in my boldness I might have been over critical of other editors, if that is the case, I don't know how many times I can apologize, but what I can say is I'm open to the NPOV discussion. I don't want to hack it in broad strokes. I want to reach a mutual understanding. The way I interact with people is with respect. Users like andy have a different style, if you add a broken link by mistake they might be hyper critical, call you sloppy, say it's "incredible" that you don't get it, and be hostile. I understand that is his style. My style is different. When I see mistakes of others I try to fix them not criticize them. I'm a sucker for that Dale Carnegie style of working. When someone disagrees with me, I respect them enough to give them 100% of my full opinion why I may disagree with them. I hope everyone respects me enough to give me 100% of their opinions if they disagree with me. when you say that I am "horrible" I know that you have wikipedias best interest at heart. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say *you* are horrible, just the way you have been interacting with people. Anyway, I've told you how I think you're coming across, and several others have offered their thoughts too. If you don't want to listen and instead keep on insisting you've done no wrong then that's entirely up to you, but I'll spend no more time trying to help. Squinge (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying I've done no wrong. Why would I appologize if I haven't done anything wrong? I'm being bold, I know that, and I know that some people think my ambitious merger of 150 out of 4.7 million articles is ambitious. but when I read the NPOV policy its the direction I see, I hope to discuss and convince you of that vision. 10 years from now how many Criticism of articles do we want in wikipedia? do we want every company to be able to white wash their "main" article and make it look great while their "criticism" article looks horrible and therefore uncredible, that isn't the Wikipedia that will best serve the reader, that's what this is about I hope to rally your support. If you don't want to work with me I understand, but I hope we can come together to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The way I interact is when you call me a sneering troll , I chose to be bold, I chose to not take that personally. Luke isn't "personally attacking me" he is just frustrated, I cut him slack because there's no point in arguing over stuff like that, he's a good guy, that is what matters. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce, I have every confidence that you are trying to improve Wikipedia in the way you know best. However, we are a community. We have to work together to work on articles. When you saw how many people were against your mergers, why didn't you stop to consider if we were right? Instead, you made personal attacks and were just inconsiderate as a whole. Anyway, one of the reasons I started this was to get other people's input on the situation. @Andyjsmith: and @Lukeno94:, why don't we step back for a bit and see what other people think of this? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Origamite, NPOV is immune to consensus. I am willing to discuss the NPOV policy. I keep asking the question if people feel that Crit of articles meet the 3 standards set out in NPOV. but they have been reluctant to engage in the discussion. When I'm called a "sloppy" or "terrible" or "Horrible" or "mediocre at best" or "clumsy" editor, I don't take it personally. I chose to be bold, learn from my mistakes, take the feedback , and move forward. A recent edit I mistakenly posted a broken link, I didn't realize it, a editor pointed it out, I checked how to see if links are broken, and then removed the links since they were broken. I learned and now I know. I'm open to learning, I open to any single person telling me I'm wrong. But I have to go by policy. NPOV has a supremacy clause, so when you say WP:Article Size. that doesn't matter, NPOV trumps it. So we have to get down to a discussion. is segregating a topic into a criticism and non criticism article NPOV appropriate. we need to ask ourselves the 3 standards we have. You say my attacks are personal, I don't think I make personal attacks, I think any criticism I have towards anyone here is in their capacity as an admin or an editor. I am not inconsiderate I just consider the NPOV policy. Origamite I assume good faith in you, I know you have the best interest of wikipedia. I'm glad you feel the same way about me. I want to move past this so we can get on to more important issues. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have appologized multiple times to multiple people. If anyone is offended that I think this sort of hostility towards boldness is off putting, I'm sorry. I don't think this is a very welcoming community right now. If an editor was passionate and bold and proposing ideas to make wikipedia better, I would be thrilled, that editor is needed, can we at least agree on that? that 125,000 editors is not enough for 4.7 million articles? We need to band together and bolster our numbers not turn on one another and hack down our ranks. Andy wants to "show me the door" but I wouldn't ever dream of banning him. I value his contributions, I hope to convince him to be less hostile. but every single person here is needed, I can't stress that enough. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is getting pretty long but I would like to add some discussions I've really been enjoying these merger proposals:

• talk:Kyoto Protocol a user had a great idea to create an article to address length + NPOV .
• talk:Yahoo! a user agrees with the NPOV interpretation.
• talk:Pledge of Allegiance this user strongly disagrees but the discussion is really bringing out some cool stuff.

I know some people here might feel that my mergers are without merit but I disagree. and I think looking at these discussions is a fair look to how I interact with fellow editors. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - Bryce clearly doesn't understand how to work within a community. He has continued to blatantly disregard community agreements. Assuming good faith only goes so far; once a user repeatedly continues an action after the community disagrees with that action, good faith can no longer be assumed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What has the community agreed on? 1 - there is no agreement that the community has reached. some people support these mergers some don't, I'm facilitating discussion and particpating. what "agreement" are you referring to? 2 - NPOV cannot be overwritten by a consensus, so if there is an agreement that says "we won't merge any crit of article with any other article" and people ( like me and others ) view that as a NPOV conflict, consensus doesn't get to mute that. I am trying to work WITH the community, not against it, which is why I am proposing merges not cutting and pasting entire articles together. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support - Unfortunately, I am now coming to the conclusion that a topic ban isn't going to be enough. Bryce's persistent walls-of-text and wikilawyering is just getting absolutely ridiculous now, and enough is enough. This is now my preferred sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support A topic ban would not be enough as it will not stop the civility issues. I support this and would suggest that if the same behaviour happens once the block has finished that the next block be indefinite.--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I oppose this on several levels (having been already WP:TROUTed above, probably the big one, actually).

1. I thought the sanctions were designed as escalating. The next block, I thought (I admit I could be wrong), would be a 72 hour block, not a 4,392 hour block, would it not?
2. Wondering aloud, because I'm not an advanced comprehender of admin policies, to what extent is Admin 5AS "involved" having led the previous block regimen applied to the subject of the discussion, and do we not need an "uninvolved" admin to make a measured proposal here?
3. I've yet to see any diffs here, having tried, that have so offended another editor as to justify such a draconian sanction. Indeed, much of what has transpired is actually a content dispute, and belongs at WP:DR, not here.
4. I can be against Bryce's proposed merges, and argue in favor of his actions, to which he has now ascribed quixotism, an apt description, at the same time. One does not preclude the other. I cite Evelyn Beatrice Hall in my defense of this "oppose" to the proposal here discussed, in order to argue in Bryce's favor.
5. It seems nobody will defend Bryce, including those who've experienced this same, or a similar, strife in their own life. So I will. Call me "Sancho".
6. The proposer refers to a "block" in the title, and a "ban" in the proposal. As this is basic, not advanced, policy, I do not think the proposer knows what he/she is talking about in the first place. Which are we, the above, supporting or or opposing? I call the proposal on procedural grounds, as improperly proposed in the first place.
7. While I agree with User:UtherSRG's argument above that "AGF only goes so far", I disagree that this is the time to drop that faith. In another (totally different) context, I recently did drop my faith in the case of proven spam by an editor. That's the time to drop that faith, not this.

For these seven reasons, and others here not yet argued, I "oppose", and request of ANI in general and Admins in particular, a more measured and well considered sanction against Bryce Carmony, if any at all.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce has previously been blocked for a month (for edit warring, a very similar sort of thing), so they were very lucky to only receive a 24 hour block this time around. Every time they've come back from a block, they've almost immediately resumed some kind of disruption. 5AS is not involved. Trying to wikilawyer around a user being confused between the differences of bans and blocks is lame. I think Bryce has shown that they can't be trusted to respect the community's wishes, and I don't really buy the so-called apologies - I view them as a last-ditch attempt at getting away scot-free. Call that a lack of AGF if you will, but people this stubborn don't just cave in like that without an ulterior motive, and experience has shown it to happen over and over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I started this discussion partially because I wanted other, more experienced opinions and partially because I wanted Bryce to realize what was wrong with his mass mergers and civility. I feel that the second has been accomplished, and that instead of getting other perspectives old debates have been rehashed again and again. As he seems to have learned from what has been done, I am against sanctions on Bryce. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 15:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NPOV Discussion Proposal: We discuss NPOV It has become clear that among us there is a difference of opinion on interpreting the Neutral Point of View policy. The policy is vast so this isn't entirely surprising, however, The best thing for us to do, is to discuss this. I propose that we sit down, and go over the policy and find common ground, make a plan, and act. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC) SupportBryce Carmony (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Do you seriously believe that this fatuous suggestion is the best way to answer the well-founded concerns and criticisms of so many editors? Surely you cannot have managed to convince yourself that this discussion about your lack of civility and aggression is actually a debate about wikipedia NPOV policy? This is pretty much your last chance to sort things out - there can be little doubt that a sanction of some sort is impending. I suggest that you acknowledge these concerns and accept that the fault lies with you, and make it clear on this forum that you are now prepared to edit collaboratively and within the guidelines and above all to behave civilly and without contempt towards other editors. andy (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Andy, I respect you, I want to have an open and productive conversation with you. if you feel like I am being aggressive, I apologize that is not my intention. I don't want to make this a fight at all. I feel like you are being the aggressive one, but it doesn't need to be that way. I am being civil towards you, I am exercising good faith, will you do the same? Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Also, I have more than apologized for any offense I've given you, I know that I'm not perfect and I have faults. But I am not being uncivil. I think we need to state what our objectives here are. My objective is to apologize to anyone who has been offended and to promote the open discussion about a serious look at the NPOV policy as it relates to certain articles. What is your objective here? so we can get on the same page and understand one another. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite ban from creating merger proposals or anything related to merging

• Support - This user just came off his 4th block this year [65] and doesn't appear to be finished [66] -- It's clear to me that he doesn't fully comprehend what is being asked of him by the community and therefore I see no other solution than a ban. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

oppose , I understand that what I'm proposing is difficult for some people. I understand 100% how it is easier to create a "Criticism section" that grows and grows , we chose not to weave in the content into a single narrative until finally it's so big we make it it's own page. it's happened a few times, not that many, only about 150 (give or take) times. Turning back now will be difficult, I understand that 100% but if we continue the trend, of allowing Criticisms to be segregated instead of integrated, we won't like the end result and it'll be even harder to stop it. We have the opportunity as editors to correct course, to sit down, consider NPOV, discuss the best course of action, and act. I respect Somedifferentstuff, but I disagree that I should be banned forever because I have proposed a few mergers. People say that Wikipedia is a mob rule rabble, but I disagree, I know that we respect our policies and our rules. If Somedifferentstuff or any other user would like to have a discussion about Articles that purge criticism into a separate article and if they pass the 3 standards of NPOV. I am happy to have that discussion. I don't mean to offend. I don't mean to disrupt. i'm here to make wikipedia better. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to sleep, I want to say to origamite, to andy, to luke, to somestuff, to 5as, to liz, and anyone else I might have forgotten. I am not trying to cause problems. the merger workload I have right now is a lot. I'm not planning on adding more since I have a lot of work getting the current ones completed. The Yahoo! merger is unopposed and I suspect will begin soon. I won't lie, my goal is to reach a wikipedia with 0 "Criticism of" articles. but it doesn't have to happen over night. I respect every single one of you, i respect your opinions, I respect your feedback, I read everything you write to me and I offer the invention to anyone, if you truly in your heart of hearts feel that I am wrong on NPOV. I want to discuss this civilly and openly. Years from now wikipedia could look a lot different depending on how we act today. I don't want to cause trouble, I never have. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

before I go to bed, here's how I think I like to interact with others. here's a post of mine from 3 days ago about a merger to Aladdin Sane ( who disagrees with the merger )

Even if we don't end up merging "criticism of linux" and "linux" together, I like that you have done a lot recently to improve "criticism of linux" you don't need my approval by any means but I wanted to express my gratitude I think you're awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I've some other suggestions I may bring up on the Talk page. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Yahoo! merger has 1 other person's views. Why not let some others weigh in? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:MERGEPROP has some clear guidance on merging, including advising other editors and usually waiting for at least 30 days. Given the tone of this discussion, a merger on Yahoo! or any other article "soon" would clearly be intentionally disruptive. andy (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you have refused to wait 30 days, you've taken down the merger banners before the 30 day mark, I feel like that is a little disruptive, but I'm not here to argue with you. I haven't taken any action in Yahoo and I don't plan to until the discussion is complete.

I am waiting for others to weigh in, that is why I have taken NO ACTION about the merger. what I have done is repeatedly link to that talk page here to try and get additional feedback on that merger. If you want to criticize me and say "you don't care what anyone thinks" then why do I try so hard to facilitate discussion? You can call me a sneering troll, an arrogant editor to and ask me "how dare I talk about NPOV" you can say all those things if it makes you guys feel better, I don't care if that's what you say about me, what I do care about is is getting your feedback on the issues. Also, WP:NPOV has a supremacy clause, there is no supremacy clause in WP:MERGEPROP, I'm not trying to be disruptive, I'm just trying to address an NPOV issue but I am the only one. when I propose discussion I'm greeted with "how dare I" Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth reading the comments by user:Rjensen at Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Merger_proposal - they illustrate the issues that Bryce Carmony is wading into, and the need for these matters to be handled by an expert and well-informed editor. He gives strong reasons for not merging based on the specifics of the subject and the article's history, but Bryce Carmony's response is to sidestep this and instead deliver a homily on how "writing NPOV is hard but it is something we can do". andy (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I respect User:Rjensen, we're lucky to have him here at Wikipedia, and I agree that some of these mergers will be hard, some are pretty easily ( criticism of communism wasn't hard at all ) but the question is NPOV. I'm going to quote from NPOV a section I quoted before and I said "how dare I" but let's look at the text. "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure" That is what is happening here. I'm not trying to work against RJensen, I'm trying to work with RJensen. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as this is in essence just an expanded version of my proposal, and Bryce is still spouting falsehoods above and continuing with their same-old disruptive behaviour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

When you chose to use language like "spouting" instead of "stating" to me it shows that this is becoming personal to you. You've made repeated personal attacks at me, and in response all I have to offer you is my apology, I am sorry luke. I can tell something I did really seemed to hurt you, you don't have to accept my apology I wouldn't dream of demanding that, but I do offer it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, as before: it won't stop him and it doesn't address the issue of behaviour to other editors. andy (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about my behavior that bothers you so much. when I ask you direct questions to try and resolve an issue you lie or play games or insult me or say it's justification to ban me. I feel like you might not have good faith in me, the same way that I have good faith in you. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that Andy might have an agenda, he has taken me to ANI before and called me "hysterical" along a few other insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Edit_warring.2C_disruption.2C_incivility_and_harassment_by_user:Bryce_Carmony Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- Bryce Carmony has a bee in his bonnet-- several bees. Worse, he has been unable to learn anything from his too-intensive and too-frequent interactions. All that buzzing means he cannot recognize a consensus when it is against him. That inability to learn, in my opinion, has been highly disruptive. It disqualifies him from proposing mergers, especially regarding controversies. Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never proposed a merger of a "Controversy" article. I have proposed a few mergers of articles that split topics by the POV ( Criticism vs non criticism ) an article Dungeons & Dragons controversies is not the same as Criticism of Dungeons & Dragons Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose As before. It won't address the civility issues.--5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Clarification request from User:andyjsmith Andy J smith when asked what the subject of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is, stated : Eh? The subject of the one article is libertarianism and the subject of the other is criticism (specifically, criticism of libertarianism). In general, the subject of a wikipedia article is given by its title. andy (talk) Then when he wrote to 5 albert square he said that the topic of "Criticism of Libertarianism" is in fact "Libertarianism" I just am confused, since he is saying that his advice to me on what the topic was is his justification that I have disrupted wikipedia. I want to know what the topic of "criticism of libertarianism" is. is it criticism? or is it libertarianism? thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide andy. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I officially redact all merger proposals

Fellow editors, I appreciate your feedback and agree. my mergers are not appropriate for wikipedia at this time. I have begun the process of removing the proposals, It took me a while to see the light but I realize now that you guys are right. These mergers aren't the way to go. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a breathe of fresh air Bryce, good job. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks some, I know it took longer than it should have been I see that you guys are right. I was trying to argue against the consensus which isn't the way we should do things. I have removed all the tags. I want to apologize to everyone for being too zealous. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Although this change of heart followed immediately after my intervention here, I'll wait a little while before concluding that the leopard has definitely changed its spots. andy (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being incivil

in my zeal I was tilting at windmills, I got caught up in the moment and in that lapse I didn't treat you with the respect and civility you deserve, I realize that now, I was in the wrong. I am sorry for letting this escalate so much. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce, there are WP:FIVE equally important pillars (or bedrocks), and none has supremacy over the others.

Others: ANI is not supposed to be Wikipedia's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS). Additionally, in general neither the veracity nor the persuasiveness of a position is enhanced by repetition; on ANI specifically it's a good way to help a thread devolve into a wall o' text few editors are going to wade through. NE Ent 09:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Throwing up walls of text is one of Bryce's standard tactics... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring, vandalism, and legal threat by User:Anticomintern

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anticomintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred against two other users on Hong Kong ([67] [68] [69] [70] [71]). When warned by STSC, he replied with a legal threat [72]. More recently the user replaced the Chinese flag on China with the Nazi flag ([73]). His username also implies pro-Nazi sympathy (see Anti-Comintern Pact). The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Zanhe (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The legal threat is kinda irrelevant. This is a troll. Show him the door, with prejudice. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User was indef blocked about an hour ago by another admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single-purpose accounts making promotional edits to a specific article.

IMG (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Specifically, IMG (company)‎. I'm not sure whether this is the right place, but something suspicious is going on here. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Big ol' sockdrawer there. I've blocked the most obvious culprits but would appreciate it if another checkuser could also take a look; I'm going offline in a moment and don't have time to do a thorough drill-down investigation. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Which colours for band members timeline? Closure requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We could use an uninvolved editor to gauge the discussion and determine consensus so as to close the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#RfC:_Consensus_on_band_timeline_colour_schemes. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abbreviation deleter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@King Shadeed: and I have been dealing with a user across multiple IPs:

• 65.130.211.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.219.22.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.162.203.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.169.30.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The user started deleting abbreviations used later in the article from article leads (for example, removing (SPT) from Sony Pictures Television Inc. (SPT)), calling it "clutter." Those edits were reverted, and I left a message pointing to a relevant MOS section.

They questionied the reversions, saying that some articles had such abbreviations and others didn't, then, apparently to make a point, began adding unnecessary abbreviations to article leads, for "consistency."

The user has also been leaving abusive comments and edit summaries—for example, "Removing fake-admin vandalism garbage as written by an asshole." Trivialist (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Err, just see this here -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll block the disruptive IPs for a few months (they're supposedly static) and semiprotect User talk:King Shadeed, not for the first time. Very stubborn vandal. Thank you for the report, Trivialist. You can take this guy straight to WP:AIV next time you see them, or indeed straight to me. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Timothyhouse1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user keeps posting false information in the Time Crisis (series) pages and he did the same on the Time Crisis page several months, if not years ago. I'm absolutely certain they're the same person as both seem to love to edit/vandalize pages about Singapore stuff like transports and such. The false information include imaginary ports/remakes of games to console on imaginary release dates, all without sources. If you also take a look at his talk page you'll notice that it's full of people complaining about his edits, including myself.

Sorry for how i've written the report but it's the very first one for me. I was redirected here by another editor after i posted it in the wrong section (for vandalism). All those commands are still too obscure for me. I just hope that you take severe actions against this person.82.56.4.21 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You neglected to do something, IP:

“ When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. ”

I did that, however. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, something else is odd here, considering an IP's very first edit is an ANI thread. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, like i said, i'm a noob at using Wikipedia for reporting people. I think he's not going to get the message, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.4.21 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• The IP makes a good revert here, but I don't see any reason for an ANI thread. IP editor, you're not so new that you can't find your way to ANI immediately; what you should have found first is that editor's talk page. Now, if you can present some evidence of this age-old pattern of disruptive behavior, produce it--if you can't, well, look up WP:BOOMERANG. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i'm not so "new", i've done small edits for years, but when it comes to report problems, i AM new. I did find the spammer's talk page, though. I am CERTAIN the guy from years ago was from Singapore, and the new guy is also from Singapore. Look here, it's the same nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_Crisis&diff=593233833&oldid=583781837 (search for "Remake" and "Soundtrack"), then search for the recent edits in the Time Crisis (series) page. That guy is also blocked, under the same username, on other wikis. Sorry again for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.64.100 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And now this response is coming from a different IP? If this is indeed the same user, logging into your account would really help. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP is different, but i'm the very same person. Anyway, i've just registered. I didn't really need any account before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilCanasta (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed block of User:76.217.158.64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding User:76.217.158.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), his only contribution has been to insert a number of unsubstantiated and undiscussed insertions of {{NPOV}} templates, for example here. Sneakily inserted, they have been not noticed. --Very trivial (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No need. The IP hasn't edited since October. I'm not even sure it's disruptive: The IP only templated 3 articles, and at Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union the IP commented and at least articulated a reasonable concern about neutrality. Unless I'm missing something, drive-by tagging, while frowned upon and disruptive when done in excess, isn't vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Block -- Support addressing NPOV concerns for USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958–64)

I strongly concur with Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's. The user explained the reason for putting the tag, was not "sneaky" about it, and it appears the user's assertions are correct. In fact, the problems with NPOV should be addressed. I think this is the wrong forum and this should have been brought to the NPOV Noticeboard, not here.David Tornheim (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not sneaky at all - Alot of IPs don't give any hint to tagging but most are legit, Plus they've not edited since October 2014 so seeing no point to blocking ?.... –Davey2010^Talk 11:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and what are you thinking? Please define "sneaky" for us in a way that includes putting a big banner at the very top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, hefty trout to User:Very trivial for this report, strongly recommend closing this promptly. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kris,_Victoria_%3d_5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe Kris, Victoria = 5 is engaged in disruptive editing.

1. The user has been apprised that talk page comments go on the bottom of talk pages, and they seem to be deliberately ignoring this [74][75][76][77][78]
2. User faked a "Good Friend award" to themself, making it look like editor OnlyOneRaider applied it. User lied about it, claiming that Davey2010 issued the award. User then re-wrote the "award" to suggest Davey issued it. Davey responded, asking that the reported user not attach Davey's name "to that crap above". Kris then tries to cause Davey grief by reporting the "crap" to AmaryllisGardener for some unclear reason. On this alone, I think there's a strong case to be made that the user is trolling and spreading their unconstructive behavior to other editors' pages. (For nail-biting background nonsense, see discussion on 5 albert square's talk page, but it's not mandatory reading)
3. In these edits the user adds unsourced content, including the statement: Last Appearance: Akuc Bol as Kazima Tako. This statement is attached to an episode that isn't slated to air until September 2015, making it extraordinarily unlikely that this user would know that. User has also added the content here and here. Per WP:CRYSTAL they would have to provide a source for this content.
4. Dubious addition of "mainest"

I'm not confident the user is here to contribute constructively, since they continue to do things that are both annoying and contrary to normal protocols. They seem to be testing Sylvester's patience through the repeated submission of unsourced information, they have proven to be a liar, and their other strange behavior seems like outright trolling. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

About all of that "crap", I was watching Dave's talk page, I saw this, then I posted a message to Kris' (Victoria? Shared account?) tp. Then they posted this to my tp. Then they (?) replied with this. (I must say I found their taking offence to the word "crap" quite funny, because 1. I don't consider it being profanity while I dislike actual profanities and 2. "Crap" is very mild language for Dave) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I believe this user is trolling I honestly do, Perhaps unrelated here but I also believe they're related to Linde (T1) Gaytri (T2) but other than the timings being roughly the same I don't have much evidence hence not visiting SPI...., As for the whole "Crap" kerfuffle.... Well I was speechless , I think crap was putting it nicely lol. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I get the impression this may be a child. They're not necessarily trying to be difficult by posting in the wrong place. I've written some advice for them, and also pointed out that they need to start listening to what experienced users tell them. And I agree the username sounds a bit like a shared account; I've asked them about that. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

I would say that's possible, and I'd also like to point out that England is far far far away from UTC−12:00 (I think it includes Kiribati?) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Davey's hypothesis is highly likely given the very close areas of intersection and the bizarre name scheme. Whether this is a child or not is of no real consequence, as basic competence is required even of young contributors, and lying and trolling is not acceptable no matter what your age is. I admire Bishonen's assumption of good faith, but I don't think the facts justify it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I share @Cyphoidbomb:'s concern regarding this editor. I've been watching their edits for a while now, I'm very concerned about their editing pattern now given that I've just seen this. That to me indicates that they would consider violating the 3RR rule etc etc.--5 albert square (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. One of their last edits was to delete this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 09:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

• P.S. And look, literally the little brother defence![79][80] What a complete user. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

• Bishonen Seems they've gone to an IP (119.160.116.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) seeing as I've just been trouted[81] for what I can only assume is rollbacking there crap[82], I've never had a random IP leave one so I'm assuming it's them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• What a delight. Still, I do believe that starting by assuming good faith is not merely appropriate but actually useful in these cases. It doesn't necessarily imply optimism about the user. Anyway, IP blocked for a month. User:Linde (T1) Gaytri (T2) was already blocked for a month by the editor who uses the pseudonym JamesBWatson; I've extended to indefinite per WP:DUCK. Compare this edit. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Though incorrectly, they've asked to be unblocked, claiming it's all their WP:LITTLEBROTHER's fault. My opinion on WP:LITTLEBROTHER is to let them go after the first time with a clear warning, and then take further action if it happens again, but this user's claims do not match up to their edit history. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bishonen for the blocks, As for the unblocking - I think the whole brother thing's BS and honestly... I'd say they're 12(They claim there "brother" is) and are incapable of understanding editing constructively as well as the policies here, I have no objections to them requesting unblock in a year or 2 when they've grown up but for now I think unblocking them will only cause more disruption here and thus will probably end up reblocked. –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the unblock template for them, so it'll call up an uninvolved admin. As for causing more disruption... never mind, I won't tell them how to do that. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Samuel Cunningham and bogus book sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many of the edits by Samuel Cunningham (talk · contribs) and 198.47.97.49 (talk · contribs) make use of references to books that I cannot locate in Worldcat or elsewhere. This goes back at least to last September. I'd appreciate some assistance in making sure I haven't missed anything that needs reverting. --NE2 03:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE2: See also as Garth Carlos Fellers: [84][85] Talk about passive-aggressive...zinging the president via the nickname article at Wikipedia? Wow. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is an extremely serious charge and there are alarm bells ringing over the "Last September" diff above, which makes use of stacked footnotes attributing the pejorative "Obamination" to apparently phantom books by "John Elgire" and "Mark Legire." Note spelling of the last names. Please prepare a proper list of diffs; if this case is proven there will be a major clean up project needing to be done following an indef to Vandal Island. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• The User page of Samuel Cunningham appears at a glance to be a bad hoax, including a much-too-long list of "works," including such obviously idiotic titles as Spelunking on Orcas Island and The Klan and Shaw Island: A Century of Violence and Isolation. Neither of these are to be found in WorldCat, or listed for sale on ABEBooks, or mentioned anywhere on the internet other than the hoax User Page in question. I'm gonna HOAX tag the user page, which is going pretty IAR. Would some administrator see to this matter and take the appropriate action? Carrite (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• IP 198.47.97.49 geolocates to the San Juan Islands, it would seem, and needs to be included in a block. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The user page is written as if it were a biographical article. The policy WP:FAKEARTICLE states that such pages are usually deleted via MFD. I have nominated the page for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Kamek98's refusal to accept consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kamek98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page in question is Talk:Star Wars (film). The page was moved from Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on January 14, 2014 following a discussion on the talk page along with Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back → The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi → Return of the Jedi. A proposal to undo the Star Wars move was started on the page on October 12 by Emperor001, which closed in resounding opposition. Around three months later, Kamek98 began another proposal to undo all three moves as well as to move Raiders of the Lost Ark to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. The proposal was, again, met with resounding opposition and as eventually closed against moving. I was a participant of the discussion, and Kamek later came to my talk page to continue to discuss the issue. He spoke as if he was gearing up to continue to fight the issue, after I strongly urge him to drop the stick and even with his disclaimer that I (Kamek) see no problem in eventually bringing it up again. . Not anytime soon, at least, I will drop the stick right now. One week later, he initiated a move review of his proposal, not arguing that the close was against consensus but instead continuing his same arguments. Today, he began yet another proposal for the same three Star Wars moves, which was immediately closed as disruptive by Timrollpickering with a 6-month moratorium against reproposal and a year moratorium against same-user nominations. Kamek has since taken to Tim's talk page to belabor the issue further, arguing for the proposal to be reopened.

This is the most severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE I have seen in a long time. The consensus is so clearly set that anything Kamek does regarding Star Wars is an automatic waste of time. Whether his conduct merits a tban or a warning is for the community to decide, but it is beyond disruptive and WP:POINTy by now. Deadbeef 03:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While I'm a big believer in Consensus can change, Kamek98's not making a case for his beliefs at all, quite the opposite. I'd agree that a TBAN might be a good thing for him. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 10:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How am I not making a case for my beliefs at all? I provided evidence from reliable sources run through Ngrams as suggested before that have proved favorable in many consensus's claiming COMMONNAME and therefore I opened another RM. I'm not trying to "make a point" or "beat a dead horse". Not everyone who wanted a say in the last discussion had the opportunity to do so, one user made a new section following its closure who agreed that it should renamed. I don't see how strong opposition in the prior consensus decides that evidence backing up claims that merits reopening of the discussion overrides the RM and merits a topic ban. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also don't believe WP:DEADHORSE should be reflected for a ban. It's an essay and not a policy. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No firm opinion on a TBAN so far but the RMs and the MRV show all the classic signs of a user who just won't accept an outcome they don't agree with and will keep trying and declaring their latest argument to instantly set aside the reasoning that previously carried the day. In the February RM other users were pleading for them to drop the matter but instead they kept bringing it back in classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Certainly a warning is at least needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand how the MRV worked and I wouldn't have used if I knew what is what for. I acknowledge that using the MRV was a mishap on my part I'm not agreeing with the accusations of me not hearing everyone out. I have considered the discussions. I have weighed the information. I have considered the reactions I would get. I'm not trying to upset anyone. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm done. Have it your way. I apologize and it won't happen again. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So, Kamek98 (talk · contribs) has "permanently retired" with a message of "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of March 2015 due to victimized bullying." and "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of March 2015 due to being a victim of bullying." Is this allowed? Or should this message be struck from this user's pages? --IJBall (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked IP abusing talk page including unspecific death threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

110.148.130.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
is adding abuse and death threats to talk page. 1 2 Blocked previously for deleting/removing "Palestine" from articles Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I emailed emergency@wikimedia.org because of this threat. And I definitely think that the IP's talk page access should be revoked...or can you even do that with an IP? I know they can't be indeffed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support immediate block -- To: Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}: Thank you for doing the email. Question: For IP addresses, what if it is an Internet Cafe computer that many users use, and the person deliberately got blocked to keep others from being able to log in and edit Wikipedia articles? David Tornheim (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This person (or group) has been doing this for some time from different IPs. 124.181.107.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 101.160.175.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 110.148.130.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), perhaps 121.220.98.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to name a few Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And again 3 just now. Changed section title Jim1138 (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Student editing Gold cluster to get a good grade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Michael Liao Sax (talk · contribs) has been making edits on Gold cluster. He has been reverted by various editors, and in response he has left a message at the top of these editors' Talk pages [88], [89], [90], asking that his edits be left alone for one week, because that's when his school quarter is over. The edits consist of summarizing a few primary references from the last 10 years on the subject for no apparent purpose other than his assignment. He has also edited while logged out, as his message to my Talk page was obviously in response to my reversion of 75.82.171.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Gold cluster.

Spokoyny (talk · contribs) was adding to Sax's edits. He has exactly one previous edit from two years before. Choor monster (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

May be better to raise this at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents? (Or at least in addition, I'm not certain how well that board is watched.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've mentioned it there. WP:EN actually seems to be somewhat active so may be WP:EN/I is as well Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, I did not know. (For the record, it's WP:ENB and WP:ENI.) Choor monster (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a recurring problem. In chemistry Wikipedia, we periodically see long and mediocre contributions from students who seem almost graded on word count. Furthermore. the instructor is uninvolved and nonparticipant in Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have additional information to provide, unfortunately, and don't know the class, but I left a message at User talk:Michael Liao Sax and will be trying to connect with the instructor. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, what is the response policy, besides reaching out while they continue to make lame edits? I don't think the user is the least bit interested in "joining WP" as such. Do reversions of such edits count as part of 3RR/edit-warring? Are they blockable, topic-bannable, or what? I mean, it seems likely this particular fellow will go away in one week, until his next assignment. Choor monster (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Same rules apply as to anyone else. Best we can do is try to connect to explain what's happening and to avoid these problems in the future, really. It doesn't seem like something blockworthy at this point, but we'll see if the problems continue :/ --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this is related to two new articles on a similar topic: Gold nanoparticles in drug delivery and Cancer Therapies Utilizing Gold Nanoparticles. ChemNerd (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that Cancer Therapies Utilizing Gold Nanoparticles has already been redirected. There's also Thiolate-protected gold cluster but that's long standing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have found the instructor. Emailed to check. If so, it's fortuitous it's a school WikiEdu is visiting for a workshop soon. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• After a further round of reverts, I placed an edit-warring Template warning on MLS's Talk page, and he has posted on my Talk page his willingness to stop. Assuming he does cooperate and this discussion remains quiet, I'll non-admin close here in a day or so. Choor monster (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll also add that the instructor responded and wants to talk about what's happening. Hopefully the next time you see this class it'll be via a course page :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User refuses to engage in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's an unusual editor "User:AcidSnow" on Harar and various other pages. He does not engage in talk pages and refuses to provide any reliable sources to back his claims. Here he says that he wont provide any sources because it wont do any good. [91]. I have provided the source for my addition on Talk:Harar and in the article before it was removed. He seems to not want to discuss the matter. Can an admin intervene and force him to participate or initiate sanctions. Zekenyan (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --IJBall (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After a quick look, and it looks to me like AcidSnow has engaged you on at least one Talk page... --IJBall (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I have engaged in the discussion every since it started. You, on the other hand, had not for four days. In fact, you didn't return till after I called you out for it. Any admin or user interested in being involved in this issue, I highly advise you to check out this discussion on admin Kurus talk page, here: [92]. Or at least by attention to this part:

"I was the one who first told you to go to the talk page, I was the one who started the conversation, I was the last person to reply, etc......last article was on the Harari people; which I too was the creator of the discussion and the last to reply. Even then, I too was once again the creator of the discussion and the last to reply on the Harar page. I didn't talk about consensus? Dude the whole point of going to the talk page is to get consensus; which you have consistently failed to receive. Isn't it ironic that you accuse me of not discussing even though I have been involved since day one? You, on the other hand, haven't in more than four days! But nonetheless, you still had time to continue to break consensus."

Anyways, as I, Middayexpress, and Awale-Abdi pointed out earlier all your sources are fringe. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved in all of them IJBall. AcidSnow (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yep. A quick scan belies the claim that you do "not engage in talk" discussions, from what I saw. --IJBall (talk)

What? AcidSnow (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I thought you were typing "believes" and not "belies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources are fringe? Can you provide your sources? Which you have not been doing at all. Your refusal has brought me to this board. Zekenyan (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Try to pay attention next time. AcidSnow (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow and Awale-Abdi are right. The various claims being made are fringe and are based exclusively on a handful of modern links. The actual historical documents on the Adal Sultanate, particularly the medieval Futuh al-Habash (the main treatise on the kingdom), certainly do not indicate that the Argobba were one of the Sultanate's main populations or that its constituency was largely Afar. Middayexpress (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical sources are not gold. Provide your counter claims on the talk page for the last time. Zekenyan (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We all have, but you don't care. Instead you have opted to edit war, make false accusation, break consensus and so on. AcidSnow (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ok i hope admins see that you refused on Talk:Harar even though another user dwpaul said that your suppose to. Zekenyan (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

*Sigh*, once again I never refused to do anything. You just don't want to read any that goes against your fringe beliefs. Ironicaly, this made quite clear on the Walashma Dynasty's talk page where after being proven wrong you have now refused to disscuse any further. It's been over a week now too. AcidSnow (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote the other user '"Wikipedia articles cannot be used as reliable sources for edits in other Wikipedia articles. When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here. If a source can be found in another, related, article, it can be copied here, but you cannot simply refer to its presence in another article and claim that your edit is reliably sourced"'. Do you understand? Zekenyan (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

*Sigh*, if you had bothered to read anything that has been written here you would know that this "wasn't what I was trying to do". But this isn't surprising since "Zekenyan has refused to listen" consistently. Anyways, as the individual you quoted above states: "When introducing information here that requires a reliable source, the source must be cited here". Ahmad ibn Ibrahim being a Somali is well known and undisputable fact. In fact, it's already cited there. But sadly you don't care even the slightest. More importantly, instead of break policies why don't you try to follow them? I highly recommend that you check out WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONATTACK, and WP:EDITWAR. AcidSnow (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting sources is an attack? Perhaps you have me confused with another user. Zekenyan (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No I am talking about you. You have made numerous attacks against me and other users. Though, isn't ironic that you only dispute that one and not the other :)? AcidSnow (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

False accusations have consequences. Zekenyan (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I told you to stop. AcidSnow (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are faults on both sides here:

• It would have been better if Zekenyan had added FACT tags instead of deleting the information as in this edit: [93]. I think we can assume that Zekenyan knows that citations can be provided for Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi being Somali; so deleting the information for lack of a citation seems like gaming the rules to provoke a confrontation.
• But having said that, why one earth did AcidSnow not provide a citation? Wikipedia:Verifiability backs up Zekenyan's demand for a citation - and given that some sources dispute that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi was of Somali ethnicity, it is an issue that a reasonable person might want a citation for.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How are you Toddy? Anyways, it's well known fact that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was an ethnic Somali. However, the dispute is based off his Arab Genealogy which all Somalis. So it's hard to actually despite that he wasn't Somali. Anyways, the source for him being Somali was provided months ago. See here: [94]. I would also like to inform you that Zekenyan deliberately removed that Nur (Ahmad's nephew) was Somali. See here: [95]. Shockingly, he acknowledged that Nur himself was a Somali: "Other figures such as Nur ibn Mujahid are not disputed as his clan is well noted". AcidSnow (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify the edit mentioned by Toddy. That particular revert has nothing to do with Ahmed being somali but the Adal sultanate being somali. Which is why i brought up a source on Talk:Harar that explains the adal sultante is afar. And no you cant find a source that says adal sultanate was "somali". Emir Nur is not notable for being an ethnic "Somali" per say. He is actually noted for the Harar walls being erected during his rule. Zekenyan (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Both books you provided have already been proven fringe by three users. Nur being an ethnic Somali, an Emir of Harar, and the founder of the walls of the city were all already noted prior to your arrival. See here: [96]. More importantly, are you seriously claiming that there's no source for Adal being Somali? Hahaha, please stop with these foolish claims! Numerous sources for the Walshama Dynasty, as well as both Adal and Ifat have already been provided. See here: [97]. Though, as several users have already pointed out "Zekenyan has refused to listen". You have even opted to abandoned the talk page for the last eight days! See the revision history: here. AcidSnow (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

All you are doing is refering to other talk pages and showing previous versions of articles. It seems you will not cooperate. Zekenyan (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point I can't tell if you're either trolling/completely oblivious to what's going on around you or not. AcidSnow (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in arguing with "Zekenyan" as he clearly just has an agenda of some sort. Anyway, for any admins reading this, here is your evidence that they were Somali with sources:

"Zekenyan-> there are plenty of sources on the page showing the genealogical traditions that trace them back to Somali figures such as an ancestor shared with the Darod clan which was shared by such figures as Ibn Khaldun [-]. Hell, you should know that a Harari historian claimed they were descended from a Somali saint (Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyn) [-]. [Cerulli] also noted down this fabled origin from the Somali saint from a Harari record with I.M lewis taking note [-]. And as I said in an edit-> I.M Lewis does refer to them as Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis & even for example touches upon their fabled connection to Yusuf/ "Aw Barkdhadle (meaning; Blessed Father)[-] and Ethiopian historians somewhat unfamiliar with a good part of their history at best considered them Arabs such as in the case of Asma Giyorgis [-].

The more generally accepted and shared by most historical sources genealogy is the Aqeeli one via Isma'il al-Jabarti, the fabled Somali Darod clan ancestor whose only known descendant to have ever affected the Horn in anyway is Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti (Darod clan founder) whom everyone associating themselves to "Jeberti/Jabarti" including the Jeberti people tie themselves to. To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after the plethora of sources tying them to such figures is practically dishonest. Anyway, you wanted sources so I gave you some.

You will never find a legitimate source claiming they were "Argobba", Braukämper is as Acidsnow said; a fringe figure with wildly incorrect notions about a good number of things. He once claimed the Harla people were likely Ethio-Semitic only to immediately concede that he had absolutely no evidence for this claim..."

The only sources that ever even try to claim they were Ethio-Semitic are Braukämper and one other source who also tried to claim the Hadiya Sultanate was ethio-Semitic (Do I really need to explain how retarded that is?). Again: there is no discussion to be had here. When both of a dynasty's genealogies (as even shared by Harari historians) clearly point to Somali ancestors-> they're Somali.

It's only icing on the cake that the majority of their soldiers were Somalis (read any source on the matter on the Adal, Walashma or Ifat or pages) but of course all of these legitimate sources mean nothing to Zekenyan who wants the truth to be what he wants it to be (real truth and those clear cut genealogies be damned). I advise any admins to deal with an editor accordingly when he has enough of a bias to him to say that "historial sources aren't gold" (but your fringe sources are, yes?) when the Futuh was written by a man who was in Adal territory (Shihab Ad-Din) and described the origins of the troops in question clearly (it's also been studied by a plethora of scholars). He's not looking for a discussion here... Awale-Abdi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again Abdi, I thank you for your assistance. Shall we make a block/ban proposal? AcidSnow (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is well know that AcidSnow is promoting his POV in certain articles, engaging in edit wars and stalking other users. I have reported this to the administrators.124.181.107.97 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha, is this coming from the block avoiding Ip? AcidSnow (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your not providing any direct sources that says adal was somali. I have provided on Talk:Harar a reliable source that directly gives Afar credit for the Adal sultante. BTW dont spam this forum take it to the talk page. Zekenyan (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We did. You have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AcidSnow (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me like the 3 users are associates of some sort as user awale abdi has started to personally attack me now here [98] calling me a "moron" Zekenyan (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Insults others but cries when he's insulted. AcidSnow (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Provide evidence like i did, for your accusations. Zekenyan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You never provided diffs for my accusation, let alone did I ever make any attacks. AcidSnow (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC).

I meant I have provided diffs for the user Awale Abdi's personal attack. I am asking you to provide diff of the personal attacks that you claim I have done against you. Zekenyan (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, this is petty. Please take the content dispute to the talk page and work it out there. Also, bear in mind that all actual historical documents on the Adal Sultanate indicate exactly what Awale-Abdi does above; especially the main such treatise, the Futuh Al-Habash. Middayexpress (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a "personal attack"" -> I frankly don't know you well enough to want to try to verbally abuse you especially here in this conversation or on your page. But when a poster tries to claim a historical document (a detailed one at that) left behind by a man who was alive and present at the time (the Abyssinian-Adal war) is not valid; he or she is clearly just spewing nonsense that supports their view whilst ignoring clear historical evidence, this is to me "moronic" indeed but I didn't call you a moron here or in some public conversation like on a topic's talk page or on your talk page which would be a direct "personal attack". I made the comment on my own talk page and Midday's during a conversation entirely between me and him (anyone can go read it-> and I'm simply being frank as you are being blatantly irrational and disregarding clear evidence for your own agenda), it was petty of you to follow me to my talk page and read what was on there only to use it to "help" your "argument" here. Can't merely address any of the points I've made validly? Anyway, I apologize if that was bad conduct on my part.

Also, I'm sorry but it's a well-established fact that the majority (not the entirety) of the Adal's soldiers were Somalis and since you emphasize sources (a good habit ;) ), here are but some: [-] , [-] , [-] , [-] <- all based on research either mostly on the Futuh or even at times using other sources and knowledge from the time. Again, you want the two clearly known genealogies for the dynasty as shared by Ibn Khaldun, Harari historians, various Islamic world scholars and so on? Here: this is the one that ties them to Yusuf bin Ahmad Al-Kawneyen as noted by I.M Lewis and taken down by [Cerulli] from a Harar chroncile: [-]. You want a book mentioning how they're tied to Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib and Isma'il Al-Jaberti? Here: [-]. You want books claiming they're Argobbas? Oh, wait... There are none...

There's no evidence of any sort that they were Argobbas or Afars. Just conjecture from some historian who got published once (and he said "Ethio-Semitic" never Argobba speicifcally) and he was attemtping to argue that the Sultanate of the Hadiya people and various Sidamic sultanates were Ethio-Semitic too (which is bonkers) based on Al-Umari saying certain peoples of "Ifat" were speaking "Abyssinian" (rightly imho assumed to be Ethio-Semitic) [-] which makes sense because at this time the Sultanate was stationed I believe around Dakkar/ around Eastern Ethiopia where a substantial Ethio-Semitic demographic was definite, Adal-Ifat and so on while they were ruled by a clearly Somali dynasty and mostly soldiered by Somalis were as Middayexpress often points out-> Multi-Ethnic. Afars, Arabs, Ethio-Semites (ancestral to Argobbas and Hararis) and Somalis were all to be found [-]. These weren't at all borderline homogeneous Somali societies like you'd find with the Warsangali or some early modern coastal Somali sultanates.

Oh and just to say this again; Braukamper is indeed "fringe" in nature and often made conjectural statements like thinking the Harla people were Ethio-Semites/ Harari despite Hararis clearly speaking of them as a distinct group from their own ethnicity (there might be a connection; who knows) and of course; he had zero evidence. It's not like there are inscriptions in "the Harla language", all we know about the Harla is that they once occupied areas of Eastern Ethiopia, served as a sizable part of the Adal's armies (Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim's) and were seemingly swallowed up/ likely assimilated by Somalis, Afars & possibly Oromos too who have certain subgroups in Eastern Ethiopia who call themselves "Harla". There's a strange one among Somalis that isn't even known in the clan genealogies but claims to be of Darod origin while Cerulli found that they spoke an odd variant of Somali that reminded of the dialects spoken by the Midgaan and such; they lived pretty much very close to where the original Harla did. [Encyclopedia Aethiopica] <- We really know little of this group and the grandiose assumptions Braukamper made about them only to immediately admit he lacked evidence were embarassing to say the least.

Anyway, this discussion is petty indeed and pointless since we've already shown Zekenyan adequate and ample sources. If you're unhappy with what they say; that's your business. Take care, man. Also, if you are truly hurt by that quick comment of mine on mine and midday's own pages then I apologize, otherwise, that should be it with this conversation. You want to alter the Walashma page? Come up with adequate sources that aren't nonsensical like that "Hadiyas were Ethio-Semitic" one and start a discussion on the walashma talk page-> otherwise we shouldn't drag this out. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop spamming the noticeboard. Your completely off topic. Zekenyan (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

He's not. In fact, he's a 100% on the dot. AcidSnow (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Admins need to block this user "acidsnow" as he continues to edit without providing a source. He keeps inserting words without citations here [99]. I added a citation and his friend removed it. Zekenyan (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• OP reported to WP:ANEW where they were blocked for 1 week by Swarm (with an indef block possible if there are further disruptions after that...). It would seem this matter can now be closed... --IJBall (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Collect has been involved in a very lengthy conflict (going on for more than a month now) over the article Project for the New American Century. Recently, this dispute has spilled over into other articles as well, most notably this spin-off list article and the resulting AFD discussion. It's been a long, messy, and complex debate so I could write a novel here, but I'll try to keep this as concise as I can: if more context/evidence is needed I can produce it.

Misrepresentation of Others' Position/Arguments/Actions: In this edit on Jimmy Wale's talk page, about the list article, Collect recently stated that "the group pushing this" (by which he apparently means myself, Ubikwit, MrX, and Jbhunley) had "brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being 'obstinate,'" and that "I got a block for standing on this." Both statements are falsehoods. I had made one post to NPOVN here shortly after my first entry into the debate over the PNAC article. All of the other "drama board" posts about the article (that I'm aware of) have been created by Collect: see this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. Collect was also the one who made the report that resulted in his block, which was for edit warring, not for "taking a stand".

He has also charged the same group of editors with supporting the creation of the list article. This is untrue in both myself and Mr. X's case, I'm not sure about Ubikwit. More importantly, however, Collect also charged all four of us with "preferring" this this old version of the article, repeating that charge here. This is a willful misrepresentation of all four editors edits and ideas:

• My first edit to the PNAC article characterized it as "a bit of a mess," and I have put significant effort into improving the article from its original state in the past few weeks, removing much of the content that Collect that Collect also opposed, but which he has now claimed that I support adding to the article. Collect knows this - since he thanked me for my edits.
• As Mr X has correctly pointed out, he had no role in creating the list article, and has never edited it. His involvement has been limited to his response to this request at BLP/N, providing comments and evidence that he thought might be helpful.
• JBH also objected to Collect's characterization of his position, and Collect's quoting him out of context without a ping or notification of any kind. JBH has also pointed out that Collect has compared the creation of the article to promoting a conspiracy theory, and implying support for McCarthyism here. Like me and Mr X, JBH also noted that his first involvement with the PNAC article took place nearly a month later than the version which Collect has claimed all four of us "prefer."
• Ubikwit also pointed out that the list had been in the main PNAC article for years.

All four of the editors that Collect misrepresented (without even informing us of the discussion) have asked him to retract his false/misleading statements and apologize. He has refused, responding with posts like this, and this.

Other Incidents: The above is just the most recent event in the dispute over the PNAC article were I believe that Collect has acted in bad faith, and failed to listen to reason, or been uncivil. I could point to many other examples, such as seeking backup on unrelated talk pages without informing involved parties, his practice of adding more of the content that he objects to in order to make a point: (here and here and here) and his refusal to respond to or acknowledge arguments (or just simple questions) that are earnestly presented to him - some of which I detailed at length in this post over at BLP/N.

Vague Aspersions: I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that while Collect rarely makes an outright accusation (he's very careful with his words), he has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or McCarthy-style "guilt by association." Some examples: [100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113].

I've asked him to stop doing this repeatedly, here, and here, for example, as have others. He has refused to acknowledge that his insinuations are an issue and continues to make them constantly.

Full Disclosure (Collect and I have argued a lot): Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I have taken Collect to task several times for what I perceived as unacceptable behavior. He is likely to suggest that I'm harassing or hounding him here, and I want to stress that I have nothing to hide. I have told him in no uncertain terms what I think of his behavior here, and here, and engaged in an ill-advised debate about what is/isn't FRINGE and and reliable source here. I also mistakenly accused him of sockpuppetry here, which I promptly apologized for here once I realized I was wrong.

Thank you all for your time, sorry this was so long. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorse - Fyddlestix's general characterization of events as well as the specifics relating to me. I will comment more tomorrow on the issues raised. Jbh (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment I see no specific request for administrative action here. Personally, I have disagreed with Collect a few times openly and even more often silently, and am sometimes quite irritated by the editor's style. But never once have I doubted the editor's sincerity and commitment to upholding BLP and NPOV on this encyclopedia. Without editors like Collect, some of our more "progressive" editors would take far too much delight in pillorying conservatives in Wikipedia's voice. I am progressive in my private life but strive for NPOV here on Wikipedia. Thanks to Collect for forcing us to think seriously about real people's lives instead of simply going with the flow of conventional thinking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Close, per Cullen328 and policy, as this thread makes no request for administrative action. In fact, Collect has been the only editor still trying to stop a huge POV-push with the PNAC list, which was worse at the beginning and which now is still being opposed by the majority of uninvolved editors. No doubt that Collect is tired from being the only editor to care about BLP issues and intellectual integrity enough to try to prevent the most egregious BLP violations and tortured misrepresentations of sources and use of shady sources [114], [115]. The solution is not to punish Collect for his delusion that he should behave like an editor of the world's most widely used reference and for the rest of us to start acting like encyclopedia editors. A sign of hope for the latter wish is the community's comments on the POV-pushing PNAC list. Dear0Dear 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think @Fyddlestix: is new at this and did not know that they should ask for a block or a ban from editing in a topic area or specific type or class of article for some number months or some other administrative action. As I noted above I intend to comment tomorrow and I do have specific and appropriate sanctions to request. I feel it would be inappropriate to ask for sanction before presenting my own evidence. I am, however, willing to do so if asked by an un-involved administrator - (please ping if requesting me to do this so I get a notice) I also believe, from comments on Jimbo's page, that there is another editor who might want to address Collect's behavior here. Jbh (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The timing is poor. Administrator MastCell (talk · contribs) is already discussing behavioral issues with Collect (talk · contribs) and other editors at the appropriate talk pages, and I suspect that MastCell's attention suffices. Why do you think that additional action is needed? Which action? Even if MastCell were not already quite active, a question that ANI must face is whether any action against Collect allow BLP-compliance to suffer. Dear0Dear 08:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to shows Collect once again denying the problem that many editors are telling him about. That's why this ANI is needed. To summarize: the continuing misrepresentation of other editors and his refusal to admit there's a problem. This has been going on for far too long and needs to stop. That's why there's this open ANI on Collect. It's entirely unclear, however, if Collect is purposefully engaging in personal attacks or if he has a reading comprehension problem. I'm in the middle on this question, but I'm leaning heavily to the latter. He simply doesn't seem to understand what other editors write, and this leads to the current problem under discussion. I really don't think we can block other editors for confusion, but when it borders on competence issues, that's when others start talking about a topic ban. I think if he was prevented from continuing to work on American politics article and would simply confine himself to, let's say, writing about gardening and houseplants, everything would be fine. Since the American politics topic area is under arbcom restrictions, we should be considering an enforcement action if the problematic behavior continues. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your passive-aggressive personal attacks about "reading comprehension" continue the harassment of Collect for which you were recently warned by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) [116] and by other administrators. Please let MastCell discuss issues with the relevant editors, and let MastCell come to ANI if more input is needed. Dear0Dear 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fyddlestix claims he and Collect have been in a lengthy argument. I would say this should be rephrased and admitted as what it is, which is that Fyddlestix doesn't agree with Collect so he's going to seek sanction against Collect. In his 1500 edits since starting in earnest last November, Fyddlestix has already filed a misguided SPI claim against Collect and has committed 20% of his edits to various venues surrounding the PNAC debate. Most annoying is the unreadable walls of text and diffs that show zero except the normal back and forth one is likely to encounter if they decide to participate in POV pushing on hotbutton topics. If this witch hunt by Fyddlestix persists, the block and or site ban should probably be leveled against Fyddlestix. Please stop seeking sanctions against those that have the right to oppose your POV pushing.--MONGO 09:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In my experience, Collect usually gets it right, especially on BLP issues. It would be helpful if he could provide some diffs to reinforce his statements about certain editors being anti-Semitic and whatever else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Close this and let the AfD run it's course. I believe Collect is correct that a new spinout list about an organization that died out 10 years ago and statement of principles that was signed 20 years is a POV fork with BLP and NPOV issues (the controversial bullet points are basically US foreign policy now and adopted by both parties post 9/11 so list inclusion criteria are rather unworkable). It's obvious that some editors disagree but it's already playing out in AfD. This type of canvassing is not much different than the canvassing charges leveled above. --DHeyward (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The problems predate the AfD, as has been indicated above. These diffs may not represent canvassing, but they show Collect attempting to get an administrator to intervene in a content dispute.
Collect complains about my edits at PNAC to Swarm, making unsubstantiated BLP violation claims, etc:

1. PNAC
2. "PNAC: FGS do something"
3. "PNAC: and yes - he keeps on!"
   

Only one other editor commented in that thread“Yup”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see yet another drama board section-- again at no time and in no place have I called anyone here an "anti-semite" nor have I accused anyone of being a McCarthy supporter. I consider my posts - including a bunch of RfCs I initiated to be within what WP:DR actually requires. I note the AfD which arouses ire was not started by me, and (quite oddly) appears to indicate that a strong consensus of other editors agree with my view on the "list" article. The above seems, in fact, just another example, in my opinion, of misuse of the stated purpose of this notice board. I, in fact, editors here to examine the discussion at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush and the discussion at UT:Jimbo [117] and examine the unanimous nature of what appears to be a quite vocal and iterative minority at the AfD page. Cheers to all and Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all. Collect (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For funsies: [118] an editor did not like the fact that a source he insists supports a particular claim, does not actually do so. Therefore the part he does not like in his own source is "clearly a mistake." Um -- if the part of a RS which does not support a claim in a BLP is "clearly a mistake" is it remotely possible that someone found the source by google-minecraft, and the source actually does not support the claim? I have this horrid and admittedly annoying habit of actual reading more than a single sentence found in a google search, and if the source clearly contradicts a claim, I do not assert that it supports the claim, but that it has a mistake when it does not do so <g>. It is a tad embarrassing when anyone points out absolute misuse of sources, no? Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The specific sanction request I said was coming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well before the close I said As I noted above I intend to comment tomorrow and I do have specific and appropriate sanctions to request. I feel it would be inappropriate to ask for sanction before presenting my own evidence. I am, however, willing to do so if asked by an un-involved administrator - (please ping if requesting me to do this so I get a notice) I presume JzG simply did not notice it. I am posting this as I said I would.

My initial conversations with Collect were, I believe, good enough. We had a long conversation on his talk page a week or so ago. While we got frustrated with each other it stayed restricted to the topic and we finished, I believe, on good terms. As late as two days ago we were working together on Letterhead organization even through the nastyness. Then I found he had been Campaigning Not for AfD for the thread he opened at BLPNon Jimbo's talk page. This thread was started, without notifying the editors he was discussing, at 7:43 am, 13 March 2015 while he misrepresented editors and cast aspersions on them. He opened the thread nine minutes before he opened this BLPN thread at 7:52 am, 13 March 2015. Again without notifying any of the involved editors. None of his statements were neutral as the diffs show. And I can think of no good faith reason to open two threads on the same subject minutes apart without providing notice to involved parties.

Fyddlestix has presented diffs above to show some of his misrepresentations there. If this post is considered a different ANI then I include that material by reference.

Please note - This is not just, or even particularly about WP:CANVASS it is about misrepresentation of others edits, repeated implications and some direct accusations by Collect that his 'opponents' support McCarthyism or even anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. WP:BATTLEGROUND is an issue as well. I also have no ax to about the AfD. I came into that situation at BLPN where I stated said the information in the table under discussion is OK from a policy point of view but the table itself was probably UNDUE [119]. My first edit on the PNAC article was March 04 2015. My first edit to the PNAC talk page was March 2 2015 when the same issue Collect failed to engage on in his own BLPN thread come up again.

That his Campaigning has the desired effect is evident. When it was suggested he take the article to AfD Collect replies I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this. I add my post below:... Note - As has been shown in earlier Fyddlestix's ANI post Collect opened all of the "drama board" discussions bar this ANI. This shows either a propensity for 'untruths' or an inability see his own actions. Neither is conducive to a collaborative editing environment such as Wikipedia. (GabrielF then replies "I have created an AFD nomination.". Collect's response to this is Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react. - Note - He directly states that the earlier named editors desire to return the article to the state he indicated earlier in the thread (diff in opening statement) which was, in my opinion, riddled with BLP and well prior to my [ first edit on March 2] and Fyddlestix massive clean up. I do not remember MrX being involved in editing the article at all. This, in my opinion, shows Collect is unable to differentiate those he sees as opponents, differentiate their views or recognize/acknowledge incremental change. Again these are very bad characteristics for an editor in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. I see no good faith here particularly since this was all happening in the very public space of Jimbo's talk page, without the knowledge or participation of the other involved editors, <while there was on ongoing BLPN discussion Collect had opened in parallel. Here I make a direct accusation that this was bad faith on the part of Collect.
I want to draw particular attention to times where Collect's inability to address the issues at hand rather than his own personal construct of the issues led to over the top aspersions: (both from the AfD but similar aspersions were cast in the very public forum of Jimbo's talk page. Diffs are in the opening statement of this ANI as well as Mastcell's close of the thread quoted below.

• The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. - Imputing I had a bad motive for creating article .
• After telling Collect that personal anecdotes are not a useful argument in AfDIs your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? Implying support for McCarthyism and attempting to place his objections on some meta moral level.
• Collect's claim "Apparently some feel compelled to point out its evility... when paired with this, in reply to a question of Whose idea was it, anyway?, Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. this is unquestionable slander In a not-legal sense. NLT being made. of those named.
  

His continual claims of 'guilt by association' and comparisons to McCarthyism, even after being told repeatedly by other editors that that comparison is inappropriate, rather than using detailed policy based arguments shows me an editor who either (1) Can not separate the subject from the analogy. or (2) Uses hyperbolic analogy, repeatedly, to disparage those he sees as opponents and try to claim some unassailable moral high ground for the purpose of 'winning' rather than compromise. Neither of these options is good for a place where collaboration is key.

Mastcell Closed the thread after it went "well of the rails" with this:

* Does any (uninvolved) editor object to closing this thread, which has evidently gone well off the rails? The article in question is at AfD, where it seems very likely to be deleted. That seems entirely reasonable to me, not because it violates WP:BLP or WP:SYNTH (it doesn't), but because these sorts of lists are inherently non-neutral by virtue of their framing. (Compare, for instance, American fatalities and injuries of the 2012 Benghazi attack, or a hypothetical List of Republican politicians who have signed up to receive Obamacare subsidies. While such lists may be well-sourced and compliant with BLP and SYNTH, they nonetheless make poor encyclopedia articles because their framing is inherently designed to make an ideological point).

The take-home point is that repeatedly comparing other editors to Joseph McCarthy is a poor rhetorical tactic, and one which results in a disproportionate volume of unconstructive dialog (cf. this entire thread) obscuring a valid underlying point about the utility of this list. At a minimum, Collect has invoked McCarthy here, here, here, here, here, and here (with a bonus implication of anti-Semitism), and that's just in the last couple of days. Collect then professed surprise that other editors should "take umbrage" at having their work compared to that of McCarthy. One is left with the conclusion that the discussion surrounding this article would have been far healthier without such participation. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about the content or the subject of the AfD. This is not about that. What I am concerned with is that an experienced editor's behavior has changed from 'confidently sure of his position' to doing things that, I perceive as contrary to what editing Wikipedia is like. In particular I consider repeatedly implying other editors support McCarthyism and arguably even antisemitism, misrepresenting others to imply they support reprehensible positions or out right accusing them of promoting conspiracy theories, most of this in the most public forum on Wikipedia, to be so far beyond acceptable behavior as to require sanction by the community. All of this, including the material in the opening statement lead me to request that Collect given a long time to reflect on why the actions detailed in this ANI are not acceptable behavior. Since he is an established editor and blocks are should be preventative only, I propose a six month ban on political BLPs broadly construed. Jbh (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• As I said in the comment quoted above, I think that Collect's participation in the debate in question was unhelpful and inflammatory. I also think that this episode is part of a long-term conduct issue on Collect's part, but I don't believe that pursuing the question here at AN/I is likely to be helpful. Having observed this episode play out, I think that Jbhunley's complaint, while wordy, has merit, but I think it's extremely unlikely that any meaningful sanction will be applied to a long-term established editor as a result of an AN/I post. I would therefore recommend closing this request, although without prejudice against the filer. As an aside, I should be clear that I have been involved in various content disputes with Collect, and on a personal level I find interacting with him in the context of a content dispute to be a reliably frustrating experience. Because of those interactions, I am not unbiased here and I would not take any significant administrative action with regard to Collect; I am commenting as an editor and not an admin here. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconded, word for word. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Will someone kindly close what appears at this point to be a somewhat bootless exercise per the prior close? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• The common request by anyone who finds their POV challenged is to inflate their supposed grievances to make them look disproportionately bigger than they are so they can work to eliminate their opposition instead of working on compromises.--MONGO 17:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• On general principles, I think that a thread that is not obviously without merit or WP:SNOWED should be open at least 24 hours, to give editors from all time zones a marginal chance for considered participation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Threats by MONGO and ODear. MONGO's is meh... But Dear ODear ODear's is too close to a physical threat. The video is funny and if I knew him better I would not be concerned. Since I do not I want to nip this in the bud. Jbh (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• MONGO's name is MONGO. Dear0Dear 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Exactly....the full MONGO experience is here...--MONGO 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Great... Funny... When someone says "I think that might have been a threat" The only proper response is something along the line of "No stupid... I was making a point using a funny clip when MONGO beats a dead horse" to which a reply might be "OK, the clip was funny but in the context or a conversation where MONGO has just said:

"You radicals keep POV pushing your baloney and decide to file an arbcom case I'm going to add all your names to the case and show up with a laundry list of diffs...all named parties will be scrutinized and I won't shut up until you're all sanctioned. It might be best if the lot of you cease posting here with your sanctimonious attitudes. You can take that as a formal warning and I don't make idle threats" diff above

it feels an awful lot like I am the horse here" to which the reply might be "No. Sorry about that." then "OK, no problem" and it is done. Doubling down with 'the full MONGO experience' just was not the smart way to go here.

Let us try it one more time. I feel like that video might imply a threat of violence would you please strike it here and on the talk page where this started? Jbh (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Matter closed with ODear per this diff Thank you Dear ODear ODear. Jbh (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is abundantly evident that there will be no resolution here with respect to Collect's conduct (good, bad or otherwise), partly because the underlying conduct issues are complex and subtle, and partly because it has become an opportunity for insults and threats from folks who should know better. Today, I tried to engage Collect on his talk page, but was rebuffed, as is his prerogative. The issues at hand seem to require a more formal approach, which I am in the process of crafting. I would urge the OP and others involved in these recent events to please be patient while this takes shape. Stepping away and letting tempers cool probably wouldn't hurt either.- MrX 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, we can examine everyone's conduct. To narrow down what this is all about, some liberal or progressive or maybe radical editors don't like having Collect disagreeing with them, so to silence their opposition all they can figure out is to take him to court. MrX, you underestimate the value of your contributions...and disagree with your edit summary about this being your .02 cents. I give it a value of .03 cents. I am also not classy at all, even though you have bequeathed upon me such a distinction for which I offer you many hugs and kisses in return.--MONGO 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I fail to see what the alleged political affiliations or positions of other editors has to do with the demonstrable pattern of problematic conduct by Collect. Wikipedia is an international project composed of editors from all over the planet, comprising many different backgrounds. Poor conduct is not attributable to any political belief or position in this case. If an editor consistently misrepresents and attacks others, they have to own that behavior. So, it seems to me that you are distracting us from the real problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ah Viriditas...perhaps we should not be distracted and instead start examining you. We're you or were you not cautioned about harassing Collect just last week?--MONGO 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've never harassed anyone on Wikipedia. Some editors are fond of yelling "harassment", which is why the guideline discusses such false claims. Again, you're distracting away from the central issue. Discussing conduct issues is not harassment of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this sanction, support application of the WP:TROUT tot he filing party. You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the WP:BOOMERANG not coming back your way. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right about AN/I, but I think you're being a little bit unfair to Jbhunley. Unlike Collect, you, and I, he appears to have virtually no experience with on-wiki conflict or dispute resolution mechanisms before this episode. You and I know that AN/I is not a useful venue for this sort of thing, but I don't think we can project our experience onto Jbhunley (or onto Fyddlestix, the original poster for the first section above). There is a real problem here, in that Collect is very hard to deal with in the context of a content dispute—that's what led to his ArbCom-imposed topic ban, and his recurring blocks for edit-warring (the last one, a week long, was just earlier this month), and so on. With the closure of WP:RFC/U, there are basically no venues to address user-conduct issues besides AN/I and ArbCom, so I don't think it's fair to fault an editor—especially one who's new to our byzantine unwritten rules of conflict resolution—for raising a concern here, with supporting diffs. In my view there is a real user-conduct issue identified here, and while I don't expect it to be addressed at AN/I, it will blow up sooner or later as long as people continue to enable Collect's less constructive behavior, or fail to call him on it. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • JBH lost me at his assumption that a link to a comedy film where a man (or manbeast) punches a horse and that this was to be construed as a physical threat to him. Looks like he's throwing darts to see if any make a bullseye.--MONGO 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Editor MastCell, don't just be a cynic, put something on the table, then: Ban from Wales talk page? Prohibition on commenting on other editors on article talk? Prohibition from opening a discussion on a dispute resolution board with permission of an uninvolved admin? NE Ent 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll put something on the table when we're in a venue where it has a chance of being considered seriously, and where it might make a difference. In other words, not here. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Here works: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. NE Ent 00:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @MastCell: I have read a lot of these over the years, even a couple Arbcom cases but I have not participated beyond commenting on one case. If there are other ways of conflict resolution I am all for them. I tried 'talking', providing sources to address the concerns I 'thought' were being raised only to have the concerns change, asking a for a restatement of the issue, asking for a statement of what he thought my position was, through all of the conflict resolution techniques I could think of and I see being unable to find a way that works as a wiki-personal failure. The article, the AfD none of that made me concerned enough to bring up this issue here, that is all just what I see as part of Wiki-work. The misrepresentation of my words and the and the constant tying of my and other's positions to reprehensible beliefs in a very public forum is something that I think no person should be allowed to do no amount of good outweighs that kind of bad. I guess that is idealistic and unreasonable. I am discouraged that others do not see these as issues but if the community says it is hopeless I guess it is. Oh well... So what should I do with all of these fish?? :) Jbh (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose of sanction, Twenty-mule team Support of WP:TROUTs. No comment on past actions by anyone. User:Collect's suggestion that the article in question should go to WP:AFD seemed reasonable to me. I may be wrong in my !vote at that AFD, but we'll see what WP:CONSENSUS brings. I suggest that everyone else involved with that article take the same approach, drop the WP:BLUDGEONs, and move on. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I accept your WP:TROUT but with no RFC/U it was this or Arbcom. The problems with misrepresentation of other editors by Collect has become, in my opinion, persistent and pernicious, WP:TPG says this is a BANable problem so just letting it slide seems to be a long term bad idea. Being directly or indirectly called a supporter or McCarthyism, antisemitism or promoting conspiracy theories is unacceptable. That Collect denies doing this when multiple people tell him that is what they perceive him is doing tells me he will keep in doing the same thing in the future. This will hurt the encyclopedia in the long run and allows him to impose his POV, knowingly or not, on any article he decides to just by saying BLP over and over and not engaging in a meaningful way with editors that disagree with him simply by recasting their arguments in his reply/objection. Quoting people without using diffs and editing those quotes to remove context, particularly on Jimbo's talk page should earn him an admonishment at least and a ban on cut/paste quoting without diffs at best. All that I said here is supported by the diffs above so please forgive me for not digging them out again though I will if asked by you or another admin.

  I know there is no real way to sanction a long time prolific editor here but a month or more of Arbcom is even worse that ANI on the Barnum&Bailey scale. If a BOOMERANG is due me I will accept that to. I have done what I have done and said what I said and I am willing to be held accountable for those things. I have a hope, a very faint and weak hope, that something positive will come out of this and Arbcom can be avoided. Jbh (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• You don't want to do the arbcom dance. If you're not even getting resolution here, all should expect there is a train wreck. I recognize you spent much time on preparing your argument here, and I do not think that it should simply be ignored, but Collect is likely a person afterall, not some cyborg. If you gave it a few days and stepped back and considered that your position may not be the only right one, you may find him more reasonable than you suppose.--MONGO 00:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• @MONGO: I have no intention of starting an Arbcom case. No way! No how! I may be naive but not that naive. On the AfD subject I can see some of what may be his concerns but only because other people presented the actual issues as they relate to the topic at AfD. I'm having problems with the aspersions and misrepresentations though. If they were not intended the issue would be acknowledged and it would not be repeated, at least not in such short order.

  I admit the possibility that I may be in my own offended headspace but others seem to recognize similar issues. I am more than willing to meet him half way. For me that means an acknowledgement that at least other people perceive what he is doing as an issue and a willingness to address that issue when it is brought up to him. All I have heard from him boils down to 'I have done no such thing'.[120] Jbh (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Resolution will never come from that so sooner or later, someone with bigger brasser ones than I will open an Arbcom case. Drama will ensue and at the end of the very metaphorical day no one will be particularly happy.I have found that that is nearly always the outcome of enforced rather than negotiated settlements. Jbh (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Added diff above with underlined text. Jbh (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions. Support trouting for basically reopening the closed discussion. It's at AfD. It will be resolved or transformed regardless of action here so all this is moot court. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction that would prevent Collect from dealing with unambigous BLP violations. I don't have a dog in American political fights (and the reputation of the GWB administration in much of the world is such that any accusation of being involved with it would itself be a BLP violation without a bloody good source) but have found Collect to be helpful in cleaning up BLPs of comparatively little-known people where it's hard finding experienced editors who both know about the people concerned, and can still give a flying frog about the BLP policy. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Collect is currently continuing his campaign of disruption on yet another PNAC/neoconservatism related article, Stephen Cambone, filling another pointy RfC and misrepresenting sources. I will wait for MrX to take the action to which he referred above.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to Ubikwit: Your comment here is telling [121], a diff that should necessitate a responsible encyclopedia to review your editing on PNAC and related topics. Dear0Dear 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA If you don't specify anything objectionable in my comment, then you are simply casting aspersions.
Go ahead, make another false accusation against me. I dare you.
WP:DENY
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

and here it is!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect

With MrX as the OP. Even while this AN/I is running, of course. Can trouts be issued on the ArbCom case proper? :) Collect (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linkspamming etc. by Pi-gimjiRu

User:Pi-gimjiRu has been creating dozens of nearly empty articles on fish, consisting of a taxobox and a link to an online database at thaibiodiversity.org. Example: [122]. Pi-gimjiRu's edits so far have consisted mainly of that, along with linkspamming entries from that database to existing fish articles, e.g. [123]. Repeated explanations at Pi-gimjiRu's talk page from User:Obsidian_Soul, User:Animalparty, User:220_of_Borg and then me, don't seem to have dented Pi-gimjiRu's resolve to keep churning out nearly empty articles. User:Animalparty has also asked the editor at Pi-gimjiRu's talk page about what appears to be use of multiple accounts, with no reply, but many more articles created. Advice on how best to handle this would be welcome. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I just came here via WT:CSD and the user's talk page, with the same concern. Others have tried to talk to the user but they seem either uninterested in discussion, or more likely they are not English. Good faith notwithstanding, we now have a large number of articles on fish in Thailand which are nothing more than a taxobox and a link, as Dai Pritchard explained above, and they are also spamming this link into other fish articles (e.g. [124] [125] [126]) with little or no context. I was going to try to help the user myself, but based on the existing unanswered discussions on their talk page and the existence of this thread, I think that a competence is required block is an appropriate course of action here. At least until the user responds. Ivanvector (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing what you meant to say was that the editor might not be fluent in English? This edit shows him responding in English to talk page comments but I don't believe he's returned to editing Wikipedia since the notices were placed there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I meant not fluent in the English language. Not being of English heritage is of course irrelevant. I didn't see that they had replied to earlier notices, however they were editing today, so they either don't know how the notification interface works or they're ignoring all of those messages. Ivanvector (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor in question has created another dozen or so 'fishy' fish pages in the last ≈40 minutes. ' 220 of ^Borg 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He's not even bothering to look after saving, on all-this robo editing. Macrognathus semiocellatus, for example: He just pastes and moves on to the next entry in the database. I'll start speedying these A1. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Another 80 useless edits since the 8:04 notification, including now the addition of images with copyright issues. Really getting into stride now. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Pi-gimjiRu for 3 hours. The mechanical pattern of their edits, and their failure to acknowledge any of the communications put to them, does suggest they're using some kind of automated database-dump tool. Their very few talk page edits in January show that they do speak English fine, and that they do understand how talk pages work. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You may already know about it, but this is also related to the editor. 62.107.192.174 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this (now archived) comment, but it may be worth noting the potential COI, however well-intentioned, mentioned on the user's Commons Talk page: see Commons:User_talk:Pi-gimjiRu#Copyrighted_photographs where the user states, in response to my concern about mass uploading of quality yet unlicensed image: "Thanks for the advice But we were the officer assigned by the agency. To disseminate that information to Wikipedia, please advise me what I should do to correct the model of Wikipedia". And, unsurprisingly, there are similar issues with Commons:User talk:Baitoeytnt. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

IP-user - disruptive editing on Current Events

User 70.190.111.213 has multiple complaints on talk page going back a few months. Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items about stories of questionable notability to the Current Events page, while removing valid & concise items posted by other users. March 12 and March 14 are good examples. User frequently opts to avoid discussion, and what discussion does happen is peppered with derogatory statements about both the person initiating the discussion and the actual subjects being discussed (see their recent response to my question about removal of Taiwan protest item). Farolif (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ADD: Demonstrated bias on user's part by writing-off the logic which they used for deleting an item (Taiwan protests) when the same is applied toward their own contributions (Social Security scam). Farolif (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

you add this into the middle of your statement way after the fact - its a miracle that i even noticed it - the logic you used is literally beyond contempt - in fact it reeks of contempt - your statemtent is non sensensical - how could i even try to refute it - you might as just said that red and green are the same colors--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed each and every addtion or deletion that you question - NOT ONE SINGLE item have I not done so - seems pointless you now to come to the AN/I to cry that you did not get your way - have I been a prolific editor of the Current Events page?, of course, is that supposed to be a bad thing?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the thing I dont understand about your move to the AN/I is that other editors seem just fine with my work over at the Current Events page - the problem I run into is sockpuppets and vandals that endlessly challange the page with bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption - the general disruption is to be expected from kooky people so this does not bother me much - the other two does bother me - you in the last few days are the latter - you have attempted to remove material that clearly meets the notability requirements for the page and yet you also attempt add trivia like a few people pounding the pavement with signs to whatever crackpot ideas these tiny fractions of the population currently expose - but i have already covered all that on the talk pages and history as YOU WELL KNOW--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

as for your most worthless statement that i quote "has multiple complaints on talk page going back a few months" you well know that is rubbish - i have addressed each and every one of those sockpuppets and vandals on my page - any ADMIN that cares to do so can review them - almost everyone of the items came from a vandal or sockpuppet who could not get whichever of the types of items above i have already described (namely again bios, irrelevant material, or just general disruption)--70.190.111.213 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

also i should address your statement about two recent additions to the current events page or as you say they are "Recently, they have been adding excessively-detailed items" - one of my biggest pevs is that sometimes to prove the notablity of a thing the story MUST be somewhat lenghty - i can promise you i have no interest to tire myself writing up such items - they take a long time - BUT if they are part of history that needs to be known later then they (1) do need to get written up and (2) do need to be lengthy - I will give you the two most common types of events that do often need to be lengthy - they are medical/science and legal - often i see others try to say write up an opinion of the US Supreme Court and they do so in just one sentence - such lazy activity is abosultely useless - the legal matter may have had special condiitons under which the law is only true and have been reviewed for then - other situations may not apply - hell sometimes the ruling is the most narrow and yet editors write it up as if it is a blanket - thus these editors do our readers no good service because they have actually done more harm then good - medicine write ups have the same problem - in regards to you statement that "RECENT" additions by me were too long - guess what? - they were both legal issues that would literally be completely false if someone tried to abbreviate them in a write up--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The personal attacks at ANI and referring to somewhere as a Shithole location on your talkpage isnt really a good idea as per WP:CIVIL. Also can you provide some evidence of sockpuppetry with regards to User:Slvofjstce, User:TheMagikCow, User:FourViolas and User:Cubby666 as you have claimed at your talk page. Amortias (T)(C) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed word that you found offensive since has really nothing to do with discussion--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasnt that I found it offensive it just didnt appear very civil. Can you address the sock issue I've mentioned above? Amortias (T)(C) 22:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement from FourViolas I recently made 70.190.111.213 aware of WP:ASPERSIONS on their talk page, where, in conjunction with this unresolved prior AN/I about them, my history with them may be found. I have not engaged in content disputes with this user beyond one explained revert, so I am involved only insofar as I have tried to offer guidance and been accused of sockpuppetry. The user claims to have been editing for five years, but their contrib history only goes back to the beginning of the year; I believe it would be relevant to this discussion to know which accounts or IPs this user was editing under for the previous 4.75 years, and if they encountered criticism then. FourViolas (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my concerns: this user has

• Cast unsupported aspersions of sockpuppetry ([127] [128][129] [130] [131]) and ignored suggestions ([132] [133]) to open a legitimate WP:Sockpuppet investigation;
• Engaged in edit warring since their last block (Feb 23 Current events #1 Jan 27 #1 Feb 23 #2 Feb 23 #3 Jan 27 #2, all part of the same war);

• Repeatedly referred to other users as "vandals" and their edits "vandalism" in manners proscribed by WP:NOTVAND ([134][135] [136]) since they acknowledged that it is "a violation of wiki rules to call someone a vandal" except where there is evidence of "wilfull destruction of wiki" ([137]);
• Bitten and driven away a good-faith and potentially beneficial newbie by personally attacking them and stonewalling (ignored attempt to discuss & end edit war, made personal attacks rather than respond to evidence-based AN/I); and
• Failed to engage in consensus building (history page showing unproductive behavior), often with uncivil edit summaries, e.g. referring to other user's contributions as "crap" or "worthless biased agenda crap",

all in the past three months of what they say has been a 5-year career. Their talk page shows that they have been duly and repeatedly warned about their behavior, and have chosen not to change it. Is this enough evidence yet? FourViolas (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This guy now seems to think nationwide protests in Canada aren't notable for some stupid reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_March_14&action=history 63.135.26.46 (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

this from an editor with just five total edits - another sock of a banned user using a varialble IP address maybe?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you address Amortias's concern about casting unsupported aspersions? This criticism isn't about your contributions to Current Events but how you interact with other editors. Regardless of the quality of your contributions, collaboration is the nature of editing on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The issues with regards to edit summaries and incorrect interpretation of policy appears to still be in effect [138] . Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry have you EVER AND I MEAN EVER EDITED THE ARTICLE YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES??? no then how can you come over there and suddenly override my experience - what trivial background do you have there to make such a determination?????????????????????--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I show you as having just begin in wiki in May 2014 and yet you override me there with absolutely no experience as to what if anything is notable in that article--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

in fact that move just looked like a violation of WP:STALKING--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summaries are still uncivil, you have claimed someone is not noteable however their article (which requires them to be noteable) does exist, if they are not noteable with regards to a specific incident or event then that may be true but purely claiming they are not notable when they must have passed the notability criteria for inclusion doesnt appear to be an accurate evaluation of their noteability. WP:Harassment#Wikihounding states that viewing a users contribution for places such as ANI is a valid use of a contribution history, your edit summaries are part of the discussion here so this appears relevent. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

dude do you know how many times i have had to defend that article from trivial additions of that type?? I will go through it again since you have NEVER ACTUALLY EDITED That article before - the article could have any number of such trivia obit additions the problem is then the article about the only superpower on the earth would EXPONETIALLY MUSHROOM in length to some monolithic 1 to 10 mega bytes per year - and yes i have done the math to make that statement - if you had ever followed the article before you would know those numbers are correct - your addtion is one of trivia - the article would end up as some non sensical endless hodgepoge of data not fit for an encyclopedia--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

just because someone has an article in wiki it is not notable enough for that article - and many other editor have already reviewed that article and AGREE with that - but you through STALKING did not ever review that - you just went over there with no experience and overrode me--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

further, do you have any idea how wrong what you just did? - I will put it to you in very simple terms - do you have any idea how much work each and every day I have to do to keep an article about the only superpower looking as good as it currently does? and then someone like you comes along and alters it with no experience to back you up BUT EVEN WORSE you then force me to waste my little time on DEFENDING IT - I WILL ASK YOU FLAT OUT are you planning on taking over the good-sheperding duties for that article to keep it looking good - my guess you will need to put in at least 40 hour of your life per week - no? - what you have done is waste my time - and it is heinous--70.190.111.213 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately you still don't appear to be willing to address the key points. This thread is getting far too close to being WP:TLDR so I've pulled them out and added them below.

1. Edit summaries being uncivil [139][140][141][142]
2. Unsupported accusations of socking
3. Personal attacks in this ANI
4. What appears to be ownership issues with regards to the article you have accused me of making heinous edits with regards to my revert.[143]

Anyone else is welcome to add anything I've missed Amortias (T)(C) 08:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidence may be found in my bolded statement above. Per WP:OWN, having edited a page in the past confers no special rights or immunities. FourViolas (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The allegations against 70.190.111.213 (talk) come with supporting evidence that is clear and convincing. The defense by the accused comes with unsubstantiated allegations and confirms problematic behavior of 70.190.111.213 (talk). What relief is being sought? David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin's discretion, especially because most complainants, including me, seem to be fairly new. The user contributes content positively, but their failure to demonstrate collaborative competence constitutes disruption and must be addressed.. Options:

1. 1RR on Current events and YEAR in the United States, with a stern civility warning
2. Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring (unlikely to improve their opinion of WP and not long-term helpful before)
3. indef block until willingness to relinquish ownership and improve civility is demonstrated in unblock request.

I hope this discussion can have significant long-term benefits. Current events seems to attract newbies, and it's not okay to have an environment of biting there. FourViolas (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- Relief (1) "#1RR on Current events and YEAR in the United States, with a stern civility warning"

-or-

• Support -- Relief (2) "Temp block for incivility, aspersions, and edit warring"

I do not support Relief (3) as previous unapologetic responses of user would be repeated by a forced apology that would be unlikely to be sincere. User clearly does not see the behavior as a problem.David Tornheim (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support 2 or 3 Has multiple warnings and is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Potentially a 3 month - 1 year ban? I do not know the length system all too well but that seems reasonable to me. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Adeptzare3 (talk · contribs) edits

See User talk:Adeptzare3/Hectane/Talk/Discussion 1

Hello, could somebody please review the editing behaviour of Adeptzare3 (talk · contribs).. very odd editing and clearly WP:NOTTHERE. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you mean? --Adeptzare3, the Great 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this Template:DoppelgangerAdeptzare2 and why did you make these edits to this template and add db-g7 to HostBot, I could go on... JMHamo (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:DoppelgangerAdeptzare2 is an alternative doppelganger template for doppelgangers administrators reply to on their own talk pages. --Adeptzare3, the Great, 01:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense... JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not? --Adeptzare3, the Great 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN, failure to work constructively with other users, WP:CANVASing and general disruption

user:Zigzig20s is taking a minor and constructive edit[144] on 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident as an opportunity to throw what I would describe as a tantrum on the talk, declaring himself the victim of "censorship" by "activist editors" and canvasing on multiple pages. [145][146] The user already has a history of disruptive behavior on that page and a taking-on-all-comers approach. If he cannot be reigned in I would request he be blocked or banned. Artw (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, please leave me alone. I censored all my comments for your own pleasure and I don't want to waste my time arguing with complete strangers online. I have indeed been "reigned in" insofar as I have been bullied and intimidated, and I don't want to talk to you ever again. I am taking a break from editing the SAE attack page, so you have won. Bullies want to win; you have won and can't bully me any more; I will edit other pages. But please leave me alone. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Haven't even looked into this too much but I find this edit very concerning. A controversial incident of racism is biased because it focuses on the racism (i.e. the actual controversy), as opposed to the constitution? Good lord. Okay, there's plenty of room in an article to mention the debate of freedom of speech, but WP:UNDUE exists for a reason. The story here is clearly the issue of racism as opposed to a constitutional question. That's not a left wing perspective, that's the reality of the coverage. But because the article doesn't focus on the constitutional aspect of the subject, it's being controlled by "left wing activists" who need to be countered by WP Conservatism? Seriously? What the hell? And this is an editor who has been previously blocked for falsely accusing others of racism. Wow. Do we need a topic ban here or what? Editor has agreed to stay away from the page, which I agree with. Swarm... ^—X— 01:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A month ago Zigzig20s escaped based on understanding not to edit war ^{Old revision of WP:ANE#User:Zigzig20s reported by User:Sladen .28Result: Declined .29} however it would appear that such activity has continued this week ^{Old revision of User talk:Zigzig20s#2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident}. If the editor has agreed to stay away from articles/topics that really could do with formally recording so that it's clear what action will be taken following any lapses. There certainly seem to be parallels with the WP:POV-pushing dragged out at Amy Pascal#Sony Pictures Entertainment Hack. Attempts to engage via User talk:Zigzig20s frequently get reverted as harassment:

• [147] "Undo. Leave me alone." → Artw (notification of this discussion)
• [148] "archived harassing messages" → TransporterMan, Marty jar, Guettarda, Bill Laurie, Hirolovesswords, HiDrNick
• [149] "Don't write here." → Inicholson,
• [150] "stop harassing me before … Stop watching my page/contributions." → Sladen
• [151] "don't harass me here" → Guettarda
• [152] "removing yet another instance of harassment" → Sladen
• …

WP:DE sums up the behaviour pretty well. I truely hope that Zigzig20s will take any opportunity extended to genuinely change their ways. If not, I can see where this is going. —Sladen (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Block or Ban because:

1. user:Zigzig20s agrees to stop editing on the page.
2. Different POV's appear the primary causes of conflict with user:Zigzig20s. A user with a different POV should not be banned from a page simply because of a different POV. Instead, one should work to try to find consensus with that user. (See WP:POV RAILROAD.)
3. user:Zigzig20s apparently doesn't fully understand WP:RS. [This edit.]
4. user:Zigzig20s does feel intimidated or threatened by the various disciplinary tags, even if those tags are entirely legitimate, and my understanding is users are free to delete material off of their talk page as they wish.
5. It wasn't clear to me that user:Zigzig20s really was edit warring in the two instances and clearly did not think so. In the second case the user deleted new material added by Artw (talk). I believe it is the responsibility of the person adding material to justify it on the talk page and gain consensus rather than the one opposing/reverting it per WP:BRD. A brief look at the talk page and I could not find where it was addressed and consensus for the new material was agreed upon. Please provide a diff. for that if it is there. If I misunderstand policy, please point to it.
6. There was no evidence in the initial complaint for "The user already has a history of disruptive behavior on that page and a taking-on-all-comers approach." The additional evidence provided was fairly minor.

Alternatively, I support advice to the user to read more of Wiki-policy and guidelines, especially sections relating to WP:DR, WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR.

David Tornheim (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RichaChaudhary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, both as the above name and as User:Rameshpoonia1 has constantly and consistently been posting non-English translations of Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, and has refused to discuss with other editors who're warning her, both with templated and handwritten messages, on their talk page. User either does not have a working command of English or is more concerned about exploiting en.wp's visibility; either way they are blocked now and they need to be told, in their native tongue (Marathi) and in no uncertain terms, that we do not accept articles that are not English, since I have no doubt that most of the issue here is a language barrier and I would rather have it explained to them before they sock again. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you are asking for an admin or editor who speaks Marathi to issue her a warning? Is there a WikiProject talk page related to this language area or ethnic group where you might make this request? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you could publish such a request, but perhaps asking a user in the Category:User mr-N would be a start? Ivanvector (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem there is I don't know who all is active on en.wp in that language category. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a sockpuppetry request should be filed at WP:SPI. Objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No need, the accounts are already flagged as confirmed socks, and indef blocked. Besides, that process is severely backlogged. Ivanvector (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Close reverted (edit conflict) - respectfully, IJBall, thank you for closing, but there is the open issue of how to post a notice to this user in their native language. Perhaps we could ask at WP:WikiProject India? I was thinking of just randomly going through the user category until I found someone reasonably experienced and reasonably active, but that would be tedious. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a request. Ivanvector (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this exists already. @Jéské Couriano: you can use Template:contrib-mr1 for this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User with edits to only a single page blanking sections after 4 editors warned them not to.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pmesiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made edits to the BLP page of politician Bernie Finn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), only ever blanking sections, after being cautioned not to do so by four different editors, and has breached 3RR twice on 1 September 2014 and on 16 June 2014. The user is not here to build an encyclopaedia and has made no productive contributions. Vandalism tools help to rollback section blanking - but I would recommend at least banning that user from editing that page. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Normally, I would be on the fence since yesterday's edit was the user's first edit since August, but all of his/her edits have literally been nothing but section blanking. A block might be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like somebody with a personal connection to the subject. I don't think any admin action is required, and I see no obvious vandalism. The content being blanked is contentious information about a BLP and I'm not sure that every source used is impeccable. If they blank again, don't revert until you've made every effort to get them to discuss - it's not helpful they're not saying anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that this is clear cut and editor's time shouldn't be wasted, but I'll defer to the admins here. I've added further directions to their talk page and copied the section to BLPN -- Aronzak (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If that's what's going on, maybe this should be listed at WP:BLPN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion at WP:BLPN would be good, preferably with somebody with a knowledge of Australian politics. Perhaps somebody working in his office "responsible" for his WP article has decided his right wing views are just a bit too right wing for the Liberal Party's image? In any case, a discussion is definitely needed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was appropriate here as blanking with no explanation is just vandalism. The user has not attempted to add any content, or discuss content on the talk page, only blanked content nine times, receiving four warnings. To me, it's not a BLP issue, just vandalism that certainly covers WP:NOTHERE. Posted on BLPN -- Aronzak (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As WP:DOLT explains, blanking with no explanation is not necessarily vandalism - it's unhelpful, annoying and disruptive, yeah, but I find labelling it as "vandalism" upsets who ever is doing the blanking and doesn't lead to a smooth conclusion. Indeed, the {{blp}} template on many talk pages saying contentious information that is "poorly sourced" (and a newbie's interpretation of "poorly" may not match an experienced Wikipedian's) must be "removed immediately". PS: Just saw some of his Hansard transcripts - wow, you just don't see British politicians letting rip like that.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gp980 / User:Gpires980

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Gp980 (contributions) has made some problematic edits:

• Creation of biographies of Miriam Klein Stahl and Elaine kahn which were both copyright violations of the website of a bookseller/publisher called City Lights (originals here and here).
• Repeated placement of spam links to the book purchase sections of the same website into existing articles (see just about all of the remaining contributions).

The article on Miriam Klein Stahl was speedily deleted. The speedy deletion nomination of Elaine kahn currently still exists and is contested on the grounds that use of the text is authorised. It appears that the user is connected to the City Lights bookseller and may be using Wikipedia to drive traffic to the site and promote sales. Per WP:LINKSPAM I removed the spam links.

User:Gpires980 (contributions) has subsequently recreated the article on Miriam Klein Stahl and replaced all of the spam links.

I would appreciate some admin intervention here:

• Is there a problem with the multiple accounts? The edits have not overlapped and the usernames make it obvious they are related, but they are they falling foul of WP:ILLEGIT such as Creating an illusion of support, avoiding WP:3RR or Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts?

• I have not re-reverted the spam links so as not to engage in an edit war. Could someone else do it instead?

Many thanks. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The article for Miss Stahl no longer has a copyvio, so I removed the speedy tag from that one; however, her notability is still questionable, so maybe WP:AFD is a better venue for it. But the article for Miss Kahn is a blatant copyvio, and I'm also starting to question whether Gp980 is a floating SPA. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I have gone through the edits of both users and cleaned up copy vio and spam links. I posted identical messages on the user talk of both accts, and will watch and indef-block if any further copy vio occurs. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invalid token?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am trying to submit an SPI using Twinkle. But each time, I receive a pop-up error message "Failed to save edit: Invalid token". It's not something that has ever happened before. I haven't changed any settings since this last worked. Is there a general fault/bug, or is there something wrong with my setup? RolandR (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably best off at WT:TW or something more specific/equivalent. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barack Obama, article probation, past its sell-by date

1. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation was introduced in mid-2008 (the exact history is obscured by a cut-and-paste move).
2. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions shows that the vast majority of action occurred by the end of 2009, an apart from a 1 week block which would have been uncontroversial, no enforcement has occurred for about 3 1/2 years.
3. The list articles tagged is woefully incomplete, including only Sonal Shah. Talk:You didn't build that isn't included for example.

I believe these sanctions have served their purpose and should now be ended.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

FWIW, I've fixed the cut-and-paste move. Graham87 15:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

TYVM. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Seven years...ResMar 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support ending the probation, as it's clearly defunct. Swarm... ^—X— 00:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support unless any legitimate objection is raised, defunct sums it up nicely. Sam Walton (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempted outing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Snubspeck is attempting to out me, see here and here. In addition, they have admitted to using multiple accounts. As usual, I won't comment on whether the outing attempt is correct or not. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• This editor and their confessed sock, Tibetfox001 are also vandalizing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tibetfox001. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  I indeffed both users, revdeled the edits at your talk page and email to the oversight. If new socks appear, please apply for semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miguel de Cervantes public domain copying

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Medeis (talk · contribs) correctly noticed that Miguel de Cervantes uses material from the Catholic Encyclopedia without attribution. He responded by blanking the page with the {{copyvio}} template. I pointed out that the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain due to age (most recent version was 1917), and removed the template. Despite the only reported copying coming from the public domain, Medeis restored the copyvio template (hence blanking the whole page). It is correct that this is a WP:Plagiarism issue since the public domain text was not attributed to its source, and the sourcing needs to be fixed. However, I don't believe it is appropriate to blank the entire page with the copyvio template when the only disputed source is in the public domain, and hence can no longer be a copyright violation. I'm not interested in starting a fight with Medeis over this issue, so I would appreciate someone else taking a look. Dragons flight (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit unfair to say I "blanked the page", as I used the template not knowing from experience how it works. (This is the first time I have come acrost such a horrific article.) But the entire article is problematic, with partial sentences, unrefernced claims, essay-like writing, FULLCAPS and so forth. Every time I have looked at it I have cringed, and the first time I googled some suspicious text verbatim, referenced to a 2008 "work", it turns out to be almost word-for-word from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which while the 1917 edition is on line, is not necessarily out of copyright. The entire work needs a thorough combing over, and should be kept blanked until some experts at this go over it. PS, I have checked it at churnalism, but even small parts of it give me network error. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If the text used is from the 1917 edition, it's automatically PD in the US (where Wikipedia's servers are hosted), as are all other works first published prior to 1 January 1923. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Use Template:Cite wikisource for what you can. It's at [153]. You can find more free (libre) resources listed at Catholic Encyclopedia below the sentence that explains it's out of copyright. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abhiguru Pandey

Abhiguru Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The editor has recreated pages that were speedy deleted many times. See: Shri Abhya Vidhya Mandir, Hindaun City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hindaun Subdristict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The editor has been a subject of a sockpuppet investigation: User talk:Abhiguru Pandey#Sockpuppet_investigation and has received warning about their actions on speedy delete: User talk:Abhiguru Pandey#February_2015

The editor also has a rather unusual issue with links: Old revision of Karauli district Old revision of Suroth Old revision of Shri Mahavirji Old revision of Shri Mahavirji

And has basically done vandalism: Old revision of Hindaun through Old revision of Hindaun

The editor does not seem to have a firm grasp of how Wikipedia works, and either needs someone to watch them, or possibly banned. I'm just turning this to the attention of the Admins. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the speedy note from the school article as Google hits suggest that the school exists. I'll try to clean up the obvious issues and hopefully leave it as a partly referenced stub for others to work on. Samsara 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing web sources, it became apparent that nothing could be reliably sourced other than the existence of the school. It also seems that the name used for the article may not be the official name of the institution. Having removed duplicated and promo-language parts of the article, not much was left. The sum of these problems led me to believe it would be best to start from scratch when sources become available, and I therefore complied with the original request for speedy deletion, A7. Samsara 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as the editor is concerned, it seems likely to me that they are editing with good intentions. Plausibly, the other account could belong to a family member editing from the same connection. This may or may not also cause a false positive via CU. The user's talk page suggests that relatively little effort has been made to educate them about where they've gone wrong. It's important to avoid a situation where users are simply frustrated because all they're seeing is notifications about how we've thwarted their every effort, because it will put them in a "me against the system" frame of mind. This is especially important for users who don't have English as their first language, and who come from regions of the world about which Wikipedia knows comparatively little. Samsara 13:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why I put it here. To notify the admins. I of course don't know the proper action to take, but I still stick with my suggestion of having them be watched until they get going as needed. Jerodlycett (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kraainem and Bitcoin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kraainem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Kraainem has been blocked previously for edits around Bitcoin. He is now involved in an edit war and making inappropriate comments about other editors: see Talk:Bitcoin#.22Various_items_have_been_embedded_exclusively_in_the_Bitcoin_block_chain.22 and the situation is pretty clear. Bondegezou (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Please see this post, [154] at Talk:Bitcon, where User:Kraainem responded to a simple question regarding the wording of an article (specifically, the use of the word 'exclusively' in the sentence "Various items have been embedded exclusively in the Bitcoin block chain") by accusing contributors of being 'pedophiles'. I see no reason whatsoever why we should have to tolerate such obnoxious and clueless behaviour, and suggest that he be blocked indefinitely as clearly incapable of making a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I also ask that, after the appropriate investigation, that his abusive edits be reverted and, indeed, wiped from the log? Bondegezou (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That is absolutely one of the worst diff's I have ever read. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and here I was taken aback by the diff in the above case with Spectre... 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, what is incomprehensible is how you could turn a simple request for clarification regarding a word in a sentence that says nothing about child pornography into an excuse to make utterly unfounded personal attacks on the integrity of fellow contributors. If you wish to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you unequivocally and unreservedly withdraw your obnoxious comments, and instead actually address the question I asked. What is the word 'exclusively' in that sentence supposed to mean? It is a simple question, and one that has no bearing on whether we include information regarding links to child pornography in the bitcoin block chain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion the content of the Bitcoin article, but it is absolutely unacceptable to refer to other editors as pedophiles [155]. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, please comment on the content and not on the contributors. I would strongly encourage you to strike the accusations you made about other editors on the talk page and apologize to them. Dragons flight (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kraainem, I added the material about child pornography URLs in the Bitcoin block chain to the article: [156] You then removed that text: [157] I restored that text in a modified form. You then edited this addition to emphasise this matter is specific to Bitcoin: [158] However, I feel that such emphasis was unnecessary as this was apparent from the context, this being an article about Bitcoin and not about other systems using block chains. I thus removed one word, "exclusively": [159] Your subsequent behaviour edit-warring over that word and accusing other editors of heinous behaviours is completely unacceptable under Wikipedia policy WP:AGF and common decency. Your description of events above is inaccurate. Bondegezou (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I note that User:Kraainem has now removed comments made on the Talk page and made an apology there: [160] May I ask an administrator to remove the intermediate versions permanently from the page history? While I am thankful for Kraainem's relatively prompt apology, given the egregious nature of his behaviour, I hope administrators will consider whether a temporary topic ban or something is still appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem now appears to be removing all his/her posts from Talk:Bitcoin - contrary to talkpage guidelines, and for no obvious reason that I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed: see [161] He/she has also blanked his/her User talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Blanking your own talk page is allowed. But it appears, that as a rather new editor (174 total edits), he is having trouble because of lack of knowledge of guidelines and policies. That is not a good thing on a very active article like Bitcoin. But nothing can excuse the comment he made, I know of no place that is acceptable. AlbinoFerret 00:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this further, it appears that Kraainem previously made a similar personal attack on an IP at Talk:Bitcoin, apparently under the impression that the IP was Erik Voorhees. [162] I think this may be a first for Wikipedia - an attempted outing, a WP:BLP violation and an egregious personal attack all in one sentence. [163] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now Kraainem has removed their post from this noticeboard [164] I think we have a basic competence problem here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So the question now is... What are we going to do about this? Weegeerunner (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I would interpret Kraainem's thread deletions as a well-intentioned, but poorly executed, attempt to completely disengage. Assuming that is accurate, I wouldn't worry more about this user unless he or she starts participating again. As for the comments that were removed. I would suggest someone restore any comments about content that are necessary for understanding the talk page discussions, but skip restoring the personal attacks. A note about redacted personal attacks might be added if necessary to explain gaps in the threading. Dragons flight (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think some block time is warranted. Not to long, but long enough to prevent something like this from happening again. Id say at least a month, perhaps as longer. AlbinoFerret 03:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks should not be punitive. If the user has apologized and removed the comment, then AGF that they understand it was wrong, and no action required. They're allowed to blank their user talk page, but comments (other than the personal attack) should be restored to the other talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the comments to Talk:Bitcoin and redacted the serious attacks. I will send a note to Oversight but I think they usually don't revdelete personal attacks, only serious BLP issues and such. I did not restore the user's comment to this thread, it doesn't seem to be necessary. Ivanvector (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a competence issue, or trolling, but after Ivanvector removed Kraainem's apology because it revealed the nature of the comments previously made, Kraainem added it again. [165] I see no reason whatsoever why he/she should be permitted to repeat such obnoxious and utterly unfounded allegations even in an apology - and if Kraainem isn't capable of understanding that an apology does not need to repeat the initial assertion, he/she clearly lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia - I therefore formally request an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:CIR and WP:THERAPY (can't play well with others). Also, Wikipedia is not a democracyas per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, Kra. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Nisan 5775 14:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support a Site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you pedophiles. Kraainem (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate a little. Are you apologizing because you now consider your phrasing ill-mannered, because you now realize that your allegations were based on mere fantasy, because of something else, or because of some combination of factors? And if it sprang from mere fantasy, are these fantasies likely to occur again? -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My phrasing was ill-mannered. Kraainem (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor was attempting to game the system]. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And on it goes - Kraainem is spamming his/her 'apology' over multiple user talk pages - and after I deleted it from mine he/she promptly restored it. Will someone please block this incompetent troll before I lose my temper, and tell him/her exactly where to stick the 'apology', what to insert afterwards, and how to ignite it. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Ok, enough - Kraainem's latest post ":My phrasing was ill-mannered" - is clear and unequivocal evidence of ether blatant trolling, or a serious mental defect. Either way, we don't need 'contributors' like this on Wikipedia. Block the fucking troll and get it over with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I see Hoary has now blocked Kraainem for a month - about 50 years too short, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked him. Yes, an indefinite block seems reasonable to me. If there's agreement here to change the length of the block, somebody go ahead and change it. (As for me, it's past my bedtime; I'm off to bed.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A look at User talk:Kraainem might be relevant when considering extending the block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Something smelled fishy about this account, so I did some poking around. Please see my results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sr.Dickens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account was confirmed as a sock of ELreydeEspana on eswiki. Please block him. --Matiia (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: Sr.Dickens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

excuse me but this is a stupid accusation, im a guatemalan (whit european ancestry) no an spaniard, i dont know about this account, this is unacceptable--Sr.Dickens (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think your ancestry is relevant. What is however relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned is why these edits of yours [166] appear not to conform with the source cited. [167] Where are the numbers for % Catholic, % Protestant etc from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

my ancestry?, what you're talking about?, and please read carefully the reference, which are clearly percentages, Greetings--Sr.Dickens (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yo referred , for no obvious reason, to your 'whit european ancestry' in your first post. I was responding to that, obviously. As for the percentages, as I wrote above, they do not appear to match those in the source cited. Perhaps you could clarify exactly where in the reference they can be found - the only % data I can see is in a table in the appendix, which shows responses to the question "Do you consider yourself to be…?" and has the following data for the EU: Catholic 46%, Orthodox 8%, Protestant 11%... Your edit has Catholic 35%, Protestant 9%, Ortodox [sic] 8%... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

46% of catholics in Europe?, we are still in the last century?. In the eurobarometer poll 2010, say that 55% of europeans are christians (35% are catholics). 29% are agnostics and 13% atheist. with the reference cited is right, I was put the wrong, but The Eurobarometer 2010 says that. Mi whit european ancestry? what is the problem? if I have it--Sr.Dickens (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the specific information required for those numbers to be verified. They are not in the document cited, as far as I can ascertain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr.Dickens was globally blocked as sockpuppet of ELreydeEspana. --Taichi (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jezreelpride

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe I don't need to put up with edit summaries like on this edit by single-purpose account Jezreelpride. Not to mention the 1RR violation in an WP:ARBPIA covered article (previous revert here). I request an appropriate block. Zero^talk 12:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the edit summary in fact invites comparison with an offensive vandal who comes in regularly from fake IPs, e.g.. [168] [169] [170] etc etc. Zero^talk 12:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have left them a note about civility on their talk page, assuming this is not a sock. -- Luk ^talk 15:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider a WP:SPI? If not this should be closed as action has been taken. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and persistent incivility at Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

A slow revert war is being waged by an editor blocking content not to his liking: More than 50+ very high end RS’s have been presented (lists here, here, and [171]) evaluating the effects of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act‎, but User:MONGO reverts any and all mention of any of them (e.g., [172], [173], [174]).

Despite the several months and multiple requests, Mongo has presented no policy, no RS, nor any text in support of his opposition to including RSs about the Adam Walsh Act. Instead of proposing any potential resolutions, Mongo simply has resorted to name calling, from SPA and POV-pusher to pedophile apologist (e.g., [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180]).

Other attempts to resolve dispute:

• WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Sex_offender_and_Adam_Walsh_Act
• Talk:Sex_offender
• User_talk:ViperFace#POV_pushing
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act

Because the Adam Walsh Act is primarily about sexual abuse and RS’s come largely from sex researchers, this page might fall under the discretionary sanctions for Sexology. — James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please correct me if I've got this wrong. A brief review indicates:

1. There is a desire on the part of some editors, including the OP, that the article in question include a Criticism section because there's a lot of reliable sources that offer criticism of the law, particularly (mostly?) in the area of mandatory sentencing.
2. Other editors agree with WP:CRITS (yes, I know it is an essay) that one should "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"
3. Additionally, editors feel that the criticism section is in fact a WP:POV advocacy section.
4. Finally, there have been some harsh words exchanged.

My thoughts are:

• I disagree with point 1.
• I agree with points 2 & 3.
• No comment on 4.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If in fact criticism of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act can be found in reliable sources, then it does not seem unreasonable to mention that criticism somewhere in the article, whether in a "criticism" section or not. Objections to "criticism" sections are a strange rationale for excluding the information. I am a little confused why anyone would want to keep that information out of the article, though a look at its revision history shows that Mongo is not the only editor opposed to inclusion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• No idea why Cantor brings this now....my last comment was on March 6th here. Previously I agreed to a short critcism section but they crafted a massive POV pushing to use the article as a venue to advocate for change. Perhaps since Cantor and ViperFace feel that this issue is this big maybe they can craft a side article where they can expand all they wish in POV FORK land. My take as a trained anthropologist is that Cantor and Viperface are apologists for deviant behavior and want to misuse the article as a platform for their agenda. Viperface is a SPA....a quick glance at that accounts contributions makes it clear they are here for one purpose only. This isn't about anything other than my efforts to deal with aggressive POV pushing by those that advocate that sex offender laws need to be changed to protect sex offenders! All I can say to that is go vote, or protest somewhere in which your protest might make the difference, but don't try to misuse the website as a platform for your agenda. How Cantor, with his strong POV on the subject, survived the Sexology case without sanction is bewildering.--MONGO 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But the idea that all sex offenders, no matter what their crime, must wear a permanent scarlet letter is not a POV. Not at all. --NE2 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is where the discussion started. ViperFace, later supported by Cantor were making a massive article change wording the article in as POV a fashion as possible. Only because myself and others fought against this POV pushing has the article been neutral. As I mentioned before, I made many overtures which can be seen in the takklage discussions to include critique, but they didn't want that unless they could craft a massive POV push. For he record, ViperFace mentioned he lives outside the U.S. and this is a U.S. law, but his country was considering strengthening their sex offender laws and he thought citizens of his country might read about this U.S. law on Wikipedia and that they would get a favorable opinion about it and enact similar legislation....if that isn't a clear cut case of misusing this website for advocacy then nothing is.--MONGO 00:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My (uninvolved) general impression here is that this boils down to a content dispute, where people are unable to agree on an interpretation of WP:DUE. Unfortunately, dispute resolution doesn't seem to have worked. On the face of it, I'm inclined to agree that while there is plenty of criticism of the Act, it doesn't all appear to be as notable as the neutral descriptions thereof.

OTOH, simply being an SPA isn't evidence of POV pushing and I'm otherwise not very impressed by User:MONGO's case here, which seems heavy on opinion of others and light on diffs. I don't think accusing other editors of advocat[ing]... apologetics for deviant behaviors should be considered acceptable on talk pages even with good evidence, since it's ad-hominem and grossly incivil; additionally, it seems to me that the consistent reference to deviant - rather than "criminal" - behaviour is telling. 70.24.6.180 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Given James Cantor's past on Wikipedia, I think it would be best for him to back off when challenged and go straight to talk pages and/or RfCs rather than fighting in article space. He's pretty unpopular with a non-trivial segment of the community and this ain't improving it. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If Guy has any evidence of incivility or any inappropriate editing at all on my part, I invite him to present it. That prior conflicts were apparently not resolved to his satisfaction does not justify his poison. — James Cantor (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay James let me reiterate again and I'll even add to it. Please come up with a few brief paragraphs that use the best references provided that show the Act has been detrimental and incorporate them into the article. I have mentioned this several times but you apparently did not read it. Others that have opposed this would offer less. I concur the law is likely needing to be amended but care must be made to not use the article as a place to advocate for such change.--MONGO 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Sexology arbitration established this beyond doubt. You got away with it only because your POV-pushing and baiting are civil. You are a clever man and you are playing the long game, in your determination to use Wikipedia to legitimise your opinions. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I became involved after passing through Third Opinion, and tried to encourage the addition of a small section on controversy. The only text offered by the advocates for adding a Controversy section was practically single-sourced from an advocacy website. There are repeated efforts to use this article as a platform for change, to turn it into a "Look what Wikipedia has to say about how bad these laws are!" The RS's offered not as they are presented; rather, they are a collection of passing mentions or reports of the activities of advocacy groups. The few that actually deal with the law are either fringe groups or one-off papers. Is there some controversy over the law? Sure, as much as there is with all "minimum sentencing" laws. I have again offered - as MONGO has - to let these editors present what they want to place in the article so that it can be evaluated collaboratively. This has not been done; rather the talk page gets spammed with "Look at these RS'S!" and "Why aren't you letting us?" comments. What NEEDS to happen is that these editors submit a properly sourced, non-POV draft. Until they have done so, there is no place for this here on AN/I. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV is entitled to whatever political view ScrapIronIV wants, but what he says simply doesn’t match up with the diff’s:

ScrapIron says “practically single-sourced from an advocacy website”, but actually looking at the (many proposals for) text instead shows dozens of RS’s, spanning law journals, social science research journals, and high end secondary sources: [181][182][183][184][185][186]

ScrapIronIV says the RS’s provide only “passing mentions,” but the list of 50+ references instead shows that many even go so far as to include the name of the law in their titles.

ScrapIronIV says “advocacy website,” but the lists instead include cites to NYTimes, the American Bar Association, and the George Washington Law Review, and many others (lists here, here, and here)

ScrapIron (and Mongo) have been asked multiple times over the several months to provide their own example of how the material might be covered, and neither has presented even one. (The six proposals for including the RS content are above.) Mongo's response was to, for example, just strike-through the proposal, calling it "my contribution."[187] Their behavior/commentary, as is obvious already, does not invite much room for someone to work to provide a seventh proposal. As is clear from reading, the proposal content isn't really the issue.

Finally, ScrapIron says providing RS’s on a talkpage is spamming. Really? To me, that’s a clue to where any POV-pushing is.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV "The only text offered by the advocates for adding a Controversy section was practically single-sourced from an advocacy website." WHAT??!!? You are either hallucinating or deliberately lying as an attempt to give this expression to casual reader who is lazy enough to not go through the mountain of RS that I and James have presented, which is only tiny fraction of all RS there is and which happens to be unanimously negative towards AWA. I don't like to call people as lairs but when facts show intentional lying to advance ones position then the issue must be addressed. You tried this earlier on AWA talk page by stating that most of the 19 refs of proposed edit are from blogs or editorials and are not RS, when in fact there was only 1 editorial and at least half of the refs were from peer reviewed studies. When called out for it you never replied. Stop lying!!

@MONGO you have been requested to change proposed edits to more neutral form many times. Regardless of that, your contribution this far has been personal attacks and striking over proposals with no offers of alternative formation. I have asked you to help but you never even tried to offer any alternative. Instead you keep on being stuck on SPA-POVPush-fringe viewpoint- roundabout. You said:"I concur the law is likely needing to be amended". 99% of RS evaluating the law shares this opinion with you, as do some high level child safety advocates and many civil and human right organizations, which is very encyclopedic fact and should be put forward to readers. Still for some reason you are unwilling to offer helping hand here. I have been pretty open about my position on this matter on my user page, which of course should bare no value on determining what goes on the article main page. You trying to make me and James (who happens to be one of the most notable scholars on field of sexology) appear as NAMBLA advocates to casual reader is derogatory, malicious and uncalled for. Your latest post on this matter was in fact [188] where you once again fail to address the point of this dispute and lapse back to my editing history, which once again bare no value in determining what the article should say.ViperFace (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Calling a BLP 'a pedophilia apologist', even on talkpages, violates WP:BLPTALK and WP:LIBEL. I would be surprised if it were let go by admins, but I have been wrong before.— James Cantor (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, the vitriol being poured on me; I have never edited the page, I have only offered an opinion on the talk page. I encouraged the inclusion of an NPOV insertion of a controversy section[189], and I had actually supported the specific piece offered [190]. I even tried to offer more than token support [191] and suggest improvements. I have since removed that support. Why? Because the entries for the controversy section proposed was either from advocacy sites, or interviews with advocacy organizations from otherwise reputable RS's. So, I have not edit warred; rather, I have done exactly what a talk page is for - I have talked about the contributions. I am under no obligation to write that section, nor will I. Offering dozens of supposed RS's on the talk page is the equivalent of drowning an editor in paperwork - a great tool for lawyers, but not for me. Anyone is willing to look through them, but there wasn't any meat on the bone for the ones I examined. After a couple of hours of reading them, I gave up looking for substance. Call me a liar if you will - but I stand by my original statement. The original text as proposed for a controversy section was from advocacy sources, and I withdrew offer my support on the talk page for its inclusion. Did I remove it? No. Did I ever ONCE edit that article? No. Save your vile comments for others. As for @MONGO, I apologize for challenging your assertions early in the conversation. You were right. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply not true. Please present the evidence of using advocacy sites as refs, please. I do not recall using any of such pages as refs. I called you a liar because of the gaping difference between what you assert and what I observe when I look at the refs.ViperFace (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Save it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt once, twice, three times. I ended up wasting a lot of my time trying to support you - but the moment I disagree, out come the fangs and venom. So, I will keep that page on my watchlist, but will stop contributing here on the drama boards or on the talk page. Any advocacy crap that gets put on that page will be appropriately edited with an equally appropriate edit summary. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Put forward the evidence of using advocacy pages as refs!! Also, you positioning yourself above the researchers who do their life work on this field by claiming theirs research has no "meat on the bone" is rather arrogant. Are you a uni professor or how do you rationalize this obvious bias to yourself?ViperFace (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And there is the standstill. ScrapIron makes a bunch claims (sans diffs or evidence), simple fact-checking shows that they're simply untrue, but when ask to present diffs and evidence to support his claims, ScrapIron takes his marbles and goes home. There simply is no evidence to support his view...just the promise to revert whatever is not to his liking, still with never a suggestion for text of his own, RS's be damned.— James Cantor (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Redux: James Canotr engages in WP:CPUSH. He baits everyone else until they either leave to avoid being blocked, or lose their temper (see below re Sceptre). Having seen off the opposition, Canotr continues his crusade to add views the trans community appear to find grossly offensive. The idea of stepping back due to his self-admitted WP:COI never crosses his mind. Are we done here until next time it happens? Guy (Help!) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  Anyone that disagrees with them gets the full Monty. Even the olive branches I have thrown is not enough and I have done that just above and on the article talk page. The version they really want is what they started with, which is ridiculous.--MONGO 01:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  ViperFace states openly on his own user page that be is currently a SPA. The rest of he page is dedicated to this article effort. My pointing out the obvious which he self admits is not a personal attack. They both ask to prove a negative, which they know cannot be done, so let me put it this way, come up with a section that shows that there has been an effort to amend or repeal this federal law at the federal level as that would be noteworthy. Perhaps there has been, and if so did amendments get made and if they did not, explain why they failed.--MONGO 01:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Sceptre was a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology of which James Cantor's COI was a main issue. ArbCom did not accept the arguments that he engaged in inappropriate editing. Since then, he only edits the talk pages of articles he is personally involved in, i.e. in fields where he is an expert and has published research in peer-reviewed journals. Another editor who repeatedly accused James Cantor of crusading to "add views the trans community appear to find grossly offensive", but without supporting diffs, was banned from Wikipedia because of her behavior. This seems like a carryover from this case. If editors find certain view distasteful, but reliable sources support it, then it can be included. EChastain (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with MONGO and uninvolved Dispute Resolution editor ScrapIron IV. Recommend article ban for James Cantor and Viperface. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that me and James have been well within the WP policy guidelines, such a nuclear option is hardly warranted. If anyone deserves an article ban it's definitely not me or James.ViperFace (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just as a side issue, it is usually possible to find a way to reword section headers saying "criticism". I see there is already a section saying "Effects." it might be expanded, and a section labelled "civil rights issues" added. Another often useful section could be "public discussion" or "subsequent discussion." Yet another possibility is "academic studies" DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe

I regret bringing this here but see no alternative now. I have been encountering unacceptable behavior from JesseRafe, an editor I had never encountered before until a recent disagreement at Jewtopia (film). The user took exception to an edit I made there and (admittedly with some provocation from me) has started directing a stream of abuse and insults at me. I honestly don't care about that, but I do care about the fact that he now sees fit to vandalize the article's talk page by making edits such as this, repeating word for word a previous talk page comment by me. The user should be told firmly that that is not an acceptable use of a talk page and generally advised to cool off. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I regret replying even once to FKC's baseless claims and haughty attitude because I dared correct him or her once. I should never have engaged in this sloppy behavior, but since this is basically a playground fight, "Teacher, he started it!". I copied his/her edit summaries to make my point about how ridiculous someone who had violated WP:CIVIL would be so quick to brandish it as a threat to getting me blocked. I mean RonBurgundy.gif, that escalated quickly! FKC was wrong, the article was fixed, and yet FKC kept up the personal attack on me, as well as making threats to block me (at that time I had made ONE reversion). It was just too much. I couldn't take the absurdity of it, and over re-acted. JesseRafe (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that you copied an edit summary I made "to make my point." There's a whole policy, WP:POINT, about that behavior. Do you intend to make similar points that way in future? Hopefully, the fact that you didn't repeat that talk page edit shows you realize that it was vandalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you need to read more carefully. WP:POINT is irrelevant in your example, completely and utterly confusingly irrelevant. What are you even trying to say by pointing to it? What I did was almost unavoidable as you were suffering from a severe case of pot-calling-the-kettle-black denial. And you still don't get it, do you? That's why I used your own tirade of WP:s and you didn't pick up on it. Whatever, it's over. I fixed the article, and there's no more beef.

There's no reason to bother anybody else about this. The article is fine now. Unless you want to argue that "Movie (1999) is a movie" is the common use of a film lede. Oh wait, you already argued that, but then got needlessly aggressive and pedantic when you were told that that is non-standard, and every other film article states the year in prose. But this is over, your edits were undone and I think that's the only sore point. Why else start an ANI for it? To vindicate your feelings? You admitted you started the hostility, so admit it's over. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2015

You are continuing to behave inappropriately by removing part of my post above, and that shows that there is an ongoing issue here, unfortunately. Removing part of someone else's comments is justified only in rare situations (BLP violations and similar things) that do not apply here. Unless it was simply an accident, it's further provocative behavior on your part and you need to be told to desist. The summary of WP:POINT is, "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only", so it does seem to be relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious. You're just making things up now. You accuse me of editing your post, when YOU edited mine. What in the name of what is going on here? Please, give it up. It's over, there's no issue. Don't add random "+" to my posts, and then say that I was editing your posts. Amazing. JesseRafe (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's quite possible you removed part of my comments simply by accident; I don't know. Under the circumstances, it's not unreasonable to suspect it might have been deliberate. The only reason I edited your posts was to undo your removal of part of my comment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You need a break from wiki, seriously. You make up a thing that I removed your comment when you make an edit that just puts a giant boxed "+" in the middle of my post, and then make an apology saying I did something by accident completely ignoring how you did something else. The EXACT THING you accused me of? You are off your rocker, or I'm being pranked. What did I do deliberately? I responded. With paragraphs. To you. I didn't use any +s in the middle of a paragraph break and I didn't start any lines with a space to give them that weird box. These are things that YOU did. Unbelievable I'm even replying to you again. Seriously, take a rest because you make no sense.

Also, for the record, FreeKnowledgeCreator is now following me on other pages and blatantly undoing my edits just to undo them. Continuing the pattern of making no sense, responds with things like "no reason given" when my edit had an unambiguous edit summary. This user is, as I noted from the beginning, the type to take supreme umbrage at being told they are wrong and not act mature about, but to get high-and-mighty and respond to everything the person they disagree with with "no, you're wrong". Just putting this out here for corroborative evidence. JesseRafe (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I edited a single article that you previously edited, not "other pages." I am now happy to leave your edit in place, as you have finally given a plausible justification for it. So long as we are discussing you and your edits, it seems appropriate to note that you recently violated WP:3RR at Kaadu (1973 Malayalam film). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If either of you want an admin to look this over, you'd do best to stop bickering. Blackmane (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I know; I'm sorry. The evidence of 3RR violation is perfectly clear, though. See here, here, here, and here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop now, disengage and move on to something else productive. Calling this spat childish is unfair to sweet children worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Damn, and I was silently placing bets with myself as to when someone OTHER than the two disputants would finally comment on this. Too bad we didn't let it keep going. In a perverse way it was entertaining watching these two bicker back and forth with no one else giving a shit. I'm not sure anyone still doesn't give a shit, but it was more fun, in a kind of schadenfreude way, when we were all ignoring them. --Jayron32 05:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on the 3RR violation, Cullen328? When did it become inappropriate to point that out? It's a blockable offense, as you know. I would direct the same comment to Jayron32: do you consider it OK for JesseRafe to violate 3RR or not? He is not new and should know better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

I first encountered JesseRafe last February while looking into a request for editor assistance involving him. He was blocked for edit warring on Götaland by Spinningspark; I had also reported JesseRafe to ANEW (Spinningspark had independently blocked JesseRafe before he saw it). Normally, this would be a done deal, but for the discussion that had ensued at JesseRafe's user talk page, where attempts at explaining the block were met with incivility ("knee-jerk reactionaries", "Cowardly and dishonest behavior", "laz[y] . . . . Vindictive and power-happy). While some frustration might be expected following a block, it was not the first incident where JesseRafe responded to an adverse situation with incivility. See generally the ANI thread from an earlier incident and the related user talk thread.

I would argue, however, that we are looking at something larger than a civility issue. JesseRafe's response to being blocked for 3RR following the Götaland incident indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:EW and WP:3RR (and not a new misunderstanding), as well as how we arrive at consensus on Wikipedia, and how consensus may be implemented (specifically, an apparent presumption that BRD is policy and that enforcement thereof falls under the aegis of vandal-fighting).

My point in bringing back up this admittedly old material is that this is not an isolated incident for JesseRafe. He also has a long track record of mislabeling good faith edits as vandalism. Compare this 2011/2012 ANI thread and follow-up thread (where it was noted that JesseRafe had violated 3RR and was still calling the IP's edits vandalism) with his very recent reverts such as this one from yesterday (describing a good faith edit as vandalism, though it was promotional).

All that said, I'm not sure what the answer should be. In light of his woeful participation on talk pages (5% of 8700 live edits in nearly 10 years), I had previously considered proposing a long-term 1RR limitation. In light of JesseRafe's proclivity for incivility, however, that probably would not substantially prevent him from driving away other editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and thoroughly beside the point, as well as moot and old. Double jeopardy?

1. Look at the background and resolution of the Gotaland article, and all the other editors who came to my defense, both on the article and my Talk Page. I was standing up for propriety of the page, and was vindicated by others despite my block because admins couldn't look to the substantive issue, but focused on myopic rule-reading. Others fixed it, no harm done, what's the relevance here/now?

2. Jesus Gonzalez??? Are you kidding me??? That guy was OBJECTIVELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY using racist language and reasoning and I called him out on that and AGAIN look at how quickly I was vindicated. My block was lifted almost instantly. Again what is the relevance to here and now? That was, what, 4 - 5 years ago?

3. There was consensus. This is attempted character assassination. Only a single editor had unsourced false information, and three total editors (of which I was the most frequent) were undoing his/her work (together, whoever happened to catch it again as it were) that was undermining the credibility of the article, namely putting CN tags on the article itself and arguing (without any data) that the subject of the article didn't exist. It was absurd and was dismissed rightfully. Again, how is this relevant?

4. I have a long track record because I have a long track record? You've cherry-picked what 5-6 instances out of nine years of edits? I don't care for Talk pages for the sake of talk pages, you using that data like it makes some sort of point in and of itself is completely off-base. Better data would be to see how many edits I make to talk pages on talk pages I've edited at least once. I'm active when I choose to be, but I mostly make substantive edits because wikipedia is for the reader, not the editor.

I'm thoroughly disappointed in you, Mendaliv. You're lying and misrepresenting cases throughout this screed. JesseRafe (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have violated 3RR in the past, that's quite relevant. You should stop immediately "accidentally" removing my comments here, as you did with this edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from someone with subject matter experience on my block

This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I took the punishment, I was the whipping boy, but the better version of the article came about. Everybody wins! Except the person who reported me and got me blocked because the rules favor the squeaky wheel, not the person who has reason. This is Mendaliv's shining example. JesseRafe (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to restore your comment, but I won't tolerate you "accidentally" removing my comments here. Stop. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

!!!!! This is my point!!!! This user keeps deleting my comments while simultaneously accusing me of that! What is going on? Please someone tell me. This is such a level of bullshit, how is this person not letting me to respond to Mendaliv's baseless claims? How can a defense in an ANI be reverted? How/Why? Unbelievable.JesseRafe (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from someone with subject matter experience on my block

This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I took the punishment, I was the whipping boy, but the better version of the article came about. Everybody wins! Except the person who reported me and got me blocked because the rules favor the squeaky wheel, not the person who has reason. This is Mendaliv's shining example. JesseRafe (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from the admin who unblocked me for that unrighteous block when I was dismissing an obvious racist

Accept reason:

This is a conditional unblock. I understand why you feel Valencian's comments to be ill-considered – and frankly I agree with you – but at this point there is no benefit to further critiquing them. I am therefore unblocking on the condition that you not comment further on them, or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice, and focus only on the notability of the article. If this condition is acceptable to you, then you can go ahead and resume editing. I will also be leaving a note to Valencian urging him to be more judicious with his comments in the future. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, vindication from when I am blocked, and I took the penalty, but I don't see how it is relevant here. JesseRafe (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You made an edit that removed my comment from this page. It seems deliberate, as it is not the first time you have done that. The history of this page shows as much. I reverted you because your edit was vandalism. Note that I restored your comment, after restoring mine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@28bytes:, it would seem that JesseRafe's comment above, where he states that his block was for "dismissing an obvious racist" (namely, Valencian), violates the terms of your 2011 unblock of him (which he helpfully quotes in the same statement), specifically that he "not comment further on [Valencian's earlier comment], or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @JesseRafe:, you clobbered FreeKnowledgeCreator's comment when you made your own. The reverts and counter-reverts that both of you did were wrongful. Both of you should stop reverting and stop commenting so others can somehow get involved in resolving this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't reverted a thing. Are you serious? I "undid" a revision because I got a ping that FKC "reverted" my edit when I was reacting to your spurious claims. Is that wrong. My summary shows a big negative -870 characters, that was FKC deleting my entire response so I undid that. What else, just let him delete my defense? What is going on? This is not a rhetorical question. Please. JesseRafe (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't reverted a thing. Are you serious? This is a revert. You made it about twenty minutes ago. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That says "undid". I just explained that. Literally. I took time to find that entry and type it up here and FKC reverted it. How is that not clear. That user deleted my entry in this charade and I reinserted it. I NEVER reverted or undid anyone's comments here.

A plea to common sense and the substantive issue Namely that the article Jewtopia (film) has been fixed and resolved. End of story, let's all go our ways, no reason anyone needed to involved. Yes, FreeKnowledgeCreator was uncivil first (as he/she admits here) and yes I responded in kind. But end of story. And again, Mendaliv, how can blocks already enforced be enforced again for the same infraction. You know perfectly well that this is not what 28bytes meant by that. Please, as with Gotaland and the Geats and Jesus Gonzalez and Jewtopia, let's keep this to substantive issues, not backdoor politics where defendants get railroaded and can't even re-instate their unjustly deleted defense without being accused of acting maliciously. JesseRafe (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The link I provided above shows what happened. JesseRafe removed a comment I made by pasting his own comment over it, evidently deliberately. The issue is not a single article, but a pattern of vandalism and edit warring (including 3RR violation) by JesseRafe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a lie!!! Oh em gee, what is happening? I removed no comments. Never. Look at my Talk Page. It has everything on it. Even the vandals who call me "a little bitch" because I remove their vandalism (am I using it right now, Mendaliv?) In fact, that's what made it so easy for Mendaliv to see those blocks. I NEVER REMOVE COMMENTS. Try to find something better to lie about next time. Absurd. Please, what is going on here? Pasting over? What in the world does that even mean? Explain to me then, how I am the one getting pings that you have been reverting me if that's what you're accusing me of??? JesseRafe (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed no comments. Never. Look at my Talk Page. It has everything on it. [...] I NEVER REMOVE COMMENTS. You removed a comment from your user talk page less than two hours ago, using an inaccurate edit summary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That says "undid". I just explained that. You have been here for ten years, but do not know that an "undo" is the same as a revert?

And again, Mendaliv, how can blocks already enforced be enforced again for the same infraction. You know perfectly well that this is not what 28bytes meant by that. You misapprehend. You made a new comment above that Valencian was a racist. 28bytes said that you were being unblocked on the condition that you no longer comment on Valencian, or any prejudice that his comments may have shown. We're getting well into IDHT territory here... which is nothing new for you, as these diffs show: A ("John, this is completely Kafkaesque.") as B ("Why was I punished for enforcing the rules, and SW exalted for violating the rules?") C ("Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed.") D ("I really want to know the new rules."). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's no lie. See this edit, an obviously deliberate removal of a comment by me. It's clearly not accidental, since it isn't isolated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it probably wasn't deliberate. Clobbering happens to the best of us with high-traffic boards like ANI. But what's more telling is that JesseRafe apparently hasn't looked at the diff we've repeatedly linked where his comment clobbers your comment, and is just insisting that he was right. This refusal to listen to criticism is at the core of his problem, and is something that needs to be corrected if he is to continue to be a part of this project. It does real, concrete harm in the form of driving away contributors and perpetuating the ridiculously steep learning curve of Wikipedia. It's everything this project has fought, tooth and nail, to distance itself from in recent years. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Undo and Revert are different buttons, so therefore different things to me. I know that I pressed undo (BECAUSE FKC reverted me) and I know that I did not press revert. Do not tell me I pressed revert when I did not, and do not tell me that is OK for FKC to delete my comments but not OK for me to restore them.

2. Those are serious questions. And again you are dismissing them. I asked re: Gotalund is 3-1 not a consensus, and you didn't respond. I said, and you quoted me, "I really want to know the new rules", and you didn't respond. I get the point, but please, can we look at the substantive issue? For once? Not the backroom drama, but the facts as they pertain to the articles? JesseRafe (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Undo and Revert are different buttons, so therefore different things to me. There isn't even a revert button! There's undo, rollback (which you don't have), and Twinkle's rollback features (which you have a history of using to get around the fact that you don't have rollback). Stop making frivolous arguments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know what buttons I don't have are or are not called? I don't have them. So when I get a ping it says so-and-so reverted my edits, that means (to me, an English speaker) that they reverted them. If they had undid them, I would expect the ping to say that. Sorry for the confusion, and yes, if did "clobber" or "paste" (???) it was not deliberate. But it was not a fun experience, doing a bit research to defend oneself and then get told it was undid by the accuser. Doesn't seem very sporting, does it? JesseRafe (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you have to go back to 13 months to prove an incident I couldn't've told you had happened for a billion dollars isn't exactly the strongest argument. Yes, I've erred, and I've been punished. But what's your point? JesseRafe (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there is a known bug on ANI where reverts and deletions seem to happen during a rapid series of edits. It will look like the later editor has removed part of another's comment. It's happened to me a number of times. Blackmane (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe, you were blocked first time for unwarranted personal attacks against me. That you repeat those clear dishonest and obviously false claims now, is a serious failure to get the point. You're perfectly entitled to argue, as you did in the case of the politician's page that *you* created, that voting should be along racial or ethnic lines, but what you're not entitled to do is make false accusations against long term editors of good standing. Far from being "vindicated", or quickly unblocked for that, as you dishonestly claim above, you were unblocked one day into a two day block on condition that you not repeat them. That you do repeat them now is seriously disruptive. Even your strongest supporter at the time acknowledged that you'd got it wrong ("in the case of Valenciano it was not true") while another commentor predicted, quite accurately, given this thread and others: "I fear that your lack of perspective in matters like this are going to lead to more incidents at a later date." Far from taking that advice on board, you responded with a juvenile "lulz" edit summary and showed a serious lack of perspective by comparing yourself to Nelson Mandela in that edit. Stubbornly insisting that you're right, even several blocks later, and refusing to consider any other possibility are clear signs of a failure to get the point and a battleground mentality that can only end in tears. Kindly consider a different course. Valenciano (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block JesseRafe indefinitely

Frankly, this is a long time coming. JesseRafe has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct over the course of years that I have documented above (here, here and here). His responses to that documentation, which response included violating a conditional unblock, provide undeniable evidence that JesseRafe lacks the competence to participate on Wikipedia, and that he is committed to making frivolous, vexatious and circuitous arguments in order to prevent a consensus from being reached in a discussion involving him.

Let me just leave this to one point: JesseRafe, nearly a ten-year veteran of Wikipedia with close to 9000 edits, argued above that he did not understand that "revert" and "undo" are synonymous in Wikipedia parlance. I'm sorry, but that goes beyond all possible assumptions of good faith.

We must act to prevent further disruption. Therefore, I propose that JesseRafe be blocked indefinitely.

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I might possibly support this, but I am not convinced yet. Are you really sure an indefinite block is the only option? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, bear in mind that an indef block is not an infinite block, and that what's being proposed is not a community ban. I'm usually in favor of automatically expiring sanctions, but if you look at how long this has been going on, I'd be more comfortable seeing some vetting take place before JesseRafe returns to editing... but I don't think that vetting need rise to the level of an unban discussion. And as I said above, I'd previously considered proposing a 1RR limitation, but that would do little to address the disruption of discussion that JesseRafe causes. What does that leave us? A topic ban wouldn't do anything because there's no singular topic. An interaction ban wouldn't do anything because there's no individuals with whom his behavior conflicts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Really? Because I don't know "revert" and "undo" are the same thing I deserve to be blocked? (Despite it not being apparent at all, seriously how could anyone be expected to know that? They don't even share anything as much as an etymology or even a letter, one's positive one's negative, they're completely different meanings.) Also, did 28bytes respond to you? Because that is certainly not what he meant re: the block; you're taking his condition completely out of context. You accuse me of making circuitous arguments when on one hand you disparage me for making a paucity of my thousands of edits on Talk Pages and then admonish me for being unfamiliar with Talk Page protocols and nomenclature? I told you before, I make substantive edits. Thousands of them. And good ones. Look through them. I don't skulk around on Talk Pages for a reason. And my two blocks I cited support from the community and proof that the side I was on was correct. Substantively and MOS/guideline-ly And had consensus, but whatever, I was blocked, OK. Punishment served. Lastly, all those diffs are moot as you yourself said I had no idea what was going on above. How many times did I explicitly ask someone to explain it to me? And no one did. I was just further railroaded. It was very confusing -- All I knew was I was adding content to a Talk Page about me and someone was reverting it, so I deleted it. Not with malice, nor deliberately removing content, but merely reinstating my comment that I was pinged had been reverted. The secret cabal of the back room of wikipedia is very offputting, and ignorance of it is charge against one? Really? To use that as evidence is again, circuitous. Further, the wording on what pings say and how edit conflicts are treated should be a lot more clear, maybe because that ANI page was so long, but I was very confused what went where for most of it. But by all means, honest mistakes deserve being banned. Sure. Also, does it matter to no one that the initial issue has been resolved? Yes, I responded to WP:UNCIVIL with further uncivil, but I did so in the guise of preserving wikipedia for the better, namely the insignificant film in question has a lede that conforms to the MOS and with every other film article. I didn't pick a fight, I saw a mistake and I fixed it. JesseRafe (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just some of the recent substantive content-based edits I've been thanked for recently. [192], [193], [194], [195], and [196]. There are hundreds of others of pages that are constant vandalism targets that I monitor, as well as as chart-fixes, links, peacockery and weasel words removing, etc etc, but your solution is I disagreed with folks 5 or 6 discrete times over nine years and 9000 edits and I should be banned. Brilliant. JesseRafe (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your behavior at the article at which I first encountered you makes it pretty clear to me that you wanted a fight with another editor, and that is why I'm currently seriously considering supporting having you indefinitely blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's BS and that's a fight that you picked. Absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

An unbecoming response, and not one conducive to persuading me you shouldn't be indefinitely blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not just yet I did a random sample of JesseRafe's edits and see edit warring here, here and here within the last 6 hours. I'd like an explanation of why that's not edit warring before I recommend a disruption / competence block. I'd also recommend that FreeKnowledgeCreator stops responding to this thread right now as his rhetoric is also disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment For shame. That is not a random sample, but exactly the reason why we are here. After FreeKnowledgeCreator and I had a spat on Jewtopia FreeKnowledgeCreator decided to follow me to undo my other edits just to irk me. There is no other possible reason for that user to have been on that page, and that wasn't edit-warring that was edit-restoring as per WP:CASTLIST. Absolutely abominable that such shoddy "research" can be passed off in this instance. The laziness in making a case with a supposed "additional example" when it's the "example we are currently discussing" is appalling. Please look at an actual sample of my edits. 8600 good ones, and 5 or 6 disagreements in 9 years is a problem? JesseRafe (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was brought to this thread because I was pinged earlier in it. I have to agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the case for an indefinite block has not been made. That is not to say that there is not a problem here, but I am not seeing it at the level of needing complete exclusion. Mendaliv says he ruled out 1RR but that seems like an option to me, or even 0RR. The WP:Wikilawyering over whether an undo is a revert is astonishing for such an experienced editor. Especially so considering the repeated complaints that administrators have been more concerned with the minutae of policy rules than the substantive issue. JesseRafe, the substative issue here is that you have been repeatedly removing the contributions of other editors instead of discussing in a civil environment. It is of no consequence whatsoever how that reversion was actually achieved. That has to stop, and banning you from making any revert at all may be the solution here. SpinningSpark 10:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • • Question How am I supposed to know what wikilawyering is and that undo/revert are the same thing? Those didn't exist in 2005. Where are they posted on the main page? Seriously, y'all. I look at articles. It's an unfair double standard to assume that I know what goes on on Talk Pages (which most editors regard as secret bureaucrative cabals) because I've been an editor for so long, yet also disparage me as an editor because I've made so few edits in Talk Page namespace. And the fact that you think the outcome of the articles if of no consequence at all is terribly sad. JesseRafe (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I just don't see 1RR fixing the problem because what we're seeing from Jesse isn't just reverting, but it's badgering and wikilawyering when he does deign to discuss (whether on talk pages or here). My fear deals with the "invisible losses" of incivility: Those inexperienced and anonymous editors who would be receptive to in-depth work with our system if they weren't being driven away by incivility. However, I hadn't really thought about 0RR... that might be worth thinking about. My only remaining concern would be that we'd find ourselves back here in short order with yet another argument about what qualifies as an exception to a revert restriction (whether 3RR or otherwise). On the other hand, the principle embodied in WP:ROPE suggests that we shouldn't worry about the overhead of going through escalating sanctions. It's something to think about, I guess. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The user is clearly incapable of distinguishing vandalism from good faith mistakes. If we do go down the 0RR route I would suggest that it is an absolute—no reverts at all, no room for arguing the toss over it. SpinningSpark 11:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm all for people spending more time on article space (who fancies improving Ioana Ciolacu?) than on the dramaboards ... but if disruption turns up, we need to address it. Jesse, just calm down and take a deep breath. I get the impression you have said edit warring is okay, because you were right. Everyone who edit wars thinks they were right! You were told here that you were edit warring, and because the admin didn't think you understood, you didn't get unblocked. A shame - being blocked is no fun, and having unblock requests declined is even less fun. Anyway, I'll assume you now understand what edit warring is and what the 3RR is. For the record, you can see that the 3 revert rule was created on 13 June 2005, nearly 6 months before you created an account. My advice is - you are okay for one free pass at a revert, and then if it gets reverted back, step back and think "is my change really important to the sum of human knowledge?" Chances are it's not. Then find another article to edit. I see you're in Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer - now I like a nice pint myself and I could really do with Shepherd Neame Brewery having some spit and polish, and some of the breweries mentioned in Beer in San Diego County, California could be polished up to GA status along with the parent article. Something to think about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Slight clarification. I never said edit-warring was right, and I never said it would be because I thought I was right. The events proved I was right, the other editors proved I was right, the MOS proved I was right, etc. The chips fell independent of me and the side I was reverting to was the correct one. That's slight vindication, no? On a lot of articles someone will spurious and (they think) clandestinely make a fundamental change, and then they get reverted, they revert their change back, I try to return to status quo, they make a complaint, boom, 3RR - it's bad policy to leave the false or misleading version of the article up for any amount of time as far as I'm concerned. Why? Because I care about wikipedia too much. And to me, wikipedia has nothing to do with any of this brouhaha backroom shenanigans that literally only 10 or 20,000 human beings even know exist. Wikipedia articles are for the reader, who at any given instant is potentially viewing that page. So, yes, everytime I have done so I have taken blame for 3RR. Why? Because the facts matter more than the politics. If the squeaky wheel gets their grease and I get banned, but while the article is being discussed (for a week! Two whole lifespans of a fruitfly!) the frozen version is the correct one, not the spuriously edited one, then, yes, that extra reversion and its consequences were worth it. So, yes, please don't misconstrue my words, but from an external viewpoint I am labeling situations like this (like Gotaland, Jesus Gonzalez, etc) instances in which I "was right", but am not claiming my reversions were right. It was a sacrifice, really. A sacrifice due to poor policies and practices that don't look at substantive issues but rely on a "who got here first" victors write history approach. I gave Ioana Ciolacu a good look. I don't see how anyone could make it better. I think it's a plain turkey sandwich with nothing else in the fridge but grape jelly. It's not gonna be good, no forseeable way to improve it, but it could certainly be worse. JesseRafe (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment If the behavior is that big of a problem, it should go before the Arbitration Committee. I have grown a severe dislike for the mob mentality that frequent these boards over complicated cases by editors who only have a passing or one sided knowledge of the situation which often results in more severe actions that are warranted. —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Another comment I would like to note that even if JesseRafe does not yet deserve an indefinite block, he definitely deserves a temporary block for having violated 3RR. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is ridiculous, this case should have been closed after the first few paragraphs when the two parties appeared to resolve their conflict. If 3RR has been violated, take it to WP:ANEW but this proposal has escalated beyond the original complaint and even the remedy FKC was suggesting. An indefinite block is an extreme overreaction to these circumstances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have already presented all the evidence that 3RR was violated on ANI, but the admins have notably failed to take action. Were I to take up the matter at WP:ANEW, as you suggest, that would leave me open to accusations of forum shopping. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are only issued to prevent further damage to the Wikipedia. They are never punitive or otherwise "punish" the editor. If the edit war has been resolved, there is no reason to bock. —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see two edit warring blocks, and one block for personal attacks/harassment, in their block log. None of this warrants the jump to an indefinite block just because you disagree with them. The basis for the proposal is so unsound, it may as well be quicksand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as a draconian solution to a non-existent problem. The person at issue now knows that "undo" and "revert" are the same - which is the reasonable goal for us to set for this noticeboard. This board is not intended to be the French revolution's Place de la Concorde. Collect (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Editors learn new things everyday, even experienced ones I would just let this one go with a warning and a "Now you know so be careful" statement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Boomerang. FFS look at the OP's "evidence" link way way up above. Which reminds me of why I stopped reading ANI threads. As you were, sorry to interrupt. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way OTT. A temporary block (if and when the user next transgresses) is the most that should be considered at this stage. Deb (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. nothing to warrant a block of any kind, however, as I've noted above, JesseRafe does need to develop a more colloborative working attitude. Valenciano (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring by blocked user.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gospel veracity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked earlier today for block evasion and disruptive editing.[197] S/he is now edit-warring on her/his usert talkpage, in order to remove the block notice. Since there is very little prospect, per the block notice, of this editor ever being unblocked, it would seem appropriate to deny talkpage access. RolandR (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any problems for the time being. They are entitled to delete the block notice from their talk page, and they posted an unblock request which is likely to be declined.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor's unblock request has been declined. If any disruption resumes, I'll restrict access to the page and direct them to UTRS. Nakon 20:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rollback Abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sybest 7 7 (talk · contribs) This user appears to have misused rollback over 12 times in the past hour, Rollbacking good edits and then rolling back their rollbacks about 10 minutes later. On top of that, I see an edit war notice on their talk page which concerns me. I think this user might be better waiting a little while longer before getting Rollback, and until then maybe it should be revoked. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Pinged as admin who granted the right. Amortias (T)(C) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the rollbacks were undone, I suspect it was just an accident that they noticed and fixed. I'd also have tried to talk to them before coming here. ekips39 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I did mention it on their talk page under the section where they received rollback. It seems odd to "accidentally" revert some 12 edits in the space if elss than a minute though. And the edit warring concerns me too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! That was pure accident, I swear! My desktop experienced a hard drive crash, while I was watching my watchlist, and all those constructive edits which were done while I was away were reverted, I don't think it'd be possible for one of us to revert those many edits in under a minute. As soon as I got to know that, I reverted the reverts as fast as I could from my laptop. I swear I didn't mean to revert those edits! I've never abused my powers and would never do, PLEASE give me another chance, Please! Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 00:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not something I've seen happening before (and im one of those unfortunate people who finds reading up on everything including the userguide for the TV remote interesting). Thats not to say it cant have happended. An edit on average every 3 seconds for the original reverts does seem quite quick but not impossible if watching something like the recent changes or abuse log pages. However the fact that you were able to rollback your own reverts at a similar rate makes it seem more likely it could have been done either as a test or through lack of understanding of what you were doing. Amortias (T)(C) 00:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, You've all the rights in world to doubt me, but my hard drive crashed with a beep sound first the Desktop stopped responding (eeverything including external Keyboard, Mouse and even the printer) and the it crashed. And I don't think I'd be performing any major edits for the next few days, And I won't test rollbacking, would I? I've already done tons of rollbacks before, either through Twinkle or with Rollback rights. So, I don't think I'd test it nor I've lack of sufficient knowledge in this subject. And I've already reverted tons of disruptive edit, plus I also have requested semi-protection for one article (which was accepted.) And there must be a reason it took me 10 minutes to revert those reverts, And there should also be a reason, I'm editing this through my Note 4. Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It happened before here. ekips39 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This description does seem plausible and I would not move for a revocation of rollback rights at this time. The editor needs to be careful with any plugins or scripts that they may be using. Nakon 05:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

report on user "AdamDeanHall"

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

I would like to report user "AdamDeanHall" for violating Wikipedia's Terms of Service.

This user is nothing more than a bully and constantly deletes/removes Wikipedia entries made by other users. He has for the past few days removed every article I have added to Wikipedia pages.

He has threatened me and accused me of "vandalism" when I correctly added information to Wikipedia page for the Decades Television Network. The user also tried blocking me from correcting the misinformation he had entered on the page.

The fact is, I have been watching the Decades TV Network for some time and I had added information regarding the network airings of television series to the Wikipedia page. The user keeps editing off/removing my correct listings and chastising me.

I speak for a lot of other users regarding this "AdamDeanHall" character for his actions are demeaning and very much uncalled for. His actions also make Wikipedia editing a very unenjoyable experience. He plays "god" by editing pages to the way he sees fit to his standards.

I have contacted this user regarding the threats and informed him/her I was to take action if the user continued bullying me.

I wish to be contacted regarding this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkseid 77 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:Assume good faith and WP:OWN. You do not own your additions to the site, and anyone else is entitled to modify or remove any changes you make to articles. If you do not want that to happen, do not add anything to this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What are we supposed to be looking for here? All I see is an editor who specializes in editing articles on current TV series. What is the specific offense? Where are the diffs to show us these offenses? --IJBall (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to article in question: Decades (TV network) --IJBall (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC) OK, this must be the article: List of programs broadcast by Decades --IJBall (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Darkseid 77: What articles did AdamDeanHall delete, and what was the mechanism of deletion (i.e. speedy deletion, prod, AfD, merge and redirect)? BMK (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Darkseid 77, I don't see any evidence of bullying on Adam's part. He has only left a warning template on your talk page one time. He also hasn't left uncivil messages in edit summaries or anything; in fact, you are the one who has been doing that ([198] [199]). The reason Adam reverted the additional programs was simply that they weren't sourced. (And whom are these "a lot of other users" that you are referring to?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If everyone would set down their boomerangs for a minute and really look at Adam's pattern of editing, you'll find that this editor isn't the only one who's had issues with Adam's editorial style. He tends to be very high-handed and bossy on television articles, removes content which is often perfectly appropriate with no edit summaries, then tells editors, often in very bossy language, to stop making whatever edits they have made, frequently by citing some rule he's decided applies to the article. If anyone exhibits WP:OWN behavior, it's Adam. He also will remove perfectly good sources he doesn't like and replace them, unexplained, with one media website he seems to favor. He never responds to warnings or discussion attempts on his talk page, and has been asked repeatedly to use edit summaries, which he continues to fail to do the vast majority of the time; the few he does use are often substandard. Whatever the OP may or may not have done, it doesn't alter the fact that Adam has been a low-level problem editor for some time, and the OP's concerns should at least be treated with some respect before you all pile on him. --Drmargi (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's all possible, but where is the evidence, where are the diffs? BMK (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree ADH really needs to learn how to deal with other editors better (and needs to stop messing with sourcing, especially redirecting things to press releases from TV by the Numbers rather than neutral industry sources), they're right on this one. I'm sorry Darkseid, but we need absolute sourcing to confirm what airs on a network or not, we can't take 'because I saw it in the EPG' or 'they aired a promo saying this was coming' as a source. We need something written down and released by the network or neutral industry media to add it. Just look at the minefields that are the list of's for any children's network; we have to deal with this all the time (ahem, the Dan Vs. vandal, who would love if they got a false source to stick for weeks saying it launched again on the Tennis Channel or 3ABN if they could), and we cannot be lax in adding shows without sourcing; we need good and solid sourcing to add a show to a list of article. ADH has other editing issues; keeping the list of tidy and well-sourced isn't one of them. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Like Drmargi stated, ADH has been a low-level problem editor for years. All you have to do is skim through his talk page archives to see this has been a problem for years, and rarely does it seem that he communicates back. He is, sometimes, completely over-the-top in his edit summaries displaying ownership of articles. —"I said leave those two programs alone!", "I told you to leave those two shows where they are!", "Get those pilots off this page!"; removes cited material [200] [201]; he'll make an edit like this stating "None of those shows are allowed" (without explanation) then subsequently edit the same article adding shows without a source; replace perfectly acceptable references with another website just because he prefers it [202] [203]; he reverts other editors for uncited material, but he'll do the same thing [204] [205] [206]. He also makes completely silly over-the-top requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP: [207] [208] [209] [210]. He of course, does make good edits, but he seriously needs to tone it down and start becoming more collaborative with other editors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, I know way too well (I only edit on the yearly TV schedule article when I absolutely have to because I know my well-found source will eventually be removed by them for a different source which barely meets WP:RELIABLE, along with other articles, especially anything Weigel Broadcasting-involved; any attempt at changing a small thing on the TV schedule article is reverted without discussion by them). Here, they were right, but they could definitely learn to be more collegial and like I did, explain why we can't accept certain sources. I would also like for them to comment here in their defense. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Whenever I add a TV show to the list, I usually add a reliable source. Otherwise, I would delete any TV show that doesn't have a reliable source. That's all I can tell you at this time. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak's behavior

The user SantiLak has been harassing me since his inappropriate actions removing tags on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_Guns on a page he wrote himself. When I warned him about reverting the tag he started reverting the warnings and harassing me on my own talk page. I have asked him to stop repeatedly and finally asked for help on the prior edit war AN/I, which he deleted.

I've noticed from the AN/I he has a pattern of 3RR, edit warring, and COI complaints against him. I've also noticed he now has been reverting other user changes on The_Truth_About_Guns entry. From the history a anonyous IPv6 IP went and made a number of changes and removed misleading uncited information from the page. SantiLak reverted all the changes indiscriminately. And has now done 2RR on them.

With this ongoing pattern of abuse, I think this calls for admin intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What this user refers to as harassment is just me defending my reputation when this user calls me a harasser after I respond to insults they make telling me to do things such as "Go murder children or whatever you violence lovers like to do when you aren't spamming wikipedia.". This ANI also reflects the fact that this user has refused to discuss issues I have with their edits and issues they have with mine and has ignored WP:BRD. To their point of what I "deleted" on the previous ANI was that I deleted a comment they made on an archived copy of the ANI, not the actual ANI. The ANI had been closed so I removed edits to an archive which as it says on the top shouldn't be edited. There is no pattern of 3RR issues, there has been one real case in the past involving the State Bar of California but that was in August and was resolved. I don't know of any COI complaints, I made the TTAG article after reading about them online and noticing that they were pretty notable and I submitted it as my second article through Articles for Creation and unlike that user wants to think, I am not an employee of the blog. I recommend a speedy close of this ANI, this issue has to do with a content dispute in the article, not actual behavior requiring admin intervention. - SantiLak (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not abuse just statistical facts about gun fetishists. It seems odd that accusations keep coming against you and your impropriety from a variety of sources. Actually this is at least your second 3RR violation (you violated it during the edit war you started by reverting my changes in the first place) and you were on track for a third when I warned you about 3RR (again mind you). And this has nothing to do with whether your low-quality article should be there. This is about reverting legitimate edits (which is vandalism, despite what you may think), and the pattern of 3RR. As well as your continued harassment on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:45, March 19, 2015‎ (UTC)

The only accusations that are coming against me are coming from you right now. Also in relation to the CSD tag I didn't violate 3RR, only reverted 3 times, not 4 or more. I wasn't on track for a third, you reverted my reversion of some edits which weren't legitimate (But again that's a content dispute issue), and it isn't vandalism, read WP:NOT VANDALISM if you want, my edits don't fall anywhere near vandalism. - SantiLak (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one), simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. " Explain again how restoring incorrect and misleading information by reverting a change is not "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's your opinion that what I did was restoring incorrect and misleading information, if you felt that way, again that is a content dispute meant for discussion. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

24.16.30.8, you didn't notify SantiLak, I've done it for you. I would recommend a boomerang on this one. 24.16.30.8 placed a speedy delete template on The_Truth_About_Guns as seen [| here]. 2 minutes later it was remove by sysop Michael_Greiner. He reposted the same Speedy Deletion a few days later [| here ], it was at that point that SantiLak removed it. The same user replaced it again and called SantiLak's removal vandalism [| here ] The IP went to 2 RR as did SantiLak, replacing and removing the speedy delete tag. As the speedy delete tag can be placed once only, and anyone can remove it, and because it was removed first by a sysop, I'd say the I.P has no case and should watch out for boomerangs here. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree about a boomerang...but for the record, KoshVorlon, WP:CSD doesn't state that a speedy template can only be placed once. The only restriction like that that I am aware of is for {{prod}} tags. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm OOPS! You're correct Erpert. I was thinking of Prods! KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is actually not about the speedy deletion. Which was not a few days later it was a few months later. This is about SantiLak continuing to spam my talk page after I accepted that the page was going to be kept and told him that I conceded. Yesterday I noticed that another ip users had made a good number of changes fixing errors in links, and removing content that was either misleading or not in the provided references. SantiLak with no discussion reverted all of those changes. When I undo his reversion and warned him about it he reverted them again. And actually, SantiLak didn't stop at 2, he did go to 3. He also was warned about his actions of clearing out warnings and the fact that as the article creator he has a COI in removing the CSD request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:45, March 19, 2015‎ (UTC)

The changes that they made were unnecessary but again that is a content dispute. I would also like to again remind you that the CSD was denied by the users in the previous ANI.- SantiLak (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The changed that they made were damaging the quality of the article, this isn't about me writing the article in the first place and it certainly is not WP:OWNERSHIP, its about bad edits made to the article. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I suggest the following: 24.16.30.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has apparently agreed to stop editing the article in question on their Talk page – that's probably a good start; SantiLak, I think you can stop commenting on the IP's Talk page – they've asked you to stop, and continuing at their Talk page is not going to further "clear your name". If both parties agree to this, we should be all done here. --IJBall (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They said they would stop but in fact they have continued by reverting my edits yesterday and with more edits, I am fine with stopping commenting on their talk page, this is a content dispute and I really see no need to continue this ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What about SantiLak's unilateral deletion of other editor changes with no discussion in the Talk page and then edit warring over objections to that? All I want to see is SantiLak warned about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If he and the other user want to hash out differences in opinion in the article talk, I have no issue with that. But the rules do state: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." is not stewardship it is claiming ownership. That and his Talk page harassment is what the ANI is about. Not the resolved CSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, changes that are unnecessary and damage different articles are reverted all of the time by users including myself. The only difference is that I started this article, I have reverted similarly unnecessary changes to other articles that I didn't start. I deleted that other editor's changes because they did damage the article, removed important information, and slanted the article strongly. What about your unilateral reversion of my reinstatement of information (ehem WP:BRD), if you have an issue with my edits, which you obviously do, then start a thread on the article talk page, don't unilaterally revert. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For reference. The edits included things like the older version of the page referenced a page that was just a redirect to a page already referenced (SantiLak reverted this fix). The page made claims about the blog which were not in the articles cited. The page made the claim that a reference talked about donations when no text about donations was in it. It misapplied a quote by the blog's founder to be for another thing. SantiLak reverted all of those changes. The page had the blog categorized not as a blog but as some kind of political activist organization. SantiLak again did not put anything into talk and just bulk reverted a dozen small changes without attempting any kind of correction. Ahem, you violated BRD by doing the reversion without a specific reason and not discussing. All I did was undo your vandalism. And yes WP:OWNERSHIP does apply here. You even used the kind of language in this ANI that the WP:OWNERSHIP article references. "The changes that they made were unnecessary" "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." That is exactly what you did. And looking at the changes made. I think anyone who isn't trying to claim ownership would agree that removing misleading information and distortions of citations is improving an article. If you think that uncited information is in fact correct then you should add a cite instead or admit that you are using original research to write this article. 24.16.30.8 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones." 24.16.30.8 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I am not claiming ownership, you seem to want to put that forward as my opinion but as I've already explained I am not claiming ownership, I was reverting changes that slanted the article and removed cited information. I'm not invoking BRD to support my reversions of the other user's edits, I am pointing out that you need to follow it. I reverted the edits, you had an issue with it, so discuss it on the article talk page, don't just copy and paste policy that doesn't apply to me in this case. Some of the citations were in the wrong place but removing all of that information was ridiculous. Also removing a massive section on their political activism is detrimental to the article because that is a large part of their business is political activism. The article has now been turned into a slanted article with information that isn't in the sources provided as well. - SantiLak (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about your opinions on the content, its about your rule violations. If you want to argue content go to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, IP, no one here agrees about the rule violations, so maybe you should go back to the talk page. Here, the two of you are just going back and forth and it's really getting nowhere. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If the administrator decision is that an editor reverting a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental is a perfectly acceptable behavior, then I will just have to accept that judgement. 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak is now stalking me on to another talk page, is this also allowed? 24.16.30.8 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how defending my reputation against someone who is claiming things about me that aren't true with one comment on the talk page of a user who is also involved in the article discussion is stalking in any way. - SantiLak (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could both of y'all just cool it, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the harassment, stalking, and admin defense of rule breaking have convinced me that wikipedia is not a place for outsiders so I won't be editing anything anymore after this here. 24.16.30.8 (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Patriot Nepali2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Patriot Nepali2015, despite my repeated requests, has been continuing to post unpleasant and accusational posts on my page because I was one of (many) wiki editors on a page about Yolmo. Despite my attempts to defuse the situation, he continues to post accusations I am being paid, I am a dirty minority, I need to "go back to Bhot" (Tibet) and employs sarcastic techniques like giving me a Barnstar and posting a "Sincere apology" which turn out to be accusatory, unpleasant accusations in reality. The edit summaries are especially nice.

His edits on the page in question seem simply to be nationalistic and racist. His posts:

• on Yolmo [211] [212] [213] [214] [215]
• on my page: [216] [217] [218] [219] [220]

My posts on his page:

• warning about personal attacks at Yolmo: [221] [222]
• personal comments asking him to stop and to discuss the topic on the talk page [223] [224]

I would like to nip this behavior in the bud as it is unpleasant to keep getting page alerts that are nasty. Ogress _smash! 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved onlooker, this behavior does looks concerning to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

All of these actions seem inappropriate and overpersonal, they should be commenting on content, not accusing users of racial motivation and a "joke editor" (I warned Patriot Nepali2015 for this comment). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: Patriot Nepali2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Even though PN hasn't edited since being warned, I think a block might still be necessary because those edit summaries are pretty extreme. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks are not punitive; if the user has gone away then the issue is resolved. However, of greater concern is that the user is editing from a possibly extreme radical POV based on their edit summaries and comments, which is not an issue that often goes away on its own. The user is new and may benefit from policy guidance, but if they return and continue editing in this way then it's an easy block call. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• I disagree; this is much too bad. Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-and-harassment-and-racial-slurs-only account. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In no circumstances is calling me (or my colleagues) child molesters acceptable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In no circumstances is calling me (or my colleagues) child molesters acceptable: [225]

The autogynephilia page is, of course, within the discretionary sanctions of the sexology case, and I believe that User:‎Sceptre's behavior suggests an inability to contribute productively to that topic.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that your colleague was a child molester, I said he was a child abuser. And if he wasn't, why was his clinic shuttered from accepting new patients with his superiors saying that his practices both a) were against the clinic's guidelines and b) should be illegal? The real problem is [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)] Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes: that you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it.

Is apparently intemperate at best, and the use of "child abusing" in current English usage does carry very unfortunate connotations, indeed, as it is used for physical injury to children. I would expect a redaction of offensive material about any editor or BLP subject, as such is contrary to my strict reading of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)] Sceptre ^(talk) 17:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• What the hell is Sceptre doing writing on this topic? Carrite (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  Because I can? This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• And where is the block for a personal attack? Carrite (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  NPA only applies to editors. Kenneth Zucker doesn't edit Wikipedia; he gets Cantor to do it for him. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Have we no BLP policy? KonveyorBelt 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I linked to a story that Zucker has been suspended from accepting new patients for subjecting transgender children to treatments that the vast majority of the medical community finds to be highly unethical [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. The real problem is that [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)] Sceptre ^(talk) 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That summary is both incorrect and irrelevant.— James Cantor (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Which part of it is incorrect? The fact that Zucker has been suspended from accepting patients for practicing conversion therapy (correct), that it's unethical (correct), or [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]? [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. Conversion therapy of children is child abuse; I mean, just ask Leelah Alcorn. Oh, wait, you can't; she's dead, because of [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I know little about the subject, Yes: that you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it. is not likely to encourage Cantor or anyone else to contribute productively. KonveyorBelt 18:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want him to contribute at all in the subject area. He should've been topic banned in Sexology and it's one of ArbCom's greatest mistakes that he wasn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless, telling someone to "fuck the hell away from" an article and accusing them of POV pushing and editing on behalf of a "child abuser" are all personal attacks and are especially inappropriate on a page under discretionary sanctions, where an even higher standard of conduct is expected. Sceptre, I don't really doubt you're sincere in your concerns about his POV, but where are your good faith efforts to address the issue? AN discussions? AE requests? Due to the sanctions, it's easier than ever to impose bans on editors. Why on earth are you risking blocks making personal attacks? If your case is so strong where's your evidence? Where's your efforts to address your concerns? We still operate based on consensus here. You can't just go around saying you don't think certain editors shouldn't be allowed to edit articles. You can however civilly make your case to the community, or in this case, WP:AE, which is even easier. Swarm... ^—X— 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  We tried ArbCom, and they handed down one of the worst decisions in living history. The point is: Cantor has a self-declared COI. If he serious about it, he wouldn't be editing the article area. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sceptre, you mean you tried ArbCom and it didn't go your way. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology where you were a party, especially Discretionary sanctions where it says: " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). Besides, the article you link to doesn't say Zucker was a "child molester" or "child abuser". Engaging in a controversial treatment Making a controversial remark isn't the same thing. Sceptre is engaging in personal attacks on the talk page of an article under discretionary santions. It was these types of personal attacks that got another editor banned in that ArbCom. EChastain (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Engaging in a controversial treatment"; you mean "engaging in a treatment that is widely considered unethical [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]". Here are the facts: Kenneth Zucker practices conversion therapy on children. Conversion therapy on children is widely considered child abuse. [rm per WP:BLPREMOVE Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]. And regardless of the ArbCom case, it does not absolve the fact that Cantor has a COI a mile wide that he discloses on his user page. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) No offense, Sceptre, but it doesn't matter if you don't want someone else contributing in the subject area just because you wanted him topic-banned and he wasn't. And if you are being this non-neutral about the subject (granted, it's a touchy subject), maybe you shouldn't be editing within the topic either. Not to mention that you are dishing out some very serious personal attacks, so unless you're itching for a block, I suggest you chill out. (BTW, I tweaked the subject heading because a diff doesn't need to be there.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have blocked Sceptre for 72 hours. If discussion leans towards a longer block, please feel free to lengthen it without needing to consult me first - I was awfully tempted to place a longer block myself. This diff is ridiculously inappropriate on any page, let alone a page under arbcom sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Just stopping by here to point out that this thread is itself full of WP:BLP-violating content that should probably be revdel'd. Can't do it myself, of course. Ivanvector (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• I hope I'm not stirring the pot here. I just happened to come across this because against my better judgement I have left AN/I on my watchlist for over 24 hours, and the behaviour I see just in this thread is appalling. Just based on this I would support a long block. But this user actually insists that they're in the right to cast baseless accusations of serious misconduct about living persons, and attack people who (rightly) point out just how bad it is to do so. And they've been blocked (even indef'd) for similar behaviour before, on multiple occasions going back over several years. This user doesn't seem to get that incivility is inappropriate no matter who your opponent is, that you can't make baseless allegations about living persons, and that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. These are serious conduct issues. Support indefinite block. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Fully agreee with Ivan Vector about the need for revdel/oversight of some of Sceptre's comments. In particular one starting "Which part of it is incorrect?" and another starting "Engaging in a controversial treatment". This is serious libel. In addition, Sceptre needs to be permanently removed from this topic area, but I guess AE is the right place for that, given DS in the area. Iselilja (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block and revdelete - Looking at the block history it seems to me that this user just Doesnt understand that repeated behavior like this is not acceptable here on Wikipedia. I support an indef block with the WP:STANDARD OFFER in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Indef WeekWeak block in this case, considering history, is clearly too lenient, a longer block is needed to prevent future breaches, especially considering what was said here against WP:BLP in spirit, if not directly. Mdann52 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean that Kevin Gorman's 3-day block was weak, or that the user should be blocked for a week? Sorry, I don't normally nitpick spelling on here but your comment appears to be causing confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Mdann52 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef with the standard offer - this user has a history of personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disregard for ArbCom, and disregard for bans. This episode continues to demonstrate a problem with incivility, personal attacks, disregard for ArbCom and disregard for BLP policy. Not only was she absolutely unrepentant when brought into question here, but she doubled down and actually defended her behavior as if it could be considered acceptable. Also, she claims to have good faith concerns behind her behavior, but they don't appear to hold up to scrutiny and she has never made an effort to substantiate them. We wouldn't tolerate this sort of blatant disregard for our policies from any other editor and Wikipedia has no room for this kind of disrespect towards the project, its rules, and its editors. Swarm... ^—X— 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure she hasn't substantiated them? She's clarified them before, but I think that was revdel'd. —ajf (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block(non admin uninvolved editor) A block is defiantly needed for the comment. Its indefensible, and has no place on WP. AlbinoFerret 21:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not positive about an indef, but I fully support an extension to the block I originally put in place, and given Sceptre's post-block comments I'm going to escalate it to a month myself. Assuming consensus doesn't establish on a particular block length here, I will shorten it to one week if and only if Sceptre agrees via email (since TPA is rightfully revoked) to never comment similarly on another editor, and if the committment is made and then renegged on will put an indef in place. At a bare minimum I think a topic ban from sexuality related topics is necessary - Sceptre has indicated that they are unwilling to follow even the most basic standards of behavior in dealing with editors whose psychiatric practices they disagree with. If the same issue crops up in a second area, I think it should pretty much result in an automatic ban. I initially blocked for an extremely lenient period because I thought that for an established, generally productive editor a 72 hour block might be enough to have them go "Oh shit, I fucked up, I better not do that again," but instead of seeing the issue Sceptre doubled down and got TPA revoked even after HJ warned them TPA revocation would be coming if they didn't stop. This is still not intended as opposing a more severe block if it's found warranted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• (non admin uninvolved editor) I have no idea what the standard practice is in cases like this; but just going on a gut feeling/general sense of fairness, a month or so seems appropriate - enough time to calm down and lose interest in the subject matter, or at least find something else interesting. (I can understand the argument for an indef based on past history, though.) From reading the diffs as well as the discussion here, I really get the sense that Sceptre legitimately believes these accusations are not actually baseless, whether or not WP policy agrees. If there had been a clear recent pattern of abusive comments then I'd strongly support an indef; as is, this seems like an attack motivated by strong emotion more than any desire to defame others. However, as User:Ivanvector noted (thanks for the BLP redactions, BTW), it still comes across as WP:RGW. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• James, you are right. It's even more appropriate than you using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your theories of sexuality. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block with standard offer. Kevin Gorman's extension possibly did not take fully into account Sceptre's persistently troubled history. Not only as a former admin, but also an unwillingness to address the comments made on her re-adminship RfAs. Many of her uncollgial actions and conflicts do not get escalated but her continued presence is a net negative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with Sceptre's history, and given the number of people whose judgement I respect certainly won't argue against an indef if that's what's judged to be necessary. My initial block was more or less (excessively lenient...) hoping to thwack some commonsense in to someone who had previously produced quite a bit of solid content with the thought that the block and ensuing discussion would get the vast majority of long term quality content editors back on track for at least a decent amount of time; the followup month (actually, currently five weeks - I mucked up the date and can't bring myself to change it) was pretty much the inappropriateness of the initial comment fully settling in coupled with, bluntly, some degree of shock at Sceptre's reaction to the block. I'd hesitate to indef someone who had produced 28 GAs/FAs without consensus being established first, but saw the initial edit as egregious enough to warrant a block as fast as I could implement one while further conversation occurred. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• (non admin maybe-involved editor) Oppose indef block, weak support temp block. I'm not sure about an indefinite block, I think User:Sceptre may just have been overcome with anger at that moment. As an ordinary user it is impossible to judge this given everything she said's been revdel'd, but I understand the jist of what she said. While the way she wrote it may have been misinterpreted/perhaps sounds too much like a personal attack, she does raise an important point: he has a COI here. —ajf (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I really don't know how you could take it in any other way than a personal attack. If he has a COI and you dispute something okay, take it here to ANI or a place for discussion. People in real life overcome with anger do some very stupid things but in the end you have to pay a price for it by learning from your mistakes. This isn't new, this isn't her first block, she has shown this same type of behavior in the past so what makes you think she wont continue in the future with these same type of things? If she is blocked for a month or even a week and comes back I want and hope to see that she doesn't do stuff like this again and knows that it is the wrong thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• (uninvolved non-admin) I agree with Kevin Gorman that a topic ban from sexuality is absolutely required for this sort of behavior. I won't comment on any further action that should be taken. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• The whole COI thing regarding James Cantor was a main subject of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, and ArbCom didn't buy it. He only edits the talk pages of articles he was personally involved in, which is ok with them. He's doing nothing wrong. EChastain (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Dolescum (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• This got me curious. Take a look at this. It appears James regularly edits sexology-related articles. Is that not a clear conflict of interest? —ajf (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Heck, these match articles that James directly acknowledges a conflict of interest in on his own user page. Huh? —ajf (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  A scholar editing their field of expertise is not a conflict of interest. It seems that people with strong opinions on transsexualism are objecting to James having a different strong opinion, rather than to any actual inappropriate edits. KateWishing (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, it is only a COI if the editor is pushing a WP:POV across and/or causing disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Sceptre has now been blocked until April 27th. Her talk page access has also been revoked, which is interesting because I don't think I have ever seen that done on someone with a non-indefinite block. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it done; it's for when the editor is being disruptive on their talk page. I'm not sure we shouldn't have let her blow off steam a bit longer, and it seems harsh to extend the block and revoke talk access, but I'm no expert. ekips39 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty common for talkpage access to be revoked in situations where the user continues the same behavior on their talkpage that led to their original block, which is what happened in this instance. After I blocked Sceptre, she continued to make the same sort of BLP attack on her talk page that got her blocked in the first place, against the same person, even after HJ had warned her that talkpage access would be revoked if she continued. In the process of TPA revocation, I made the initial block for specific and articulated reasons, HJ warned her after she continued the same behavior that going on doing so would result in TPA removal, and Mike V went ahead with the actual removal. That's an awful lot of forewarning, and Sceptre has been around for more than long enough to know better anyway. Even so, Sceptre has access to UTRS to appeal, and can also email me as I mentioned above. I'd probably restore TPA instantly with a simple pledge to discontinue her behavior (though it'd be unwise of her to break it if she makes it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block of Sceptre - It should have happened long ago. This is beyond the pale. Carrite (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And what action against Cantor for civil POV-pushing and baiting of LGBT editors? This is far from the first instance. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have diffs then please feel free to split this off into a separate section, if not then please this isn't helping. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH is the shortcut. ekips39 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing colon added. Diffs are in the Sexology arbitration case. And indeed the current complaint itself... Guy (Help!) 22:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The sexology case though is in the past, was there a resolution that topic banned James Cantor from the area? The counter-complaint its-self also shows no diffs, if you want to link to something disruptive done by James then feel free. It sounds to me like some here want something done but aren't putting up things to talk about and discuss. I saw the link to an essay? What does that have to do with diffs? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support current block. Anything else like this in the future and an indef will be justified(if not already). Chillum 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• I confess I'm a little surprised by the number of people supporting a long block. Sceptre is a good editor outside of these incidents, as evidenced (among other things) by the DYK notices on her talk page -- which happen to relate to sexuality, so I'd hate to see her even topic-banned from that. I don't believe that good contributions excuse disruption, but I think we should at least try to get her to pursue this in the correct venue, since she may just have a legitimate case against James Cantor (not that I'd know), and if they keep having toxic interactions perhaps they could be interaction banned (in which case she can still email someone if she feels Cantor is behaving badly). And if none of those alternate solutions work, then we can indef her. Unfortunately it looks like we'll be going straight to the indef. ekips39 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I am really quite concerned: when did Wikipedia become openly hostile to the LGBT community? Recent arbitration decisions seem to me to reward civility over neutrality and push the balance firmly towards a position more in line with the current US situation, where casual bigotry is perfectly acceptable, rather than the historical Wikipedian position of tolerance. I'd note that there are reliable independent sources that characterise "reparative therapy" for transgender children as a form of child abuse. Cantor seems quite open about his COI and can scarcely be unaware that the views of people like Zucker are deeply offensive to the trans community. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that this isn't a vendetta against Sceptre because she is trans, right? We're talking about a former administrator with a long history of blocks for bad behavior. This is someone who has been here for a long time who should really know better. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I also want to add that this wasn't just a one time thing [226], [227]. Calling someone a "child abuser" is just as bad. Even if she was trying to make a valid point there is no excuse for it and the line was crossed more than once even after the admins were telling her to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef. Comments made previously and elsewhere show a complete and willing disregard for civility and policy. KonveyorBelt 23:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• No strong opinion on duration. A block was clearly and absolutely necessary to prevent further disruption. If we're considering further measures, we should consider what disruption they're intended to prevent. Note that since discretionary sanctions are in play, any uninvolved admin can issue a topic ban or other restriction, which may or may not solve the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - but oppose indef. Sceptre obviously feels very strongly about a few things here, and perhaps with good reason on a few things. Granted, her posts were indeed over-the-top, and she needed to be blocked; but I don't think a long term valuable editor should be treated like a common vandal either. Let her have some time away to compose her thoughts, and if need be, then try some sort of topic ban next. Let's see how the current block works before we dig out the pitchforks and fire up the torches. — Ched :  ?  01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Necessary block, oppose indef - Sceptre obviously feels strongly about this. Given the subject matter, that's no real surprise. The unfortunate part is that there is a COI here and there is obviously concern about that COI - Mr Cantor openly declared one back in 2009 but has continued to edit those articles despite his "pledge". Neither the pledge nor his sticking to it are consensus-endorsed sanctions or restrictions, though. Furthermore, it would seem that reliable sources do quite openly call some of the techniques in question "child abuse" or words to that effect. However, it's a jump to suggest that anyone who advocates for the techniques, or something like them, is a "child abuser". The other personal attacks aren't appropriate either and a block therefore is appropriate. But I think it would pay for Mr Cantor to see particular comments for what they are. Making the jump between "abuser" and "molester" isn't helpful either and given his area of expertise, I would imagine the distinction is one he could easily understand. Mostly I think it is time for everyone to take a step back, a little breather, and go and edit something completely unrelated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Not Colosseum. The request for an administrator to take action has been answered. Reviewing Sceptre's contributions it is clear they are here to build an encyclopedia and their block log [228], --specifically the long intervals between blocks -- it is clear preventative blocks have been efficacious in the past. Therefore, discussions of indef due to the "severity of the crime" are clearly punitive in nature. NE Ent 12:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Additionally, given the thread above Adam Walsh Child ... and the OP's commenting on contributors not content prior to Sceptre's inappropriate comments [229], I concur with JzG's characterization of WP:CRUSH. NE Ent 12:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • What your diff actually shows is that James and several others were productively discussing content issues, until Sceptre showed up to inform us that she was "strongly opposed to James' presence on Wikipedia" and his "friends' crackpot theories". James then civilly reminded Sceptre not to attack other editors. KateWishing (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

From the block log:

An indefinite block for harassment in August 2008 (later reduced to two months as a "final warning", ultimately unblocked in November following sockpuppetry drama)

A block for incivility in December 2008 immediately following the aforementioned block

Another block for incivility the same month

NPA block in 2010

Now this

She's had enough "final warnings". She's been blocked multiple times for the same behavior and still. hasn't. learned. The indefinite block would clearly prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia from a user who has a 7-year history with such behavior and won't give it up. In fact, while I didn't comment about further action beyond a topic ban earlier, I now support an indefinite block for repeated violations of civility policies. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that an indef block is not forever nor is it permanent. If Sceptre can make a sincere block appeal in a month and learn from this then I would see no reason why she couldn't be unblocked. The biggest problem though as I have seen is she just isn't learning from her past behavior. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Talking with Sceptre on IRC the other day revealed that she considers herself perfectly capable of civility but believes that certain people ("child abusers") do not deserve it. IMHO this shows only that she should refrain from interacting with those people, not that she has a general civility problem and has to be kept out of everything. I suppose this is a "recentist" view, but I think it's accurate as far as the current situation and that's really all we need to deal with. ekips39 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, they has to choose whether she'll willing to follow Wikipedia policy or not. NE Ent 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BATTLEGROUND, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear" if she cant do this then I suggest either a topic ban after she comes back in a month or to go with the indef ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's "indefinite" she could make an appeal right now. Far less drama to simply let the existing finite length block run its course. NE Ent 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(responding to Chase) Four years between slipups for an editor who has 70,000 contributions isn't unreasonable. If we drive all the imperfect humans off the project who will be left to edit it? NE Ent 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• This should be closed. She has already been given a block. If she behaves badly once the block expired, then it is reasonable to consider tougher measures. For now, let's just drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Edit conflict. She needs a topic ban related to sexology because she obviously is not able to edit constructively in that topic area. I will note that her edits includes edits to Kenneth Zucker; her comments on him on talk pages has been so libelous as to need oversight and she clearly should not be editing that article anymore. Sexology is under DS, so if this is not closed with a topic ban, me or some other will make a request at AE. I also interprete a clear majority of comments in this thread to favour either an indefinite ban or a topic ban; which means she should at least have the latter (which is my preferred option). Iselilja (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Political scandals in (U.S. States) categories

I would like a second opinion on some activities I recently noticed. Hmains (talk · contribs) has recently been adding a large number of biographical articles to various categories titled "Political scandals in <Name of a U.S. State>". Examples are at Dane Eagle, Steve Nunn, John McGee (politician), and Douglas Bruce. Adding to my concern is List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States, a recently deleted article (AfD here), which was created by Hmains. Is this an attempt to effectively recreate a deleted article via the category system or am I just being paranoid? --Allen3 ^talk 12:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My stance on this is that these are set categories, i.e. they should contain articles on political scandals, not people. People are not scandals. It's as simple as that. If we need to categorize people associated with a scandal, create a subcategory, like Category:People associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Category:Political scandals in Florida", for example, was created in August 2011 by Hugo999. It has not been contested in the meanwhile. A problem may arise concerning the scope of this category. As it is worded, it should be appended to articles on scandals, not to articles on people (like Dane Eagle) who were (allegedly) involved in scandals. IMO, Hmains (who is literally scandalmongering, lately) is adding this category to the wrong type of article. Kraxler (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HandsomeFella. Categories are not meant to be editorial or make a statement about the people categorized. "Scandals" categories refer to the event or incident itself, not to the people who might have been involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• A person is not a scandal, therefore an article about a person does not belong in a category of scandals. Squinge (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• It is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy to categorize a BLP in such a way as to make a negative allegation about a person. There was a big discussion about this not too long ago regarding POV categories (like "anti-gay people", I don't remember the exact category where it came up). If a person is notable only because of a scandal they're involved in, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E say to have an article about the scandal, not the person. So I don't see any possible justification for categorizing a bio or BLP into a scandal category. My two cents. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• comment I created the state sex scandals article only as an administrative measure to separate it from another article that was too long and confusingly organized. I don't know that I ever contributed any content to the article and I had and have no opinion about it so I said nothing about its deletion. I did note that some commenters did not like a list because a list (in their opinion) did not have as sufficient documentation as articles have and so articles with categories would be better. The putting of an article into a scandal category adds no opinion; it is merely the recognition that a scandal existed (and most scandals just involve one notable person) and the category documents that fact. Hmains (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In theory, that's right, in practice there is WP:BLPCAT, and the above described restriction of the scope of certain categories. You may substitute "Category:Politicians convicted of crimes" for the "Scandal" categories, but please pay attention that minor traffic offenses and other minor offenses unrelated to their political activities may be out of scope, or forbidden by BLPCAT. Arrests or indictments without a conviction also do not qualify fot that type of category. Kraxler (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So, can these edits, of individuals to Scandals categories, be reverted, Hmains? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, everyone else seems to be happy to revert my work, each coming up with whatever excuse strikes their fancy of the moment. Sometimes, not even reverting my work but reverting other things that have been place for years from others. Whatever excites them I suppose. Hmains (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Victoriadseaman

• Victoriadseaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - persistent use of Wikipedia for self-promotion at Victoria Seaman. User informed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• From what I've seen, the user is trying to use this article page like a campaign page. The information being added was unsourced, promotional and a copyright violation of Victoria Seaman's official site. They have been warned about all of these things, but continue inserting their promotional material. Looking at the name, it's either the person themself, or someone working on behalf of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• I also requested semi-protection of the article a few minutes ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  I declined the page protection, but everybody is welcome to impose semi-protection. My opinion is that they user should be blocked if she continues disruption. We do not protect articles against a single user. It would be cool to block an incumbent member of a state legislature. Should WMF be informed?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: informing WMF: probably not. We get politicians trying to campaign here all the time. This case doesn't seem all that remarkable. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the person notable or can this goto WP:AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Do I read correctly that she is a member of the Nevada legislature? Then she is automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The only sources I see are in the form of self promoting external links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

#1 says "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". I do not see how this could be intertpreted in a way that she is not notable. #3 is about local officials, and state level is apparently not described as local.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do not subscribe to the notion of "inherent notability". The guidelines for inclusion are only guides to the kind of person who is likely to be covered in reliable independent sources. With a WP:BLP in particular, the only thing that matters is, has this person been the primary or significant focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. If none are provided, then the article should be nuked. But Orangemike (who created the stub) is good people so if someone pings him I am sure he will do that. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding secondary sources for this one. I found one from before the election that confirmed she was the candidate for NV AD-34. I assume she did get elected. But there's nothing that I've found, post-election, showing she sponsored or co-sponsored a bill, or something. I'm not sure this one passes #3 of WP:POLITICIAN. I think an WP:AfD might be in order here... --IJBall (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what I have been thinking, some politicians are unknown and just do everyday activities this may be a reason behind the self-promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. What this shows me is that what #1 of WP:POLITICIAN (as presently worded) implies is problematic – the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members; the New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400! Regardless of what WP:POLITICIAN implies, just getting elected to a state legislature shouldn't qualify you for automatic WP:NOTABILITY. This current case appears to be an example of a state legislator who doesn't (at least, as of yet...) merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. --IJBall (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to start discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and see whether there is consensus for removing members of state legislatures from #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. (Note that I am not in the US and have no opinion). --Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and started such a discussion (though I do not intend to participate beyond that). FWIW, I am quite sure the policy is not intended to apply specifically to the US, in spite of the "state" terminology. Consider that "provincial" is also used in the actual policy wording - that aspect simply hasn't been discussed here. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please centralize the discussion regarding POLITICIAN at the WT:BIO.

OK, so the subject is notable, having received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources. That being said if the subject of this ANI is in fact the individual who is the subject of the biography article, than this an autobiography at should be treated as such, or it at worst WP:COI.

All that being said, let us remember WP:BLPEDIT.

This article is salvageable, so I say WP:NOTCLEANUP, but lets try to be kind to the editor that is the subject of this ANI, and hopefully mentor them to become a productive member of the Wikipedia community, as they may not know the policies and guidelines that govern us.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:HOLE, I guess. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jinotega

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Already blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 12:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)}}

Long term disruptive editing at Jinotega by User:Heraldfranciscojarquin1993 and his IPs from the 186.77.137....-range. User is many times warned to stop with this disruptive editing but to no avail. Even requesting to stop in Spanish did not avail. He is not responding at all.

The account was blocked earlier for disruptive editing on this article. See here. This circus is already going on since January... The Banner talk 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: Heraldfranciscojarquin1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I reopened this as the user is not blocked. I notice that they haven't edited since before the report was made though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed part of the challenge. The editor comes and goes. Sometimes he is very active and then a time not. That is why a protection of the article is so difficult and the present present status of pending changes is also powerless. The history of the article and the talkpage make clear that multiple people are involved and that there are zero (0) replies from said editor. Without any contact, I do not know what to do now. The Banner talk 22:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely, no point in giving this completely uncommunicative editor any more rope. I'm really against accepting this kind of frustrating situation for our constructive editors. The IP range is unfortunately too big to block, but with Jinotega pending changes protected, it's hopefully quite difficult to disrupt it effectively via IPs. Thank you for the report, The Banner. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC).
  • You're welcome. Although I don't like it that this was necessary. The Banner talk 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor making bulk changes against consensus

Serpren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has for some time been making bulk changes to UK placenames. I informed him [230] on his talk page that per this consensus, it's very clear that bulk changes of this type should cease. This was in many cases mopped up by an admin (User:Redrose64), but Serpren has continued. I reverted him in a number of cases, but he has just reverted back.

This consensus was designed to stop this kind of thing, i.e. editors changing UK placenames to suit their own preference, for example removing "UK" or adding it, or swapping "UK" for "England" and vice versa. There's no consensus on which format to use and it is unconstructive to keep switching between them. I have encountered several editors engaging in this practice (usually adding or removing "UK") and showing them the consensus has always stopped them, until now.

Please advise on how to resolve this, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I now see he actually reported me for vandalism [231] although it's not showing on that page. He did not notify me of this report and even accused me of editing "for political motivations", a clear violation of WP:AGF, let alone being utterly wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus Bretonbanquet refers to is "no consensus" as to style (therefore no mandate for bulk changes). However it does refer back to an earlier discussion and straw poll which showed a split consensus (once socks and meatpuppets were removed) between "England, UK/United Kingdom" and "England" (and similarly for Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) in geography leads. (In both discussions it was widely stated by those who usually know about these things that using both the home country and UK was redundant.) Consequently Serpren has some grounds for making their changes, though they would be well advised to stop and seek fresh consensus, since the strawpoll was a long time ago, and not well attended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Yes, as you say, the straw poll is from 2006 and consensus was split. The 2014 discussion to which I linked above also found no consensus as to style and that bulk changes shouldn't be made. This is my complaint; that Serpren is not abiding by that. Nearly all of his edits are changes of this type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may add, Serpren's haste to make these changes has introduced geographic or grammatical errors into at least a couple of articles ([232] [233]). Being so eager to add their bulk changes that they fail to spot any collateral damage is a fairly good indicator that their intentions are not necessarily honourable. QueenCake (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the consensus was "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and have been assiduously working to ensure conformity across Cornish pages. However, should the consensus be "England, UK/United Kingdom" or "England", I will happily stick with that. My profound apologies for any grammatical errors I have caused, that was certainly not my intent. Maybe an adjudication, or new consensus, could be reached? Serpren (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that, but at no stage have you been applying this convention of "Cornwall, England, UK" to pages that say "Cornwall, England". You've only been changing pages which say "Cornwall, UK". Perhaps you could explain why that's the case. The consensus you're talking about is here, but as it says, "Although no-one actively changes articles that don't comply with this format unless making other substantive edits to the article, members of the Cornwall Wikiproject do ensure that where it has been used, it remains in place." In other words, and combined with the other consensus about not making bulk changes to UK placenames, don't change the placenames unless you're making other substantive edits to the article. There is no consensus to enforce this placename format across all Cornish articles, particularly as you're being somewhat selective in your choice of articles to change.

There's also the point about inappropriate use of "Cornwall, England, UK" when the sentence already mentions England or the UK, or "English" or "British". That just amounts to repetition and makes the sentence read very poorly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well where I have added "England" inappropriately, you should feel free to edit it. However, I can see no refutation that the agreed consensus is the term "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and will continue to add England where it is deserved/needed Serpren (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

I will. So you are saying that you will ignore the consensus about not making bulk changes and you admit to openly editing against that consensus. You also ignore the point in the guideline about the "Cornwall, England, UK" consensus not being enforced unless making other substantive edits to the article, and you also ignore my question as to why you do not add "UK" to articles that say "Cornwall, England" in your supposed quest to fulfil this consensus. At the risk of failing WP:AGF, that looks very much like editing with a political POV, quite apart from editing against one consensus to wrongly enforce another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a potentially-unlimited number of beneficial edits that a user could choose to make to Wikipedia. However, Serpren has elected to spend months making the same unhelpful edit to hundreds of pages, ignoring all opposition, frequently damaging the flow of a page's prose in order to stamp "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" repeatedly.
It would be naïve to the point of foolishness to assume good faith when a user is so devoted to deliberate disruption and announces his intentions to carry on causing further disorder. Surely a block on the editor is justified to prevent further wilful disturbance of the project. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Same Users

Hatting per WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – blocked a few socks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC) I have strong beliefs that User:Venus858858 and User:Saturn_28 and 142.177.147.198 and User:Bignosehairs and 142.163.147.121 Are all User:Kagome_85 Trying to continue this war that I gave up on. I haven't edited Wikipedia since 2013-2014 I haven't made a account since 2013 and I never have and never will make one. I only browse here for quick info on a topic then I leave. But she seems destined to keep this going. User:Venus858858 is not me I know check the IP address my IP address has been the same since February. From December - February 12th my IP was 47.55.129.185 now its 156.57.65.17 and will stay that for months to come. I'm being drove over the edge now. And my parents are angry as-well. They plan to call the police If she does not stop this childish behavior. Because I stopped like 2 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturn_28&oldid=649675354 IT IS NOT ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.65.17 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Added links for convenience. No comment, except that a checkuser (a) cannot reliably check accounts that have not edited recently and (b) will not, barring severe misuse, tie IP addresses to accounts (see m:Privacy policy). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Right right how "silly" of me hAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHa *hits head on keyboard* I'm suffering ANOTHER MELTDOWN CAUSE OF HER OOOH I'M GONNA SNAP 156.57.65.17 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)This makes me believe that the OP IP and Venus858858 are Kagome_85. 156.57.65.17 needs to present some good WP:DIFFs if they're not trolling. A glance over the other contributions do indicate that the other IPs and Bignosehairs are also likely socks. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Ok, nevermind, it seems we do have ourselves a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Actually, wait, my apologies, I do see that Saturn_48, another Kagome sock, predates Saturn_28. Still, Venus858885 appears to have been harassing Saturn_28, and now this IP comes out of "nowhere" with "no" prior involvement to report this. Blocks all around! Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Right Right I am a "troll" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeet_%28Newfoundland%29&oldid=648939771 MY NAME IS SEAN ROSE AND IT IS ON THIS BLOODY LIST THIS <personal attack removed> HAS BEEN AT ME SINCE 2009 156.57.65.17 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC) And now you're deleting comments about my findings. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC) I removed that? I don't see how I was only typing up above. 156.57.65.17 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC) well then do a bloody IP check of Venus858885 I'm not that account I bloody dam well assure you. 156.57.65.17 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Yeah. You've already power-cycled your router and know nothing will come up. We're not stupid. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Continued ignorance of policies/guidelines by User:MaranoFan

Before I begin, I must admit that I have not handled this in the best of ways, and would not be surprised if a partial boomerang occurs and I end up with a block for some of my recent actions.

Simply put, MaranoFan is a diva and a problem editor. I'm sure several editors will agree with me that this editor has been stirring up a lot of unnecessary drama at various locations since late last year. That may sound harsh, but I (and others) have made many attempts to assume good faith, but there comes a point when someone simply becomes too stubborn to collaborate with. I could list a number of problems with his/her editing, but I'll save everyone the time and just get to the main issue at hand:

Willful ignorance of policies and guidelines, mainly in regards to non-free file uploads. A month ago, s/he was blocked for repeated problematic uploads – specifically, replacing JPGs with PNGs when there is no difference in the files beyond a different format and a larger file size, and not tagging orphaned files for deletion, despite multiple warnings from other editors. These warnings were typically responded to by blanking and imposing userspace bans.

Eventually, MaranoFan stopped trying to fight the block and agreed to serve it out, without demonstrating an understanding of what led to this block. Now that they are returning to similar behavior (uploading non-free album covers at an arbitrary size of 300x300 px, even if this makes file size and/or dimensions larger – violating WP:NFCC#3b – or if the cover was not originally a perfect square, or both), it's apparent they're just going to continue on with their ways until they end up blocked again.

Not that this applies exclusively to file uploads. Here, s/he restores an unhelpful acronym dab for a subject not known by its acronym after being made aware of WP:DABACRONYM. As noted, attempts to discuss on their talk page are usually blanked with some sort of "bully"/"stalker" name-calling.

My recommended course of action, since this user is clearly going to ignore temporary blocks and edit however they wish without regards to policies and guidelines, is to indefinitely block him/her until s/he agrees to a topic ban from non-free files (both uploading them and altering their use in articles). –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Admins, see discussion at User_talk:Only#Frequent_removal which was brought to my page in the last 24 hours. I've sent the discussion here because I'm not looking to get heavily involved in this on-going drama. I hope others are willing to look into this and take action. I think all three users (Chasewc91, MaranoFan, and Winkelvi) are disrupting the project with edit wars and personal attack-laced debates across multiple pages and action must be taken to prevent further disruption. only (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I have acknowledged that some of my recent behavior (namely, the warring with MF) was in the wrong, and I have also stopped it. I brought this here to sort this out so that hopefully no further action will be necessary (including for MF, should s/he properly address the problematic behavior). At the moment, I do not see how MF's continued ignorance of P&G can be prevented without a block. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Non admin comment: I would strongly suggest an interaction ban between all three users involved (MF, Wink, and Chase). They clearly don't want to play nice with each other. -- Calidum 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the problem is between myself/MF and WV/MF – WV and I have no problems with one another. Second of all, the problems I have with MF (I cannot speak for WV) stem from MF's inability to accept criticism of their edits or abide to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Anytime any editor has a problem with MF's edits, s/he is quick to cry "bully!" and announce bans from their talk page. Imposing interaction bans for attempting to correct MF's errors is going to send us all down a slippery slope where MF will exaggerate any conflict with any user, which will in turn require interaction bans for anyone who doesn't edit to his/her liking if we're going to follow such a precedent. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose IB proposed by Calidum. The facts show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support interaction ban between Chasewc91 and MaranoFan as well as ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. Nothing to warrant a ban between Winkelvi and Chasewc91, though. We don't need anymore arguments between them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I oppose your proposed IB per WP:HA#NOT. When one looks at the history in depth, the problem is MaranoFan, not these other editors. I admit this has not been easy to see, considering that I supported your proposal in the recent past. However, it has become clear over time that MaranoFan isn't willing to conform to what's expected of him. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. While I admittedly have not handled my own behavior in the best way in my interactions with MF, the root problem is their inability to edit according to guidelines. To restrict me and WV from cleaning up after MF when s/he edits contrary to P&G would harm, not help, the encyclopedia. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll withdraw my initial idea and limit it to a interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi. -- Calidum 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that necessary? Why can't we just deal with the problem under discussion? I don't see how Winkelvi has contributed to the current situation. The solution here does not involve any kind of IB, so I wish other editors would stop bringing that up. I think this is a case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". No hammer is required here. MaranoFan has a problem that does not involve anyone else. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If you think more needs to be done sanction MaranoFan, that's fine. But that doesn't excuse Winkelvi for the actions he's taken. This recent edit war is just one example. -- Calidum 03:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that you participated in the RfC on the talk page and voted in favor of MaranoFan's image choice (and against Winkelvi), as well as participating in a very minor "hatting" war on the talk page, you may not be the most neutral party here. In other words, you are involved in a content dispute with Winkelvi, and may be proposing this IB to gain an upper hand. I don't think Winkelvi should edit war, and I believe he should try to hold himself to 1RR, but that has little to do with the problem under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad you think so highly of me. I previously backed Winkelvi when he filed an SPI against MaranoFan and defended him in a related thread here. -- Calidum

• Comment As Chasewc91 pointed out at the beginning of the AN/I and Viriditas also noted, MaranoFan has a definite problem working with other editors and following guidelines and policies. None of us are perfect, but I think a quick once-over of the history of MFs edits, edit wars, talk-page postings (on others' userspace as well as his own), and various other questionable actions (listed above by Chasewc91) gives a complete picture: something needs to be done about his attitude and approach. He just came off a month-long block and is already back at AN/I? That's the sign of something more than the usual "doesn't understand Wikipedia", in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: (edit conflict) There are a lot of things that I noticed when going through this discussion. I realised that MaranoFan disliked people calling him/her "MF", but it seems like nobody gives a damn about that here. MaranoFan tend to call just anyone a "bully" and used the term "wikihounding" incorrectly. Replacing JPEG files with PNG files are common, but the users usually change the file to 300px (if it can be) and upload the new one with a lower file size, before removing the old one and replacing it at the article. This one misconception is that users tend to use the {{db-f1}} template, but they are just supposed to tag the original JPEG file as orphaned. I can name you editors who do that, including me, but I will just not waste time. I think the interaction ban is a great idea, as I do not think Chase would want to meet with this editor anymore. MaranoFan is a really troublemaker editor. S/he tells people to "assume good faith" when s/he him/herself does not do that, and even calling Chase's action as "vandalism". Such hypocritical acts cannot be tolerated, regardless of gender, religion or size. However, Chase might really have been wikihounding MaranoFan too, or it just turned up to be pure coincidences that Chase just kept bumping into MaranoFan. MaranoFan also asked at my talk page, regarding on whether a website is a reliable source. This shows that the user might be gradually improving on his/her demeanour, which serves as great news for us. Please ping me if any of you replied to this comment. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: MaranoFan is on a script-enforced wikibreak through April 10, likely to "lay low" and avoid sanctions as a result of this ANI. I do not see how s/he will change their ways upon return, thus I still think a preventative block / topic ban would be helpful. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. We are just going to be back here in a month. If there's no consensus for a block, which I would support, then what about preventing the problem, such as a ban on image uploads and image editing? Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a supporter of draconian solutions such as topic or interaction-type bans, but I think in this case -- since the editor has apparently bolted, isn't taking part in this discussion, and refuses to change his behavior -- it's about all that can happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• MaranoFan has been a problem editor for a long time, that much is clear. Interaction bans are typically more trouble than they're worth. As far as I'm concerned (since we don't do "preventative" blocks) one could decide if MaranoFan should be blocked indefinitely for a battleground attitude and for, frankly, lacking the competence required to edit here. But if they're really on some sort of a break right now (first time I heard of that--Bishzilla, a javascript pocket?), what's the point of it? Or did this break start while this was going on? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, the "break" started not long after this report was filed. Which is interesting to me, because I thought it strange he was able to come up with the script so quickly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's a kind of ragequitting, I suppose, or a variety of closing one's eyes so the monsters will disappear. (Speaking of monsters: holy shit, we have 70 articles on Taylor Swift?) As Chase points out below MaranoFan is troublesome and misguided, but that that would be a reason not to block is news to me. The non-free bit is not the only area where their edits are problematic, though it might warrant a topic ban: it's the overall behavior that I've found problematic--the edit warring, the refusal to listen, the oscillation between fuck you and I love you. None of it is productive. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I've had people call variously for a long-block, topic and interaction bans where I am concerned, I know how it feels to have people discussing me in that fashion. As a result, I'm always hesitant to comment in favor of such bans/blocks. Then again, I know that in my case, every time that has happened, I have learned something from the experience and have made a real effort toward positive changes in my editing/attitude/behavior because of it. This kind of thing has been discussed before where MaranoFan is concerned (the same with his counterpart and wiki-buddy, User:Lips Are Movin, who has also mysteriously disappeared off the radar) and nothing changed positively. He just came off a month-long block, nothing changed positively. All of this plus the script induced break in addition to his talk page and edit summary taunts does seem like he's flipping us (the community) off. Is an indef/VERY long block or topic ban the answer? Even so, I'm still hesitant to say 'yes' (for the reasons stated above). I trust wise administrators (such as yourself, Drmies to make the right decision. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WV, I feel the same way (well, I haven't been suggested for a permaban as often as you have...), and my efforts here are kind of half-hearted and half-assed. I'm not going to make any decision here since a. I don't know what's best and b. MaranoFan and I have had an interaction or two, and while I think I can be pretty objective, appearances are important too. I'd like for a (closing) admin to see if, for instance, there is enough evidence and consensus here for a "smaller" solution--if those non-free things are problematic (they already were a few months ago), then a topic ban there might be appropriate for now. Thanks; I appreciate your reluctance. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

11 minutes after the report was filed, to be exact.

A indefinite block could certainly be in the cards, but I don't know if that would be most helpful. MaranoFan is troublesome and misguided, but I'll give credit where credit is due: s/he at least tries to edit constructively. Edit warring and problematic uploads aside, s/he does have a strong focus on bringing articles to good article status (Lips Are Movin was briefly listed as a GA, and s/he attempted to bring Meghan Trainor to GA as well). That's why I propose the topic ban from non-free files – keep them away from their most problematic area of editing and let them carry on as usual otherwise. (And if edit warring continues to be an issue – not right now – impose 1RR sanctions.) I'm also concerned that blocking would just lead to sockpuppetry, seeing as MF is a domineering editor who has frequently threatened to leave the project only to keep coming back. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know about MaranoFan, but I find Winkelvi (talk · contribs) to be a problematic editor, prone to edit warring, article ownership, disruptive editing, over reliance on "rules" (i.e. rules lawyering), and inflexible. Just sayin'. Skyerise (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You have diffs to support those accusations? NE Ent 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Refresh

MaranoFan has frequent mood swings, as shown from his user page once at this diff. It is not a surprise if MaranoFan replies with anger peppered in his/her messages. I also agree with Chasewc91 that blocking might not work, as it might lead to sockpuppetry, and I also agree that MaranoFan tries to edit constructively, but still need to work a little bit more, specifically on knowing the policies and guidelines. Recently, MaranoFan (for some reason), reverted my edit at Immortals (song), with no explanation. As seen at Special:Diff/651170360, he changed the current format of PNG to JPEG again. If you carry on, you should realise that I uploaded a PNG version of the file, as 300px PNGs are preferred over JPEGs. MaranoFan just simply went to the JPEG file and uploaded a 300px one, and then did not nominate the one I uploaded for deletion, which troubled Chase to do it. Firstly, that user knows that PNG is preferred over JPEG, why did he do this? I am perplexed by this situation. As for Lips Are Movin, s/he is a great editor and a tireless contributor. I can understand why she felt demoralised when the GA nomination failed, as s/he really spent the effort to make the article better. And, let me reiterate, MaranoFan has mood swings frequently. Therefore, we might have to handle this situation in a firmer way. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In the example image presented above by Nahnah4, MaranoFan has failed to follow the important advice I gave them on February 15: They failed to tag the removed image File:Fall Out Boy - Immortals.png for F5 speedy deletion, and they failed to tag the new image file:Immortals-Fall Out Boy.jpg for orphaned revisions. Spot checks on their recent uploads show that they are making no effort to follow these steps so that other editors don't have to clean up after them, something that I spent several days doing after their last block. Not the best use of our super-limited admin resources. I think we need to enact a topic ban on image uploads for MaranoFan. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC) I just want to add that a lot of the image uploads they did on the 12th are for articles that did not have an album cover previously and are perfectly okay. Though a few are large in size, they don't have the incredibly slow load times in the previous uploads (which were png files created from jpgs; these were really bad). It's just the uploads on the 13th and 14th that are problematic. In my time working with the image collection, I have seen quite a few editors who think it's important to have "their" upload as the one used, and will edit war to make this happen. This wastes a lot of admin time, as all the orphaned revisions and files have to be deleted. It also generates a lot of edit wars, disruption, time-wasting and ill will among the small groups of people who are interested in uploading album covers and film posters. MaranoFan seems confused too about whether or not png is preferred over jpg. See for example here where MaranoFan says in the edit summary that there's "Nothing preferable about png" and here where they say "preferred 300px PNG cover". Finally, I am not impressed with the self-imposed wikibreak as an alternative to discussing their actions and receiving feedback in a mature way. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for MaranoFan

Only, Calidum, Viriditas, SNUGGUMS, Winkelvi, Nahnah4, Drmies, Skyerise, NE Ent, Diannaa, and anyone else who wishes to comment: please indicate below whether or not you would support a topic ban on file uploads for MaranoFan. Please also consider:

• Whether the ban should be definite or indefinite
• Under what conditions the ban may be lifted
• To what extent the ban should apply: non-free file uploads, image uploads, any file uploads, altering the use of files in articles, discussions regarding files, tagging for maintenance, etc.

I know that some users have mentioned support/opposition in the above discussion, but I think it's time for a clear-cut !vote on the matter. Please propose any other bans/sanctions (1RR, interaction bans, etc.) in a new sub-section. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban for files, broadly construed, that may be lifted only if MaranoFan demonstrates a thorough, clear understanding of the problems that have brought them to this ANI. This user has repeatedly displayed a clear disregard for the non-free content policy and the time/energy of the administrators who work with files, and a clear disinterest in discussing the matter with other editors or learning from previous sanctions. There should be no tolerance for an editor who chooses to vanish when under scrutiny, only to return some time later and repeat their problematic actions. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with 6 months if the mentorship is in place as Winkelvi has suggested. Thinking on it, indefinite might be too harsh for a first ban, but hopefully the guidance from someone more experienced will straighten out the behavior. In fact, an indef with the option to "demonstrate understanding" may only lead to more trouble if MaranoFan BSes their way out of it only for us to end up back here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month topic ban for files, that may be lifted only if MaranoFan demonstrates a thorough, clear understanding of the problems that have brought them to this ANI in addition to being mentored by an experienced editor (preferably a willing administrator) for the six month period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support 6 month ban for files and being mentored per Winkelvi. User should have another chance if all goes well during that period. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Amount of image uploads were large, thus I am supporting an indefinite topic ban on uploading files. After Maranofan demonstrates that they can contribute to Wikipedia without making any copyvios, this community imposed restriction would be lifted. If there is a 6 month topic ban, then we may need to come back here for another topic ban. VandVictory (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with VandVictory. There's no sense in letting MaranoFan continue uploading if they haven't learned their lesson. There's an option for the ban to be lifted if they can demonstrate knowledge of our guidelines, so it might as well be indefinite. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 months ban on image uploads per the discussions above. I chose three months, as MaranoFan is seemingly learning their mistakes, and the ban will be lifted once s/he learns his/her lesson. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 11:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• On what planet are they learning from their mistakes? They were blocked for such behavior for a month only to return to it immediately upon return. The only reason they're not acting up now is because they chose to vanish to avoid scrutiny. I don't see any reason why a 3-month ban won't only lead to MF returning to such behavior afterward (if they don't impose a wikibreak script throughout the whole thing) and we end up back here discussing this again. Blocks and bans aren't supposed to be punishment or to make someone learn a lesson – they're supposed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 13:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, Chasewc91 Then 6 months then, but I really can see that s/he is trying to learn from his/her mistakes. I understand that this behaviour is unacceptable, and I know that the self-imposed "wikibreak" is a hypocritical shit to do. Just let MF learn his/her mistakes towards the encyclopedia for the next 6 months. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I really can see that s/he is trying to learn from his/her mistakes. Again, how? What specifically makes you see this? Is it the return to disruptive file editing, warring, non-tagging of orphaned files, etc. immediately after a one-month block for the same behavior? I'm not trying to be rude, but I really cannot see what you're seeing. Please enlighten me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

user ian.thomson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, user:Ian.Thomson keeps putting warnings on my articles, and other warnings without saying what i do wrong and without responding to my questions, ian.thomson is not even a moderator at all, WikiElvis1965 (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: WikiElvis1965 is currently under sockpuppet investigation. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke talk page access of Turn In 4 What?! please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting Turn In 4 What?! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have their talk page access revoked. Account already blocked by Soap as a sock of Gabucho181. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181. Pinging Mike V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mike V • Talk 04:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User EditorOctober1990

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

EditorOctober1990 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added enormous detail to plot summaries that are already bloated. He has received numerous warnings from several users but continues undeterred. If a block is not in order, he/she at least needs to be warned by an admin. I have notified him/her about this report. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide more information (especially diffs) of: (1) the behavior (2) your warnings and other users' warnings to stop (3) any response from EditorOctober1990 (4) support for EditorOctober1990's increase in plot summaries if it exists (5) any previous discipline against the user you are aware of (6) any policy related to plot summaries that is relevant. Thanks, David Tornheim (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand that admins have a thankless job. But if you look at the his talk page you will see many, many warnings and attempts to reach out to him. There is also a list of the articles on his talk page he has added enormously to plot summaries. The relevant guideline is WP:PLOTBLOAT, which he has exceeded in the extreme.. If it's not obvious from his talk page, I guess he will continue endlessly. Thanks again, but most of us trying to control him are doing all we can and don't have time for to place all the information requested here. Sundayclose (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And there's no need to, Sundayclose. Your common-sense report is fine. I don't understand why David Tornheim listed all those non-existent "requirements". If you take him for an admin, you're mistaken. It's easy to see the extent of the problem via a quick look at the contributions and the user's talkpage. EditorOctober1990 has never edited a talkpage, including their own, never used an edit summary, and never changed their practice despite warnings. Blocked indefinitely per disruptive editing and unresponsiveness, with a little advice. Thank you for reporting, Sundayclose. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RGloucester (talk · contribs) has twice [234][235] removed a CFD template from the category, having previously expressed impatience at the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For once, I agree with RGloucester. The request is doomed. Close it quickly and move on. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems that with the requisite amount of grumbling, RGloucester is at least playing by the rules at this point, and has challenged the CFD on procedural grounds. However, something should probably be done about RG's behaviour around this. After observing their behaviour around the GamerGate case and topic area, to see one person of questionable intelligence voiced some "concerns"[236] in the Speedy discussion once again raises doubts on how well RGloucester can cope with being challenged on anything Wikipedia related. Threatening statements such as Carry out the move at once, or action will need to be taken.[237] and This must go through at once, or I will be forced to request administrative action against any who obfuscate it.[238] are certainly indicative of the kind of behaviour we don't want to see on this site, and it might be good if RGloucester be encouraged to take a short break from the Ukrainian crisis topic area and evaluate their own behaviour before returning to it. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks for now like RGloucester has decided to follow procedure at the CfD instead of removing the notice. That said, the comments on the diffs Fayenatic highlights don't look very impressive to me. "If you can X, then I can Y" is, to my understanding, textbook WP:POINT. I'm also not particularly impressed by the argument, from the diff coldacid provided, that "voicing concerns" does not amount to "opposition", especially when combined with other edit summaries that seem to acknowledge that it was indeed "opposition". That strikes me as some rather strange Wikilawyering. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• When was I going to be informed of this ridiculous street circus? I suggest that the two above editors should "take a break" and evaluate their own behaviour in relation to matters that are none of their own business. There is absolutely no reason to tolerate the absurd obfuscation put forth by editors that serve as nothing but roadblocks to progress. The category must match the main page, which was renamed by an RM. C2D is the criteria. That poor old request sat in there for months. No one really "opposed" anything, other than to make bunk arguments that have no relevance with regard to the moving of the category, which must happen per C2D. Therefore, I made another request. I was greeted by the above editor, who has no interest in progress. Instead, he labelled the request "controversial", when there is nothing "controversial" at all about C2D. Two pages will match, and must match. That is essential. I refuse to submit to bureaucratic measures introduced by disruptive editors, such as the above mentioned "CfD". There is nothing to discuss. C2D. This is a speedy move. Get on with it. It has been months since the page was renamed, already. What a bunch of rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And again RGloucester's inability to assume good faith on the part of other editors is on full display.[239][240] Not to mention the sense of ownership from comments like matters that are none of their own business. Also as pointed out by Black Falcon in the CfD there is no requirement to have categories matching article names[241] even if it may be common behaviour. I believe that RGloucester has done some good work in the topic area around the current crisis in Ukraine, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour demonstrated above. I would ask that an uninvolved admin review this situation and act accordingly. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming "good faith" does not mean being naive, which I am not. I know who you are, and what type of person you are. I can see why you've come here. Do not expect me to bow to you. Instead of muckraking, perhaps you could do something that benefits the encylopaedia? I imagine not. I would ask that an uninvolved administrator review the editor above's contribution history, his presence here, and his presence on the encylopaedia. If one does that, one will understand why he's here, why's he's doing what he's doing, and why his seemingly "sweet" words are nothing more than nothing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you would spend time actually investigating my contributions instead of casting aspersions, you'd notice that I actually do make regular and productive changes in various areas of the encyclopedia's article space, not just observing and being a (mostly) impartial commentator in project spaces. Were it not for your poor behaviour with regard to this CfD, I was quite happy with not even remembering you exist here. However, your battlefield mentality outweighs your positive contributions and needs to come to an end. It'd be best if you would make the attitude adjustments needed for that yourself, but your attitude in every topic area I've seen you involved in makes me doubt that anything short of admin involvement will fix that. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the above editor has been part of an off-Wikipedia harassment campaign of me for months. I was made aware of this some time ago, but I've chosen to ignore it in the spirit of forgiveness. I imagine that his suits should be ignored for this reason. I have no "battlefield mentality". I merely maintain the encylopaedia, write articles, &c. When simple things such as C2D category moves are delayed for months, that's an indication of a failure of order within the encylopaedia. I took the hands off approach, allowing the first speedy request submitted by the RM closer to languish in idleness for months. I made a new request a few days ago, to ensure that the proper order was finally carried out. Imagine my shock when more bureaucratic blocks were put in front of a common sense and necessary measure, such as a "CfD". That was followed by this AN/I thread, a thread I was not even made aware of in accordance with the page's regulations. The article and category have been disunited for months, and this is a great travesty of disorder. It must be remedied, by any means necessary. I should be happy to seek action against the above Mr Acid, but I fear that such an action on my part would merely cause more trouble than it is worth. As such, I suppose he can be excised from this thread. Ignoring him, the mater is simple. The category move should've been done speedily months ago. Before this thread was even opened, I replaced the CfD tag, deeming that such was an unproductive route. There is nothing to discuss here, other than the failing of the encylopaedia to curtail disruption, bureaucratic messes, and the failure of the encylopaedia to protect those that produce its content from off-Wikipedia harassment. I will happily put those matters to bed, however. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

My only previous interaction with RGloucester was with regard to the cultural Marxism deletion debacle last year (which was for me more of an interaction with a different editor anyway) and after taking a self-imposed breather from the project, I had no other interactions with them prior to this. I've certainly come across other articles that the editor had worked on, especially in the Ukraine crisis space, but I (a) have no issue with their edits to those articles, and (b) did not interact with them in any way regarding those articles. In all the time between the aforementioned incident and this one, I have cycled and participated in a movement that tends to be categorized by a group of certain political orientation as a "harassment campaign", but I have not engaged in any harassing behaviour through or because of it.

I've been monitoring ANI, AE and ARCA since the Infoboxes case review, due to an interest in the case and certain parties to it, and other things I've come across since then have kept me interested and even helped me find new spaces on Wikipedia in where I can make productive changes. This also means looking at the issues that come up, and offering observations and suggestions when I look into various items in which I feel I may be able to offer something useful.

When I read Fayenatic london's complaint, I looked into the issue (the Ukraine crisis is a matter of interest to me due to my heritage). What I saw was behaviour from RGloucester that is not generally tolerated on Wikipedia: trying to ram through a category move via speedy, where a past full CfD ended without consensus; and using uncivil language (insults, demands and threats) as quoted above. I personally have no real problem with the category move, but I do have an issue with RG's behaviour in this space and feel that it is indicative of a mentality that we don't want to promote here. Honestly, they need to realize that not everyone who disagrees with them, or who are involved in things they don't like, are not necessarily out to get them. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is this "they"? Are you implying that I'm a meat-puppet? This is just the latest in the series of unfounded accusations by Mr Acid. I would go further than his own statement. I would say that I've had no direct interaction with him. I was only made aware of his participation in the off-Wikipedia harassment campaign by another charitable and sympathetic editor. He has participated in this smearing of my character off-Wikipedia for months, so it is no surprise to see him appear here out of the blue. I was not ramming a damn thing through anything, and no CfD has ever taken place. I was merely following our procedures and policies, as is mandated by participation in this encylopaedia. The only mentality that we should not promote here is the one that allows such editors as Mr Acid to play fun with editors they dislike in the back-alleys of the internet, arranging their harassment. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

They, definition 2: (the third-person singular, sometimes proscribed) A single person, previously mentioned, especially if of unknown or non-binary gender. Must everything I say and do must be some kind of attack? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Let us further note that I am not the only one finding RGloucester's behaviour around this CfD to be beyond the pale. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"They" can only be plural. It is clear that you could only have meant to refer to me as if I were multiple people. That is nothing less than an attack. RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of that matter, I think it is important to recognise the heart of the matter. That's to say, the encylopaedia is of paramount importance. Organisation, order, content: these must be preserved, maintained. Obstructions to the order set forth by our policies demand action. That's standard. The main function of administrators on this encylopaedia is to curtail disruption, to allow for the smooth functioning of procedures and editorial processes. My opposition to bureaucratic measures introduced for no good reason, and explicitly un-necessary according to our policies, is both warranted and support by said policies. It is sad enough to see such a simple request that is specified for in policy to languish for months, without reason. These kinds of roadblocks are exactly the types of things that Wikipedia is supposed to oppose, i.e. WP:NOTBURO. I am merely trying to get things done that need to be done, to ensure order. It is natural to be repulsed to bureaucracy in such a place such as this. One is quite lucky that I was patient enough to wait months for the original request. My patience has run out. Is this charade, with Mr Acid, participant in an ongoing off-Wikipedia harassment campaign, going to be allowed to continue, his sweet facade glistening in the low lamplight that lights the inquisition chambers of AN/I? Will the category and the article remain out of sync? Will more and more disruption, unproductive, and detrimental to the development of content, be allowed to fester? RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Seven centuries of use doubling as the singluar to avoid calling people "it" must be wrong. Please accept my apologies and those of everyone who has ever used "they" as the singular throughout all of history. Perhaps the admins might see it in their heart to delete everything I've ever done on Wikipedia in the past eight years just so that you don't have to worry about me, the very boogieman, from ever haunting you on Wikipedia again. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Wikipedia help Daesh (ISIS) kill people? No

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The USS Stetham article lists the people in command. Recently, IS threatened to kill individual servicemen in the US and posted contact information on how to kill them. Wikipedia should not help kill people.

I don't want to delete 5 paragraphs myself because someone will say that is vandalism. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Claiming that including the information is helping ISIS is an appeal to fear and a slippery slope. Still, the information is not sourced, and has been tagged as unsourced for months. If the information was verified, then it would be public knowledge. As it is, I've removed it for being completely unsourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is available on the Navy's page for the ship, in fact - it is a direct copy/paste of that info.. were it not in the public domain (due to government source), I'd call it a copyvio. --Versageek 00:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, I have no objections to adding a new properly cited and paraphrased version of the info. I certainly don't think anyone can accuse the US Navy of helping ISIS. Ian.thomson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ABC News is reporting that ISIS got most of their death list info from public sources, including the Navy. So the excuse of the Navy listing it means it's safe is a bad argument. Go ahead help killers but I did my job telling you about the problem. I will not edit war. You win... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tough sailor ouch (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you high? That the Navy made that information public means they feel it's perfectly safe to make public. If we take down the information from this site, it's still public knowledge -- that's how public knowledge works. Also, there's a difference between being a hero and being a paranoid fearmonger. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean, accusing us of helping ISIS for repeating public information is like standing in front of a mirror and screaming at your reflection to stop imitating you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TailsUTTP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vandal User:TailsUTTP is repeatedly removing a declined unblock request in violation of WP:BLANKING, so I'm reporting it here so the action can be considered by admins reviewing the latest unblock request. (I won't revert further myself.) Squinge (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably easiest to just remove talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MizsaBot13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is the point of MizsaBot13? I am no editor to wikipedia (never made a single edit) but I am an avid reader. I have noticed that the talk page on MANY MANY MANY different articles associated with the current geopolitical situation are automatically archived by MizsaBot13. Can someone explain, first, the reasoning for archiving a talk page and second, why the responsibility of doing so is given to a single user? (in almost every page I have viewed myself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.198.102 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@24.224.198.102:: Archiving a talk page prevents it from becoming too long. If conversations were never archived, talk pages can become too long to load. MizsaBot13 is not a user. It is a bot (an automated program) which has the task of archiving talk pages when they become too long. Being an auutomated program, the bot does not have reasons or rationales as to why it archives certain threads on the talk page, it simply archives all those threads which have been inactive for a set period of time, which is usually an indication that the discussion is no longer active. The conversation is not deleted, it is simply moved to a different page, so you can still find it. If you wish to continue a specific conversation with additional comments, you're quite allowed to return the conversation to the main talk page. --Jayron32 14:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fartthe3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Fartthe3 is an indefinitely blocked user, however they are using their talkpage (User talk:Fartthe3 inappropriately to attack Wikipedia and its users here, here, here, here and here. Please can you revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accomodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I've added your request to the queue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheSimpsonsStuff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user has been blocked, but is abusing their talkpage rights here, here and here. Please can you revoke talk page privileges. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-warring on a dozen project pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

P. S. Burton (talk · contribs) has earlier today decided single-handedly to misapply MOS: to about a dozen project pages, and edit-war along the way. See his contribs for affected pages, this probably requires more than the usual intervention (and I don't want to bother listing dozens of diffs), so I am reporting here. Choor monster (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They were told to stop and have, I don't know what admin action would be constructive here. Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, one editor Blueboar (talk · contribs) picked up the baton on one of the pages. I haven't seen the editor agree to stop, just a pause right now. Choor monster (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as the editor who first confronted P. S. Burton about this, this report here at ANI is completely unnecessary. He went on a spree removing contractions on project pages (citing MOS:CONTRACTION, which applies only to articles), I noticed and reverted everywhere (with a perhaps-not-completely-to-the-point edit summary), he re-imposed his removals. So I went to his talk page, there was quick back and forth, someone else chimed in, and obviously PSB came to understand the error of his ways. ANI is for "incidents requiring intervention" -- honestly, has the bar dropped this low? It's over. Do we have to rake yet another editor over the coals? EEng (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChrisAmsel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ChrisAmsel (talk · contribs)

I think this guy needs to be blocked. Some of his edits aren't obvious vandalism or haven't been reverted but that might be because people who see those edits aren't familiar with the facts about the specific topic. As far as I can tell, most if not all of his edits are about introducing factual inaccuracies on purpose. Obvious examples: saying that Greece is a puppet state of Germany, and changing a capital city, and saying that Belarus is a satellite state of Russia. These edits have been reverted by others, but some other edits of his are still live and I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to just revert every single edit he's done. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides those edits, I'm legit, dude. I'll stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisAmsel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Afraid s/he doesn't mean it. Reverting my correction and reintroducing pure fantasy numbers here. --T*U (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Besides those edits" - I only brought three examples here but I noticed others as well, and other editors did too, considering the reverts. I think every edit of yours is stealthy - or not so stealthy - vandalism, and any apologies or arguments can't save you. You need to be blocked indefinitely, IMO. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to both of you for catching this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone check through their edits and if they've been all reverted? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted everything that wasn't already reverted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I found some more edits to Next Singaporean general election that the reverting editor hadn't caught. rRegards! --T*U (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threat (such as it were)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over at User talk:VCMExamboard. User got blocked for username violations, I declined the block, and now claims that we will be hearing from their legal department soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

TPA revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The personal attacks of Samudrakula

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor is horrendously uncivil. His edit summaries are often threatening, intimidating and with no proper merit, and other editors have noted this as well. Where is everyone? There was a time in Wikipedia when you would be warned against personal attacks.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where are the personal attacks? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Does "uncivil" mean personal compliments?--114.134.89.21 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, found one. Could this be because you're a sock of User:Bazaan? That was who they were discussing. And you did edit one of the comments by another Bazaan sock as if those comments were your own. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you not read the diffs I provided? Samudrakula attacks out of the blue and unprovoked. Others attack only as a response, but never at this level.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

An obvious sock. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by CrazyAces489

CrazyAces489 accused a number of editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse of being racist saying they were biased against African American athletes. Besides the original comment, he made additional ones that were removed by Vanjagenije [242]. The SPI accusations are bad enough, but accusing a bunch of editors of being racists is a total violation of WP:NPA. Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's also a WP:AGF Issue. Did they redact their allegations? Weegeerunner (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• He could have made his SPI complaint without the nasty stench of a racism allegation. It was unnecessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Weegeerunner, you'll notice he not only hasn't retracted his allegations, he keeps spreading them (see below).Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I simply make a larger number of articles that consist of individuals who are African American. [243]. I pointed out the statistic that 6 of 7 articles nominated for deletion all at once were African American. Every article was deleted except for James Thompson (a black national champion in Judo) and Karl Geis (who happens to be white). [244].

Racism did exist in the martial arts especially in the 1960's and individuals formed federations to combat it such as Steve Sanders (karate). In AFD,I stated that racism existed in Judo [245]. To which I received a reply of "it didn't seem to stop other African Americans from reaching the Olympics. [246]. I stated that only 1 black person reached the Olympics during that period of the 1960's. [247] . Racial discrimination existed in the United States as we can see via programs like Affirmative action in the United States, John Carlos was kicked out of the Olympics in 1968 for protests against racism, the US Government was actively working against civil rights groups via COINTELPRO, even Olympic Gold Medalists suffered huge discrimination for being black and engaging in interracial relationships Milt Campbell. My point being that ignoring (or downplaying) the fact that many of the individuals werent given a lot of media attention to which can plausibly be attributed to discrimination. Fact remains that Racial inequality in the United States still exists. Now I am deemed a racist because I pointed out a statistic? Should I ignore that statistic?

I believe this is retaliation for putting up a Sockpuppet Investigation on the individuals (which wasn't the first sockpuppet investigation into the trio). They have accused me of being barely literate. [248], [249], [250], [251], [252]. Have told me to "stick my head in the sand" [253] They claimed there was no indication of race in my articles [254] I stated the articles of individuals who are black are tagged with African American Portal. [255] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into the racism part of this except to say that CA489 has highlighted some... interesting... statistics and anomalies and from the outside, his interpretation those statistics doesn't seem way off-base. That doesn't mean those interpretations are correct but I don't think he's wrong to suggest it should be investigated. That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. The suggestion that editors have worked together to secure particular AFD results in this area is not new. In fact, it was the basis of the last sock-puppetry investigation which (while not drawing specific conclusions) did point out that there was a high degree of correlation between specific accounts in AFDs in this topic area, and we're talking now about some of the same accounts. This was admin Dennis Brown's closing statement there. Rather than do their damnedest to get some separation between the accounts and broaden their horizons to ensure that the same accusations couldn't be made again, it seems little has changed from the situation that concerned Dennis 3 years ago. Even in defending himself, one editor confirmed that, "yes when someone like [...] puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article...". At a minimum, this is a form of WP:TAGTEAM which, while not sock-puppetry, is concerning. I don't think anyone's hands are clean here. Strongly suggest CrazyAces489 leaves the SPI to do its work - there's a fine line between raising legitimate concerns in an SPI and making accusations you simply don't have evidence for. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Stalwart111, are you saying the victims are too blame? That it's OK to call editors racist and bigoted if they vote to delete poorly written articles on non-notable African American martial artists? This isn't about sockpuppets, it's about CrazyAces 489 calling a group of editors racist simply because they voted to delete some of his articles.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. - I think I made myself pretty clear on that point. You need to perhaps have a look at this from the perspective of an outsider - a group of editors who have been accused of meat-puppetry in the past (with well-respected admins drawing the conclusion that there was at least some collusion) collaborate to delete a series of articles. Upon being called out for the "collaboration" part (and before any accusations of racism) one of the editors confirms he does indeed track and tag-team on some articles. So an admittedly collaborative effort deletes a series of articles - what do those articles have in common to warrant that effort? The particular personal attacks used in retaliation certainly don't help. Whether you meant to or not, the result remains the same. CrazyAces489's comments were not appropriate, but you guys aren't helping yourselves either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to just leave this alone but a couple points need to be made. First of all it is my name on the SPI title and I have never previously been part of any investigation - this constant referral to the previously investigated trio is nonsense. Secondly in an attempt to answer the allegation I described how some of the overlap could occur. I actively search out and comment on newly created martial arts articles and those put of for deletion and make sure they are visible via categories, project tags, deletion sorting. This is not tag teaming by any stretch but knowing the behavior of other long term AfD contributers making the search more efficient (if this is so wrong wikipedia should remove the user contribution tag). I certainly disagree with the one example I gave enough to make that pretty clear. Now to the allegations of racial bias - I challenge anyone to find any sort of bias of any of the people listed in that SPI investigation. They/I are long term editors with a very long history in martial arts AfDs. The person making the allegation chooses to write articles about African-American athletes (no issue there) that have questionable notability (where the issue arises) - and that and only that is the overlap. I am at a loss what the false accusations of Sockpuppetry and suggestion of racism are meant to accomplish - both are certainly upsetting.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• CrazyAces489 has again missed the point. The discussion isn't about racism, it's about him calling a set of editors bigoted and racist without real proof.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm confused why we're allowing this to get so far off points. Hundreds of words about racism and the martial arts.....but nothing even sounding like Crazy retracting his allegations of racism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)