Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban?

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

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

explanation of concerns

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

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

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

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

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

My interactions with the user began here:

WhisperToMe's note

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

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

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

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

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

WhisperToMe's observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WhisperToMe's statements on sourcing

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

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

Skookum1's reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action is needed here post by Moonriddengirl

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

But there is ongoing hostility and incivility from Skookum1:

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

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

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

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

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

More Skookum Contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting

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

• Oppose per Skookum1. Volcanoguy 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing that requires anybody to be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Both here and over at WP:NORN, there is a consistent pattern of WP:Disruptive lack of WP:Civility, coupled with a dose of WP:IDHT with respect to WP:V and its reasons that may rise to a WP:Competence issue. Couple that with user:Skookum1's threats to take his ball and go home and it seems obvious. With 3 blocks in the last year all for WP:NPA, WP:Disruptive, maybe an indef is more appropriate. Paleking (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as one of the dozens of editors who have clashed with Skookum1 on thousands of talk pages, long overdue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. Civility issues seem apparent (mainly convinced by Moonriddengirl's posts and Skookum's walls of text), so a temp block might help reset the tone with a break. Very tough to gauge the actual situation with the walls of text here to comment on things like an interaction ban, but Skookum's behavior does seem high strung if asking for a page number was an issue for them. I'd say just take a break to take another stab at it later. If issues continue warranting an interaction ban, come back here with very clear examples supporting it so it's easier for uninvolved editors to get a read on it next time around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dividing response to User:Arther Rubin out of voting area

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

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

Long addition inserted in the Voting area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not true? Difs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Winkelvi

User page

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

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

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

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

Diff added: [9], note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the WP:AN3 dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw the "ping" of my user name. As I understand it, the language in question is [10]. Yes this is obviously a guarded reference to my report at AN3, but given his past record at that board, and his being blocked based on a "list of diffs" at that board in the past, I'm not sure how anyone other than Winkelvi is harmed by drawing attention to it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of harm, whether to others being attacked or to Winkelvi embarrassing himself: it's simply not allowed. His restoring the polemics is explicitly considered a form of disruptive editing. See link above to last month, when similar "anonymous" childish polemics on his user page were noticed and deleted by an admin. Also note Winkelvi's edit summaries: massive hypocrisy as he claims WP:OWNership. Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Bess Myerson

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

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

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

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

Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson[11] and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days,[12] six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why Viriditas believes his unsolicited opinion on my editing is relevant or why he thinks he knows what he's talking about in regard to any of the things he mentioned above, but he's getting so much wrong, it's nearly comical. Out of the blue (never having edited the Myerson article, that I can tell), he came to my talk page not once, not twice, but three times with claims that I was harassing Coretheapple. Which is totally incorrect. His edits to my talk page (where he admitted in the first comment, "I don't know what's going on between you and Coretheapple...") are found here [13]; [14]; [15]. His comments were totally inappropriate and became harassment, in my opinion (as are his comments above, the more I think about them). As far as the RfC he referenced where I was asking for advice at an administrator's talk page, the RfC was to be about a content dispute, not Coretheapple. Lastly, his suggestion I am a sock is ridiculous and I'd really appreciate him striking the accusation above. What he's doing is, in my view, surreal drama. If there was truly an issue with my edits or alleged disruption at the Myerson article, I would have been blocked for it days ago. For whatever reason, it appears Viriditas is interested in seeing me sanctioned for something, anything he can come up with. And I have no idea why. Like I said, this is all out of the blue. And weird, if you ask me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can respond as well. I dropped by the page a few days ago and made a lone post about the substance of the debate. From my perspective CoretheApple does appear correct that Bess Myerson hosted Miss America contests, and there is good sourcing supporting that.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] I don't plan on getting involved other than to briefly share my take on the evidence though, evidence that hopefully helped resolve the contention. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distracting material. Please return to Bess Myerson issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I "get" WP:RS just fine. As someone on the Autism Spectrum who sees the world differently than neurotypicals (such as those in this thread), I'm just seeing RS from a slightly different angle. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I am an old goat with bad eyes who sees the world even differently than you do. But I am bound by site policies and so are you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I am an old goat with bad eyes as well. And I never said nor implied I'm not bound by policy. In fact, as someone on the Spectrum, I'm likely much more aware of the "rules" in relation to my behavior in Wikipedia as well as in life. That's a hallmark of those of us with ASD. We are honest, we are straightforward in our behavior, and we are rule followers who have a hard time fathoming why anyone wouldn't be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I have a hard time fathoming why you are giving us a self-serving description of your character. The only thing that matters is your behavior on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)Because the only thing that makes sense to me regarding the treatment (behavior) I've been receiving and the accusations I've been subject of since I came to the Myerson article is that my motives and edits at the article as well as my comments on the article talk page have been completely misunderstood. If that's the case (and I believe it is), then explaining and asking for some understanding is warranted. Wikipedia editors aren't expected to androids that respond and behave in a canned manner, every one of us is a human being with a life story. It stands to reason that our life stories will color our editing as well as our interactions with other editors from time to time (or even more often than from time to time). The editors that don't fall into the typical category... are they to be dismissed and tossed aside and topic banned or should they be accepted and worked with in spite of their differences and the misunderstandings that may surround them? Sometimes I think Wikipedia editors get so wrapped up in editing and the various peripheral things surrounding their efforts that we forget everyone here is a real human being. What's more important, editors or edits? Remember, without editors there would be no edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Winkelvil, you are not medically qualified to assess the mental states of other users, and even if you were, you would not be able to do it in this thread. Your comments about neurotypicals in this thread is so far over the line, that I think you should be indefinitely blocked until you are able to understand and recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) "Neurotypical" is not a reference to "mental states", it's a common term used that references those not on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently, from your comments, it's obvious you know nothing about Autism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Your medical claims couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. I am sure that there is a neurological explanation for much misconduct on Wikipedia. So what? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) It most certainly is a reference to a mental state, and you have no business assessing, diagnosing, or commenting on who is or who isn't neurotypical in this thread. The only business you have here is responding directly to the concerns about your behavior, which, as far as I can tell, you have ignored, denied, distracted from, and brushed off. Do not make any further comments about autism or neurotypicals in this thread. You seem to do so only to denigrate others and justify your bad behavior. It's not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) All I'm seeing is more ignorance on what Autism is ("medical claims" is one example). I'm also seeing yet another misunderstanding regarding what I've said. Editors on the Spectrum are in Wikipedia, and it's time the neurotypical editors get used to it and start to understand what it means. Just like in the real world (which Wikipedia isn't). I will not be dictated to by a non-administrator regarding comments about ASDs in this thread or any other. It's not a verboten subject. Such demands are discriminatory and I hope someone with an influential Wikipedia voice takes notice. I will NOT be quiet about discrimination. Ever. I suggest all of you read User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact as well as Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors and [24]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) But Viriditas is correct. You gave made no substantive reply. You HAVE brushed off, ignored, denied and distracted from the issues evident to NE Ent, Viriditas and myself, as well as to involved editor Core. Your invoking a medical condition is in extremely poor taste, and Viriditas is correct that you are in no position to diagnose the medical state of other editors, who may well be struggling more than you claim to be but are not advertising it quite as flamboyantly as you do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(@NE Ent). It's a bit more than that. The user does not appear to be reading sources, or has been reading them and not understanding them, and generally ignoring/disregarding/not grasping what is said to him. I had never previously encountered this person until he appeared on my user talk page a few days ago concerning my edit summary here[25]. Ms. Myerson had suffered a bout of ovarian cancer, and someone had tagged it "When?" I looked at the reference at the end of the sentence, added when she had cancer, and said in my edit summary "Rather than tagging "when," more constructive to look at the footnoted article, which gives the date." Winkelvi went on my page to say as follows

Re: this edit and edit summary [7], it's actually more appropriate to put the content in the article than in a footnote. Casual readers or readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia goings-on-in-editing are unlikely to look at a footnote and will wonder the same as I: when? where?. We're here to inform readers not force them to look deeper for content that can just as easily be inserted in the body of the article.[26]

As you can see, I very clearly and explicitly did not call for text to be put in a footnote, and I did not do so. I simply said that the answer to the "when" question is in the footnoted source. There were two other replies, both misunderstandings on his part.[27] At no time did he acknowledge error or misunderstanding, he just charged on, and as far as I know he believes to this day that he was in the right. What happened on my talk page is no big deal, but having this person hammer away on the article talk page and in the article itself and not getting the point is disruptive. He blames this problem on everything and everybody except himself. Lamentably this editor's position seems to be that "that's the way he is," and I guess it's just our tough luck if he's disruptive. He is just a burden that we have to bear, and if we don't like it we can lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, but you see, the problem was that WV treated the situation as a zero-sum game, that he was "right" and the various obits describing her as host were wrong, and said on the page[28] that "Myerson was never the show host" in the face of all the sources that were offered up. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Support The editor, WV, has shown incompetence - and is an edit-warrior,[29] and they should be embarrassed for the way they have handled themselves beginning with their attempt to censor the word "antisemitism" from the article,[30] and the statement in their first talk-page comment: "I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers" Here's good advice, don't edit, if you have not looked into the sources. Then their flat-out contradicting the sources that use the term "host" in a way the editor personally disagrees with and their false claims of plagiarism against other editors p[31] [32], but most of all their utter inability to work with others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

One down and how much to go? We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious.[33] Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree that it's relevant. Whether it should be hatted or not is sort of a separate issue. Hatting does tend to "hide" material, and yes, it is used to hide irrelevant material. But when the irrelevant material is, essentially, the "case of the defense," then why hide it? It's a distraction, but that in itself is relevant, as it indicates how he behaves in talk page discussions. Winkelvi's response to this ANI report has been to smear Viritidas, who has never been in conflict with him so far as I know, and to bring this discussion to the attention of an editor he apparently is on good terms with.[34] The hatted discussion, which was commenced by Winkelvi raising his medical condition, was in sum and substance an appeal for sympathy on the grounds that he has a medical situation of some kind. But what I find a bit illogical is that he claims to have done nothing wrong. If he has done nothing wrong, then what is the pertinence of his autism or whatever it is he claims to have? He wants to have it both ways. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm separating this subsection from the one above it, as it was brought by a different user and is totally unrelated. As for the topic ban, I didn't originate this ANI (and to be frank I am not sure I would have come here in the first place, as this is really cut out more for the old "RfC/U," now terminated, than for a drama board.) Anyway, once Viritidas, an uninvolved editor, started this, I had thought that the Bess Myerson talk page spoke for itself. But it's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through mountains of text. If we need diffs of disruption and edit warring, we can start with this user's revert-warring. [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Now I raised this previously at WP:AN3,(see [45]) and the result was page protection. Winkelvi viewed that as a vindication of his "good editing," to use his words. I can provide further examples of his "good editing," and I guess it's necessary because I can see Winkelvi only worsening if his behavior is not curbed. He has absolutely no understanding of the disruption that he has caused, as borne out by the exchange here with User:Cullen328 on Drmies' talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Topic bans generally don't solve the problem and usually are just fodder for others to keep baiting and attacking the person so restricted. Full protection of the article, applying the principles of WP:BLP to it due to being about a person recently deceased, applying WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, and supervision by a highly respected admin who has the authority to institute immediate 24-48 hour blocks for bad behavior should do the trick. Most of the time, people's tempers simmer down and they figure out how to work in an appropriate way. If not, WP:ROPE applies to escalating behavior. See my additional comments above. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This is fairly common behavior for Winkelvi, aggressive edit-warring based on misreading of sources, picking-and-choosing what can be used for sources, and so on. So a TBAN here is just a silly band-aid. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a fairly narrow topic-ban; hopefully it will motivate Winkelvi to reign in some of the issues that have been charitably described as "difficult." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. As if this couldn't get any stranger, Winkelvi has decided to take this puppy to 11 by claiming that the supporters of his topic ban are actually the problem because we're all supposedly autistic like himself, but we're hiding in the closet. According to Winkelvi, the problems he's encountering here are due to his detractors engaging in autistic-related behaviors.[46] Can we get an indefinite block now, please? It's one thing to obsessively identify with your own personal neurodevelopmental disorder as the total measure of who you are, but it's quite another to start diagnosing other editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

That is outrageous on a number of levels. First, he raised the issue of his autism here as a defense for his bad behavior[47]. Basically his position here has been "I haven't done anything wrong, but if I did it's not my fault." Second, the reaction to his statements about his autism, even among his supporters, is that they are diversionary and irrelevant - clearly far short of "not showing AGF" to autism sufferers, whatever that means. After finding his play for sympathy here didn't work, and started to backfire, he has "taken it on the road," canvassing all the editors who signed some kind of autism declaration, and attacking editors here for discriminating against him based on his self-identified medical condition (which nobody here knew about until he raised the issue, and view as a diversion). Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

---

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

In checking his contributions I see a slew of similarly worded posts seeking "advice" from other persons he has identified as sharing his alleged autism affliction. See also [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

Note this follow up note[57]. No, not canvassing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

His referring to canvassing in his posts indicates that he is familiar with the rule already. So while this notice is appreciated I don't feel that it is necessary. Besides you can't "unring the bell," and his effort to skew this discussion through canvassing has already begun to work in his favor.[58][59][60][61][62]. His canvassing has already gotten him participation in his favor in two parts of one active partisan weighing in on these discussions, and more on the way I'm sure. The only question, as I said previously, is whether this is a violation of the canvassing policy, in which case what are the consequences for Winkelvi, or whether our lying eyes deceive us on that point. If they do, I'm off on a trek for "advice." Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User name

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meghan Trainor-related article derailing and harassment of involved editor

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

A few things in response:

• I've never referred to this editor as "a fanboy who can't edit objectively".
• Whomever looks into this editor's comments, please look at the talk page for the article All About That Bass here: [63] and see the interaction between him and me. You'll find none of what he's claiming. In fact, I go out of my way to explain to him in two separate replies that my comments and edit summaries are not directed and him at all.
• This editor's frustration has been days in the making due to a number of talk page discussions where he has been using personal attacks against editors who don't agree with his edits and edit wars that he has been taking part in. Because he's new, several editors (including me) have been quite patient in trying to work with him and reason with him regarding his editing, edit warring, peacock wording, bloating articles, and the scathing talk page comments he directs at others. One look at the edit history of his talk page shows that he's received several warnings over the same articles, all related in one way or another to the singer, Meghan Trainor. (talk page history here: [64]).
• I'd like to point out, as well, that the reporting editor who brought this here never informed me on my talk page (as is required) that he created this report. Weirdly, another editor moved this report from Lips to merge with this week old discussion. A report that (as another editor pointed out) is classic ANI: something gets reported, others keep adding to it with new and different accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here he deleted his comment "Wow, Lips. You've only been here three weeks and you already have a fancy username signature three barnstars and duded up user page, you're nominating articles for GA status, and now you're going to DRN? That's quite a lot of Wiki-activity for such a newbie" after I replied and used the edit summary "removing drama" when he aggravated the drama in the first place with his comment.
• On User talk:SNUGGUMS he wrote "Anyone think it's weird and a little suspect that someone who has been here less than a month is expertly decorating their user space and nominating articles for GA? Just saying."
• On Talk:Meghan Trainor he made snide remarks to me "Please familiarize yourself with how to communicate appropriately and politely in talk page discussions. So much all bold lettering is basically the same as shouting." Yet editors on the same page called my editing "bullshit" and also used bold wording to highlight a point. He also went on to reply with remarks like "Obviously, she doesn't write all of her own music as you claim", "I have no idea. I thought we were talking about the Meghan Trainor article." and "An hour ago your proof that she qualified to be called a singer-songwriter was that she writes all of the songs she performs. That was quickly proven to be untrue. Now you're changing the criteria. Not too convincing."—all of which are snide remarks and ignorance to the fact of Trainor co-writing all her music.
• He speaks of I've been warned "several times" yet I've only been unfairly warned by him twice and one other user once. Ironically, he himself is also edit warring on the same article, as well as number of editors who revert him, yet they received no warnings whatsoever.
• He says I never notified him of my report of him on here, however, he responded before I could even do so. See the time difference between my report (06:14) and his response (06:27). Even more manifestation that this user tries to play the victim when he is at fault.
• After I nominated All About That Bass for GA which I worked very hard on editing and am the primary contributor much like I was on Meghan Trainor, he decided to post the following on the article's talk page: Two topics "Long quotations" and "Very overwritten" and went on to deem it "basically one of the most bloated articles I've ever come across", and even went on to make this comment " I'm here to help expand and improve an online encyclopedia. Hopefully, that's your purpose for being here, too." He then claims his responses are not aimed at me and plays the victim when he very well knows I nominated both articles for GA and am by the far the biggest contributor to both articles as per each article's stats.
• In his nitpicking of the article he used edit summaries such "remove peacocking" when that what he removed was in fact the precise wording of the source used and not WP:PEACOCK at all. He also goes on to say "This is an encyclopedia not a fansite" - a direct dig at me when I am by far the article's biggest contributor. He also insists that I am posting false information as to whether "All About That Bass" is one of the List of best-selling singles when it is in fact listed in the 6-6.9 million section itself. He also per his POV accused me of WP:OWN on Talk:All About That Bass and WP:OR on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and reverts edits I make on "All About That Bass" where unsourced content is added and then accuses me of edit warring afterward with a warning on my talk page when he infact has been reverted by another user as well.
• Again, like I said, all these occurrences are all very coincidental. I am all for constructive criticism and improving of Wiki articles but the way this user goes about doing it is very suspicious especially since I edit mainly Meghan Trainor articles of which he has all of a sudden decided to "improve". This user has a habit of talking down on editors and throwing his "Veteran Editor" title around as done on another editor on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and generally is involved solely in his own provoked disputes and acts of "playing the victim". I see this user is also mentioned as a problem on this very same noticeboard, so he must obviously be doing something wrong. I also per accident stumbled upon this comment by another editor on User talk:Viriditas - " user:winkelvi is a bully and harasses everyone view http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:213.7.149.151_.28Result:_Semi.29 and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Coretheapple_.28Result:_Protected.29 or just look at his contrib history its full of edit warring disputes." which I also completely agree with.- Lips ^{are movin} 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Moved to preexisting section, with agreement of initiator of this report[65] Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This user is still partaking in an unnecessary edit war on All About That Bass and derailing the topic which is a WP:GAN, and insists on reverting unsourced content, factual errors, vague wording and non-song article MOS back into the article, and insists the formentioned be discussed on the article's talk page, but the user remains completely ignorant to these faults pointed out on the talk page, removes warnings from his talk page, and has already been reverted by 3 different users within the last 24 hours. See [66] and Talk:All About That Bass. A quick scan through This also reveals that I am not the only one experiencing these problems with Winkelvi, but several others are as well. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see Winkelvi's observations as constructive at the song article "All About That Bass". Anybody interested in Meghan Trainor would certainly be interested in her ginormous smash hit song, so it's not much of a case of hounding. My advice to Lips Are Movin is to accept the talk page advice at its face value, and try to see the article more objectively. It certainly was a patchwork quilt of awkward fan prose before you got to it, but you added long quotes[67][68] which were seen by Winkelvi (and myself) as undue or peacock or redundant, and when they were removed, you were able to work with that;[69] I suggest you continue to do so. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr.

User Earl King Jr. continues to harass editors at Zeitgeist (film series). His new m.o. is to revert IP's [70] and make the very uncivil claim that they are some kind of "puppet" instead of actually following WP protocol (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) --- Just as problematic is that when a user recently called him out on his behavior[71] -- he simply deleted the message with no response.[72] --- User:AndyTheGrump brought 2 separate ANI's against him awhile back and eventually left the article all-together out of what I perceived as frustration (the ANI diffs are available). He continues to harass both myself [73] and User:The Devil's Advocate [74] and with over 80% of his edit history somehow related to Zeitgeist [75] it is very clear to me that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, the main reason he's gotten away with his behavior for so long is because most editors couldn't care less about this content. I ask that you please take the time and look into this. Thx. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Since I ceased my involvement with Zeitgeist-related articles, Earl's ownership behaviour seems to have got even worse - he now appears to be using Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) as his own personal blog, where he endlessly promotes his conspiracy theory - that TZM is nothing more than a money-earning scheme concocted by Peter Joseph for profit (e.g. "He [Joseph] collects the donation to his pocket" [76] - an entirely unsourced assertion of financial impropriety at minimum) . Anyone disagreeing (or even asking for evidence) is immediately labelled a sockpuppet or a TZM supporter. If only for the self-evident violations of WP:BLP policy that ensue from his characterisations of Joseph, he should probably be topic-banned. That will of course leave the problem of actual TZM supporters trying to spin the articles their way, but we've dealt with similar problems before, and I'm sure we can again - by adhering to Wikipedia policy, and following sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Honestly speaking AndyTheGrump, things improved after you left the article in my opinion and I think its fair to say that your participation and consequent leaving the article was your choice and if you are saying it was because of one editor disagreeing with you and what ever arguments you had, that was also your opinion but why equate that here with the current subject? The last time at ANI you also called me a 'little shit' and I asked for you to be blocked. I have noticed that you will exaggerate to the point of outright twisting things in these situations. I am not a part of your fan base. I am not using the article talk page as my personal blog Andy. Anyone curious about the article might go to the talk page and read my comments and look at the article page itself for my edits. My goal is neutral editing without pov on the article and trying be a critical thinking editor without defaming anyone on the talk page. The case that someone, SomeDifferentStuff is making here is that I am insulting to some I.P.'s somehow. Because of the call to arms/editing of the Zeitgeist Movement [77] droves of people involved in Zeitgeist come to Wikipedia to try and make the article part of their information presentation. I have pointed that out on the talk page. SomeDifferentStuff has a long time editing relationship that is very akin to supporting the Zeitgeist Movements information as does TheDevilsAdvocate who he mentions and I think that is what is irking him most about my editing. I am not for or against it. If I have insulted anyone I am sorry. The article is now page protected for Admins editing only and that will slow down the single purpose editors and i.p.'s for a while. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Honestly, I think the following two diffs are all I need to offer in the way of a response: [78] [79].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another response: [80] [81] [82].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Devils Advocate was blocked from editing conspiracy articles (Zeitgeist 911 Truther thing) a couple of times [83] I am not saying he believes one way or another but he seems to have a stake in the article that is pro Zeitgeist Faq's material as does his editing partner SomeDifferentStuff. Together the two of them have brought me to Ani numerous times I think to make it easier for them to edit unencumbered. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I have not spun the article to my own purposes and since you do not know me why are you saying that? I have used the information available on the subject to try and make a good article. I am not pro or con. I have asked questions and given information on the talk page and asked for ideas many times. I guess a look at the block log of TheDevilsAdvocate might indicate that he has had problems in the past editing 911 related articles since he was blocked from editing them before but I already said that [84] and this article is a 911 conspiracy article. It is a fact that SomeDifferentStuff edits with TheDevilsAdvocate in a pro Zeitgeist way. Anyone curious can look at the article history or talk history. You are pretty extreme in your negative characterizing of my editing. I will leave it at that for now except to repeat that your battleground mentality is not appropriate. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Zeitgeist topic ban proposal for user Earl King Jr.

Earl's continued harassment of other editors, battleground behavior at anything Zeitgeist, and just plain general disruption needs to stop. This behavior has been going on for over a year; this is the THIRD ANI brought against him [85] [86] [87] in less than 7 months and so far the only response from Administrators has been to hope that the problem clears up on its own; well it hasn't and it's very clear that it's not going to. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is in order, at the very least present a formal comment on how to deal with this type of disruption. It doesn't take a heightened sense of awareness to look at this edit history [88] and see that Earl King Jr. is not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Extra weight should be given to AndyTheGrump's testimony. The pro-zeitgeist people have accused both AndyTheGrump & Earl King Jr. [89] of editing with an anti-zeitgeist agenda. This would suggest that (1) Andy is not a zeitgeist supporter and therefore likely has an unbiased opinion of Earl King Jr., and (2) Andy has had a lot of first hand experience dealing with Earl King Jr. and the zeitgeist topic. Please consider this.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• No support Thanks for the kind and I think accurate words by User:Bobrayner. He is one of the neutral editors on the article I referenced before and there are only a few of them. As mentioned SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate tandem edit with the socks and meats from here often [90] and Andy apparently will say just about anything without providing any proof about his accusations. Peter Joseph sells DVD's of his movies which was all that was said by me, so so what? Regardless I hope Andy is blocked from editing Wikipedia for his methods of trash talking people last time calling me 'a little shit' and getting away with that. He contributed very little to the article in question, virtually nothing but seemed absorbed in battlefield drama on the talk page. For the most part I find the Zeitgeist people funny and the whole editing the article interesting. I have tried my best to make it a good article that is neutral and reflects good sourcing from reliable sources. It is a controversial subject which I have no personal stake in beyond finding it interesting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. All Earl is doing is keeping a bunch of POV pushing nonsense and fancruft out of the article. I don't even think this Zeigeist stuff is anything other than an internet meme and the author is just sitting back watching his giant troll evolve at the hands of some weak minded morons. Earl King doesn't deserve a topic ban for being a voice of sanity.--MONGO 03:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Support As one of the targets of Earl King Jr.'s false sockpuppet accusations and blind revert harassment, I was about to create an ANI about him myself when I stumbled onto this one. The only problem with banning him from Zeitgeist (film series) is it isn't broad enough. His WP:OWNERSHIP complex spreads to all topics related to Zeitgeist, The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project, Resource Based Economy, and Peter Joseph. For example, [91] and [92]. Based on his talk page history, Earl has been using wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND ever since he created his account in 2012. He is the subject of numerous edit war warnings, Dispute Resolution, and Administrator Notice boards every year. Earl King Jr. should be banned for the following reasons:

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

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

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

Comments from Earl King Jr.'s talk page history

Personal Attacks & Accusations

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

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

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

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

Religion in Cambodia

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

Warning

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

Ad hominem concern

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

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

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

I want to assume good faith in your reasons for editing Wikipedia, and I hope you do the same for me. Please note that while I once undid your change of the Venus Project's business status from nonprofit to profit, due to the change lacking a citation ([[96]])…once a citation was established, I've since undone another editor's change of its biz status back from profit to nonprofit, due to their change lacking citation ([[97]]). I hope this shows, in one small way, that I'm not trying to bring an agenda to my edits.

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

war

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

Your false accusation of sock puppetry and meat puppetry at ANI

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

Trolling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to mention that the person that brought this Ani was blocked previously from editing The Zeitgeist Movement for disruption caused by edit warring Here is that record [98] Whether that means anything now is debatable but that and the fact that TheDevilsAdvocate was topic banned from 911 related articles [99]. He is not topic banned now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Block-proposal for User:Enigmafay

User:Enigmafay is a single purpose editor whose main motive appears to be to eliminate any negative views from the article Satyananda Saraswati. The disputed content concerns the allegation of sexual abuse against Satyananda Saraswati and his successor. see Satyananda_Saraswati#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse. This account was registered on 5 December 2014 and the user edit warred very first day to remove the disputed content 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Then they did not edit for about 2 weeks and in the mean time, article was attacked by an army of new accounts resulting in article getting fully protected. Some of those new accounts are blocked now. I wouldn't be surprised if they are sock puppets of this user. I will also point out that another new user User:Totocol edit-warred to keep this content included. Before the full protection, disputed content was removed and an RfC was started on the talk page. RfC was also marred by the sock-farm. While it appeared form the RfC that most of the non-SPA users agreed to include the disputed content, a straw poll was done to quickly asses the consensus. Unfortunately for Enigmafay, the straw poll was closed before most of their friends could come and vote, following off-wiki canvassing at a facebook page. After the disputed material was finally included, this user restarted edit warring 1, 2, leading to one more full protection. Article protected, the user went with personal attacks. Now this user or someone from their group has started an online petition to re-open the straw poll and let all of them vote (here the informed about the petition).

I think it has gone far enough and this user has been given enough rope. I propose therefore, that this user should be blocked or banned from editing WP, as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

• Note 1: This report is about user and not about the content, so please avoid discussing content.
• Note 2: In this report, I have solely focused on edits from the account User:Enigmafay, there are plethora of other SPA's who took part in this dispute and some of them could be sock accounts of this user. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viruswitch as off-wiki canvasing continue. --User:Vigyani 16:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Commented on the SPI, there are probably more. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming disturbing. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Having read through the article history, talk page and seen the online petition, recent activity smacks of WP:COI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, just an avid fan, and it is not same as COI. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

True, I may have overreacted. Nevertheless, sometimes there isn't a bright line between the two when the fan takes on the guise of something closer to fanatical and deeply protective of their 'brand' (something which created a lot headaches in trying to further define COI policy relatively recently). I was thinking of COI in terms of applying to anyone in a relationship with the subject, and a reward system that isn't necessarily that of financial gain. (Okay, that's it. I've gone completely tangential, so it's time to stop editing for the day!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Overreaction? I don't think so. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block This is more disturbing than what I was thinking, rapidly accusing Joshua to be the Joshua of Facebook group is ridiculous. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE. In fact, this has escalated to WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ASPERSIONS on a truly offensive scale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE and evidence presented by Vigyani. JimRenge (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE, which is enough, but the accusations are the icing. Rationalobserver (talk)

• Oppose This is a new user. He has been harassed too. He reacted in a predictable way, canvassing and edit warring. Why hasn't he been blocked for 24h till now? The last edit by him on the article was done 9 days ago and he has engaged in article talk page discussion. He should have been take to WP:3RR when he edit warred or WP:SPI for sock puppetry if that is the argument. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose All that we have here is an over-enthusiastic new user with strong convictions. AmritasyaPutra is right in that the user should have been given 3RR warning and taken to WP:AN3. It didn't happen either because the experienced users weren't paying attention or the admins protected the page soon enough. I would support a short-term block like that for AN3 so that the user takes the time to reflect, but not a permanent block. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am new, and do not know the ropes, but if I am entitled to vote, I OPPOSE for the simple reason that there seems to be a personal attack going on against an opposing opinion, resulting in the person receiving this attack reacting and replying according to this. Whatever happened to an opposing opinion??how does one make a balanced decision if there is no opposition?

Opposition is a healthy thing, but being attacked and ganged upon because one 'dares'to express their opinion - is not demonstrating objectivity. What is the agenda here? For someone to express their own personal opinion on the Swami Satyananda Page? Is this not available to all to edit? In every debate there are two sides, and one should respect the other person's opinion, regardless if they disagree or agree. Each to his own, decisions are only made with a balance of opinions. Not 10 against 1. Not verbal attacks. Had EnigmaFay been confronted in a different way, would she have resorted to this poll?Valerie dhyanat. (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Have also added comments below as I later saw that this was the place for votingValerie dhyanat. (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedians are not new to these kind of debates. There are well-developed policies and criteria by which such issues are decided. Unfortunately, User:Enigmafay and all of his/her friends have ignored these policies and made it a personal battle of wits. I estimate that the well-sourced content on allegations has been deleted over 20 times during the last month by these people, every instance of which is violative of Wikipedia policies. The user who initiated this content on the page has been driven away. Those of us that came to help were inundated with a barrage of posts, repeating the same point again and again that allegations have not been proven. Naturally, the Wikipedians are tired of this. So there is no point arguing that he/she has been victimized. User:Enigmafay and his/her friends should promise to learn the Wikipedia policies and abide by them. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes these users(and IPs) have contributed only on this particular page, but the bigger point is if Enigmafay is going to contribute neutrally, with these messages[100]-[101]-[102] it doesn't seem like he or she is going to, you are correct that a temporary block would be fine but I don't see what are the basis, maybe a topic ban would be better choice. Bladesmulti (talk)

• Ban is fine with me. They are anyway not here to build encyclopedia. Their group is continuing the off-wiki canvassing ([103]). --User:Vigyani 14:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Section created by Kautilya3

• Above discussion is very sad and not good for Wikipedia. I think clearly there are two strong opinions and they should listen to each other.Since both sides are passionately arguing it would be very very unfair to ban anyone. User-Enigmafay has presented a POV and other two Editors theirs. Its not fair to just Ban any one. I think both sides just need to listen to each other and come to common ground.Protocol108 (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are urging no discussion on content and yet you are discussing content. My purpose is keep the neutrality in that article, right now the article is being abused. Yes my friends don't know how to edit wikipedia, while the friends of other users, like Joshua, who have built their own facebook groups and are urging people in there to come here and take part in this attack against me, they know how to edit. We have watched their discussions on facebook, but I did not consider it wrong to urge your friends or anyone who is affected by a subject to come and "help". It so happens that this user has more friends in Wikipedia than I do, and some of them are admins. You are accusing me of personal attacks, while I am the one being constantly attacked, and my arguments are never discussed upon. The petition that was created is just to show you that this is not a "one user" issue. Everyone who puts their signature in that petition is well aware of the situation and responsible for their opinion. Banning me will not solve your problems because others will come in my place and the petition will go to the head of wikipedia. For more, read my edits in the discussion page of Swami Satyananda, where it appears that I am the only one who has written the greatest amounts of text, while the other editors only attack and do not argue. Enigmafay (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see where I have discussed content in my OP. There is no proof that Joshua has a Facebook group which they are using for canvassing, so either you produce any proof or take back your statement. Accusing other users without proof is a personal attack. In your case, there is sufficient proof of off-wiki canvassing. The petition and the face books group posts at this page. Relevant policy is WP:MEAT. WP content is decided by policy arguments, not by show of hands which your petition to WP Head (don't know to whom petition refers as Head) is trying to achieve. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Enigmafay, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The project is not up for grabs by deploying strong-arm tactics because you, or an entire army of friends/followers, WP:DONTLIKEIT. We are bound to follow WP:NPOV regardless of our own POV or personal religious or political beliefs. You don't even seem to comprehend your own hypocrisy. If your guru was so predisposed to enlightenment and seeking knowledge, you and your petitioning friends are besmirching his memory by advocating the antithesis. Your entire M.O. revolves around suppression of thought and oppression of others. I sincerely hope you can find forgiveness for yourself for leading a WP:WITCHHUNT.

Tell me, have you actually thought this through? Let's say a large religious group decided to follow your methodology: what do you think would happen to the article? Not only would it be eradicated as promoting heathen ideology, every other religious group other than those who have embarked on stifling dissent would be eliminated from Wikipedia. The same applies to political philosophies, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading through talk page comments, it seems like what is happening is a replay of what is an all-to-common experience on Wikipedia. Newer editors, who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules, are outraged by what they view as salacious and unfair commentary, they try to make edits and are quickly reverted. They, reasonably, become very frustrated and migrate to article and user talk pages to try and make their case. Veteran editors dismiss their complaints because the editors are not familiar with Wikipedia jargon, policies and standards. The new editors get more and more frustrated because they feel ignored and dismissed, like their views are unimportant. One of the regular WP editors, tired of the complaints, comes to AN/I and asks for the new editor/s to receive blocks because they find them annoying and disruptive.

While the new editors, like Enigmafay, have been persistent, it also seems like their comments are ignored on the article talk page. A "straw poll" on whether to include a controversial section is run, the regular editors vote "for" and when a few editors start to raise objections, the poll is then closed and the verdict is rendered based on a handful of editor opinions. This gives the regular editors the guise that the subject was open for debate and a consensus reached when that is not what has happened.

Personally, I think there are good reasons to include the controversial section about allegations of sexual abuse. But with subjects like this, where there are strong opinions, I frequently see new editors dismissed as advocates, adherents, fans, believers, etc. and once they are tagged with this label, it negates any opinion that might offer and the substance of their comments goes unaddressed. Enigmafay has raised some questions about the wording of a sensitive section which, in my opinion, have been ignored because she didn't use standard Wikipedia language and policy abbreviations. I don't believe editors should be blocked merely for holding a minority point of view and raising questions that go against the opinions of editors who have been here longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Article dispute is not the only cause. Claiming Joshua Jonathan to be the Joshua of some Facebook page is another thing to watch. It is harassment. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Block proposal is not for holding a minority point of view and raising questions. Proposal is for personal attacks, canvassing. You don't need knowledge of Wikipedia language and policies to know that you should not be making personal attacks while especially you are arguing about exclusion of unproved allegations in an article. Coming to straw poll. Enigmafay was notified of it as soon as it was opened. Per Philg88, he closed the poll because seven days had passed, not because few editors start to raise objections. Enigmafay anyway got to participate in the poll, so there is no reason to make a fuss about it. This editor have made it clear that they represent an off-wiki group, which is anyway not allowed on WP. Each editor presents their own individual opinion. Regarding Enigmafay's opinion, I don't think those are ignored. I myself didn't participate in talk page so much, but their arguments have been given due weight. What I see is that consensus is against them, and they are unable to come in terms with that. There object is not with specific wording of the content, but with the entire section which they want to be removed from the article. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a testimony. I have seen the facebook group and how they were planning and discussing on the wikipedia article. I also saw with my own eyes how the person discussing there admitted he was writing here. The group went "closed" and I can no longer access the text. So this is my unproven allegation. I cannot provide any evidence for it. But I can publish it as a testimony on various different websites so that I have published sources. It is after all very easy to publish yourself in the modern internet.

You are allowing similar allegations, of brutal and vulgar nature, to be published on the main article of Swami Satyananda. Unproven and without evidence allegations, just because they have been published in various other websites of questionable quality.

It would be fair on your part, since you allow all kinds of personal attacks and allegations on a MAIN ARTICLE to allow allegations on a talk page. Or do you have a different policy for content on the main articles and on talk pages? Do you need me to publish my allegations on different websites so that we have published material on them, before going public? Is that the problem? Because I could arrange that.

So you are sensitive only when it comes to protecting the reputation of people that belong to your community but choose to turn a blind eye when it comes for persons who's biographies are included on this encyclopedia. I wish you would have the sensitivity to apply your policies and principles on the articles and not only selectively. Best regards. Enigmafay (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that you are not proposing me for a block due to "personal attacks". You are proposing me because you do not want me to express my opinion on the article. You are merely trying to get rid of me because I am expressing the truth. But others WILL come in my place and prove you that it is wrong to include slander material based on the results of a Straw Poll. Enigmafay (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Enigmafay: I suggest you voluntary declare not to edit the article for two weeks and make no edits to it even later without prior clear consensus on article talk page. If there was canvassing you will probably receive a block for some duration, you can familiarize with the policies and not repeat. I am writing so because I feel there was enough provocation and insult from other side too which had experienced editor who knew better how to handle it than stoning a newbie. (If you turn out to be a sock or fail to choose to exercise self-restraint, the community will need to ban you). Regards. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Can you provide any diffs where you think provocation happened (especially any diff by experienced editor)? I couldn't myself find any clear instance where provocation may have happened. But perhaps I overlooked. User talk:Vigyani 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The same article talk page section that was discussed on your user talk page yesterday for instance, it was a personal attack worthy of block. He was received as a disruption from beginning. He should have been given a due welcome/guidance, for example, like how Anna Frodesiak handled seemingly disruptive new editor SeshendraSarma yesterday. This section explains that he edit warred, canvassed, and is a sock, why is there no AN3 or SPI report? Why has he not been already blocked for a short period? It is unwise and undoubtedly provocative to heap all such criticism into one post in ANI page on a new editor. What is the response expected? If he is not a sock and a genuine new user he is inevitably going to scream not knowing how to respond, would you disagree Vigyani? The most important thing, the user has not edited the article for past 10 days. Why would you want to pursue a block at this point? Blocks should not be punitive, blocks should be preventative. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I was interested in finding any instance of provocation before filing this ANI. Whether filing ANI about new users can be considered provocation should be discussed separately. --User talk:Vigyani 12:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)r

Personal attack after filing is equally condemnable. No, I do not wish to discuss generically whether filing ANI about new users can be considered provocation. Do you advocate punitive block? --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks at any time is condemnable. There is no doubt about that, NPA is WP guideline. Personal attacks is one of the reason, why this user has been brought to ANI. I don't advocate punitive blocks, and again that is obvious. In your original comment, you said there was enough provocation and insult from other side too. It would naturally mean that this insult and provocation must be before this ANI and there are at least 2-3 such instances, justifying their reaction. From your 2nd comment: The article talk page section that was discussed on my user talk page contained personal attack is one the reason I collapsed that section. But you reverted me there. I don't think Enigamafy was received as a disruption from beginning, they were given patient hearing. But when after the consensus had emerged they stuck with their "allegations have not been proved in the court" tirade, it became disruptive. This sections (OP) doesn't say that they are a sock. A don't know why AN3 was not filled when they first edit warred, I reckon anyone didn't want to provoke them. But this is no reason another complaint at ANI can not be filled. I thought it was a standard to present all your points in the report, which you are calling as "unwise and undoubtedly provocative to heap all such criticism into one post in ANI page on a new editor", in that case should 2-3 different ANI complaints be made? Again I didn't see where have they screamed that they don't know how to respond, they are good at attacking fellow editors, assuming bad faith. Now coming to the most important thing, I appreciate that they have not edited the article for 10 days (4 of which was due to full protection), but that was anyway not the main reason why this report was made. This report was made, because they are someone from their group created an online petition to decide content on WP. That is WP:ADVOCACY. I will be filing a SPI report as you requested above, I hope you will not call it a provocation -- User talk:Vigyani 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, have been doing SY for a few years heard that his bio had been amended to include the allegations, went on to the Swami Satyananda page and had a look. The section about allegations of sexual abuse does not seem to be very impartial in accordance to the RC proceedings. I could state my point, and I tried to on the talk page, but my initial suggestion was deleted. In fact, I asked permission to make a suggestion. I have read the previous texts and it seems a private war is going on. Not objective, but subjective information is being thrown about. I do not understand the concept of this, - if this is so controversial and ignites reactions, why is this being discussed here? Why don't you take this off the board? Anyone reading your posts will see how this has become a personal issue. I am sure, if I state my opinion, which is rather impartial, and I am quite knowledgeable about the RC proceedings - the personal statements and the exhibits of which there are about 400, I will get abused. Is this what you strive to achieve - to make newbees fearful because obviously you have been here and know the ropes? Here, my first suggestion was deleted ! Hence I went in and restated it, but deleting one's suggestion does not make this an objective talk forum. I don't know how this all works, but I hope that the those who will make their opinion demonstrate impartiality on what is being suggested as an opinion. I understand that Enigmafay is retaliating to her being attacked for expressing an opposing opinion and very simply, one does not need to analyse whether this has occurred or not, one simply needs to read the posts, there for the taking. If I am entitled to vote, which I do not know if this is the case, I oppose the vote to ban EnigmaFay on the right of simply trying, not achieving, but trying to offer suggestions for the editing of the Wikipedia page Valerie dhyanat. (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vigyani: The intent of my response is also obvious. I believe you understand. Instead of only collapsing attack you may also drop a gentle reminder to the editor to refrain from personal attack at the same time? It worsened and you may not hold me responsible for it. Not going to AN3 was probably a bad choice, I understand it has nothing to do with you or me, and bringing it here makes sense. Bringing SPI to ANI page is unhelpful, it should be at SPI like you intend to pursue. You have put a lot of words in my mouth in your response which I never said. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring User:Binksternet

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) is edit warring at several articles concerning the substitution, or not, of the word "redistricted" in succession boxes, instead of showing the predecessor or successor listed at the pertaining congressional district lists. Binksternet claims that a consensus was established at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Subsequently a different RfC was opened at Template talk:Succession box#RfC which is still open, but at which it was proposed to confirm that consensus for infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes, since they serve different purposes. The latter RfC is still open and, as has been pointed out to Binksternet here and here, under WP:Revert: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Nevertheless, Binksternet keeps reverting to his preferred version at Barbara Lee, Jerry McNerney and George Miller (California politician), and sent me an edit war notice after I made a single edit there. How should we proceed now? Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the above, he has continuously reverted my edits on this particular matter claiming that a consensus was established at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting when it most certainly was not. I do not believe he knows how to edit pages that involve politicians as he has not grasped that his edits are incorrect. SleepCovo (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. This issue already has a working consensus which is found at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Kraxler is well aware of this fact, having it repeatedly pointed out to him at his own Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC which you can see has failed to arrive at a new consensus. Kraxler has taken the bit in his teeth and assumed a consensus at the new RfC, going around and changing succession boxes to suit his viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again the user shows his total disregard for wikipedia by claiming a template shows consensus when it most certainly does not. The way the articles and pages have been laid out for countless years is fine, yet one editor called Binksternet wants to change it all. SleepCovo (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I didn't change any succession boxes, you did, in the middle of an on-going discussion concerning the subject. As far as I can gather from Template talk:Succession box#RfC, all editors (except you), even those who disagree with my vote, agree on the fact that it is necessary to establish consensus for succession boxes, separately. The RfC has not been closed yet, so, under WP:Revert, everything is supposed to remain as it has been for a long time prior to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that that RfC has not yet closed with a new consensus, and that we should stick with the status quo until it changes, which is why your actions against the status quo are unsupported. With this edit of yours, you have apparently decided on a schizophrenic solution. You have determined that the reader should be told in the infobox succession box that Barbara Lee has not been succeeded by another politician, that her district was subject to radical redistricting (all of which is correct), but in the identical succession boxes at the bottom of the page you wish to tell the reader that Ms. Lee has been supplanted by another politician, as if she has been voted out of office or resigned (which is not true). I cannot support any solution which pretends that succession boxes may be treated differently if depending on their page placement. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The status quo is that a silly consensus has been established for infoboxes. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. The status quo is that all users agree that succession boxes are not infoboxes. FYI Infoboxes are supposed to tell you the history of the subject of the article, in this case the life of the politician. The politician is still sitting, having changed district numbers any number of times, so any reference to the district numbers is out of scope in the infobox. There should be only listed "US Representative from State X" and the total time of the tenure. In the case of currently sitting congressman there could be added "currently representing the Xth District". To split it up in the infobox is silly, and bloats the box unnecessarily. The succession box is supposed to tell you about the history of the office, and refers in its title to the pertaining list which shows clearly that the politician was preceded and succeeded in any district, as legally numbered, by somebody else. I suggest that you cease now to mix up apples and oranges. I have opened a new RfC to change Infobox usage according to what I outlined above. In the meanwhile I urge you to refrain from further edit-warring. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet still continues to edit war [104] even after being told many times that the succession boxes at the bottom are different than the ones in the infobox. TL565 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TL565, you are looking at a boomerang as well, since you reverted at the Barbara Lee article to restart the edit warring, your revert going against Ohnoitsjamie. You and Kraxler are focusing your efforts on dividing the succession box into two kinds: one that is in the infobox and one that is a footer navbox at the bottom of the article. You and Kraxler have settled on the outlandish idea that one succession box can say one thing, while the other succession box can say another thing. The point you are not getting is that nonsensical succession by district after radical redistricting is still nonsense if it is high up in the article or low down in the article. The altitude of the nonsense does not make it more palatable. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, you can keep saying it is nonsense all you want, but it does not change the fact that whatever was implemented to the infoboxes does not apply to the navbox in the bottom. By the way, it isn't any less nonsensical to have the box say "redistricted" over and over again. It defeats the purpose of the succession box in the first place. TL565 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit war continues, now also at Pete Stark, although consensus remains that succession boxes are not infoboxes, and although a new RfC was opened, as linked aboved. Since Binksternet does not follow the guideline at WP:STATUSQUO "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.", I propose a 0RR restriction for Binksternet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraxler (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 0RR restriction for Binksternet

• I withdraw this proposal. Some commenters say that 0RR is too harsh, and that it would interfere with Binksternet's legitimite vandalism patrolling. Having given it some thought, I agree with these objections. The other commenters are, unfortunately, confusing content issues with behavior issues. It is irrelevant who is right or wrong, neither side can claim a right to edit-war because they think they are right and the other side is wrong. Kraxler (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with an extensive block log for edit warring and currently engaged in an edit war, the following is proposed: "User:Binksternet is prohibited to revert any edit on Wikipedia."

• Support as proposer, per the above discussion. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - Times change, redistricting is an example of that. User:Binksternet understands that WP policy and procedures need to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in the real world. "How its been done for years" is not a valid reason to not change or update how the project presents information. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too restrictive to be practical - and it is not clear from the above, that any restriction is merited anyway.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't see this as anything like clear-cut enough for such a restriction. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The fact that this user is as experienced as they are, yet continue to regularly edit war against standing consensus, tells me that they knowingly do this in complete disregard for policy. Maybe a short period with this restriction will help change their attitude, and it can be lifted at a later time when they agree to stop edit warring. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose A few editors who don't like Binksternet's position on infoboxes does not merit such an onerous restriction. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – without understanding the issues in detail, it seems clear that Binksternet is a serious and conscientious editor involved in a two-sided disputed and working in good faith. This is more likely a boomerang situation. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree that boomerang applies here, and that this is a vindictive and frivolous complaint. No evidence was produced that Binksternet violated any of our policies or guidelines in letter or in spirit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion. TL565 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. Thanks for the good faith from the majority here who believe I have the project's best intentions at heart. This retaliatory proposal by Kraxler appears to me to be an attempt to remove a strong argument from his path, to clear out a point of stiff opposition so that he can get his way in the dispute. That's not sufficient reason for 0RR proposals; they must clearly show that the encyclopedia needs to be protected against disruption. Kraxler might want to take another look at the behavior of TL565 and SleepCovo to see where the edit-warring disruption is coming from. SleepCovo has already been blocked for this exact issue.
  I make many thousands of edits to Wikipedia, 137k as of today. Some of my edits add extensive text to articles, or research to talk pages, while the majority by sheer quantity revolve around the reversions of faulty work from others, including the removal of vandalism and the issuing of warnings. There are lots of ways to help the wiki; in making so many thousands of reversions, my style is based on the idea that a house should not be built of bad lumber. I think my reversion work is constructive in the sense that bad work is cleared out so that good work can be made in its place. The wiki would not be helped if I were to be prevented from reverting.
  I will abide by whatever consensus is determined in the current RfC about succession boxes. There is no need to protect the wiki from me. Rather, the focus should be on the behaviors of Kraxler, TL565 and SleepCovo who have not been respecting the existing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per 'we don't impose sanctions to enable people to win content disputes'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - AndyTheGrump beat me to it. This looks too close to gaming for comfort. - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support per WP:DRNC. Using consensus alone as an argument for reversion is ridiculous. Looks like a clear violation of the DRNC policy to me. Furthermore, Binkster lied about no more edit warring to get out of a block.[105] This appears to be a repeat problem. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be unfamiliar with what you are commenting about. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How so? I see what is going on. You are trying to count California officials who got redistricted as not having preceding candidates, apparently assuming if the borders were too heavily gerrymandered that the district no longer exists in its present form. Be that as it may, this would seem a departure from previous Wikipedia style, and I remain unconvinced that is an excuse for edit warring, harassing others with AN/I notices, or ignoring multiple users across multiple pages who disagree with you.

It seems like you want to force your will regardless of consensus or discussion; and this is borne out by your prior history of edit warring. I actually agree somewhat with your position itself that gerrymandering can alter districts so much that keeping track of which candidates go where becomes an issue; but I don't think you're going about communicating your position with others in the right way. You ought to be focusing more on talk page discussion and less on reverting everyone who disagrees with you, and then falsely accusing them of being the ones edit warring, when you're the one departing from policy.

Regardless of how distasteful you might find California gerrymandering to be, you should still be going about this through discussion with other users, not trying to use edit warring and harassment to force your views on others. I have less of a problem with your position than your tactics. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your conjecture about my position on gerrymandering, which is actually a big "so what". I couldn't care less about it. However, now that redistricting is part of a politician's biography, I'm concerned that we prevent nonsensical navbox results.

The past RfC on precedence/succession still stands as the applicable policy, which makes it the existing consensus. If there was a previous consensus related solely to navboxes then we wouldn't be here. So once again, my editing of politician's biographies in accordance with consensus. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I read the RfC and nowhere does it say all redistricting links should be redirected to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission like you were doing. I am still curious why you were insisting on redirecting all the redistricted links to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The RfC you cited does not appear to justify edit warring for that purpose. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• 20 mule team Oppose So somebody vandalizes an article and Bink isn't allowed to fix it? There is certainly some gaming going on here. Oh and consensus is a perfectly valid reason for a reversion. MarnetteD|Talk 03:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on the grounds of what looks to be borderline gaming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, most, if not the vast majority, of Binksternet's reverts don't seem to be in error. Planning such a ban would take away any small benefit that may be achieved here. Epicgenius (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW Oppose, and boomerang the proposer. Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It is not even the first time that Kraxler's edits are riddled with faults. I find the reverts of Binksternet to be justified and we must also look at the edit history of Miller, McNerney and Lee, Binksternet and Ohnoitsjamie have restored the pre-edit conflict version per WP:BRD. It is Kraxler and TL565 who are gaming. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

OccultZone, since you had your AWB access removed due to incompetence, I choose to ignore your accusing me of bad faith. I never edit-warred in 8 years on Wikipedia. And, I opened a new RfC to try to resolve the issue by reaching consensus, not by edit-warring. Kraxler (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) No it was other way around and how it rationalizes your severe incompetency? That was long ago and in fact I have made 2x edits than you during this period. Lets remember that you were actually promoting a spam link and wikilawyering. You were also warned for edit warring,[106] now you claim that you have never edit warred? You think that how we would know just because you remove just every criticism and any notification of violation of policies such infringing copyrighted image [107] from your talk page. Come on, you are beyond incompetence and gaming this system or just showing your inability to understand these simple things. If you want to continue replying, consider moving this to below discussion because this failed proposal must not look more boring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Hi. I personally find it shocking that OccultZone has received a sanction within the last year, because up until now I thought he was an admin. Anyways, Kraxler's choice to use ad hominem (you received a sanction therefore I don't have bad faith) is pathetic. Their proposal of 0RR is corrupt and immoral because they are attempting to get rid of Binksternet so they can push their own agenda undisturbed. I personally vote Strong oppose and boomerang because I have a moral obligation to. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as being stupid, punitive, and far more likely to harm the encyclopedia than improve it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest that the complainants see an Australian weapon. The Infobox Officeholder discussion was well attended, and not hidden in any way whatsoever. Those who perversely see Binksternet as a villain here are grossly errant. Collect (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support There seems to be a real issue here, the solution, however, strikes me as unusually harsh. BlueSalix (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• The proposal was Withdrawn. Please do not add anything here. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Binksternet, How many times must it be said that the so called consensus you are referring to does not apply to the box in the bottom as it is not an infobox. You stubbornly stick to this claim and falsely accuse people of not respecting consensus when it is you who has not been respecting consensus. You are not immune from edit warring, so don't use how long you've been on here as an excuse. On the page Jing ping, you just made 13 reverts. That more than enough violates the 3RR. TL565 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC about infoboxes set the standard for succession boxes, as that was the topic of discussion, which you can clearly see in the name "RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting". The name of the RfC did not limit the result to succession boxes that are up high rather than ones found down low, nor did the discussion. The RfC was more general than you think: it was about succession in the case of radical redistricting. Absent any other working rule about succession boxes that are found in the footer, the consensus reached in the "successor/predecessor" discussion applies. Why do you think Kraxler started a new RfC? To change the existing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I looked at Template:Infobox officeholder, and it only refers to infoboxes only. Navboxes or "Succession boxes" as Kraxler calls them, are completely different and no such consensus was reached. So stop using an unrelated consensus, which was dubious in the first place, to think that you are exempt from edit warring. If you are talking about https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, then you are wrong. Collect started that RfC not Kraxler. TL565 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my 13 reverts at the jing ping article, if you really have a problem with those reverts then you will want to file a case against me at WP:ANEW. When you write up the case, make sure to explain why long-term abuse IPs 163.251.128.2, 203.205.120.120, 203.205.124.254, and 203.205.121.74 are all blocked for two years after they touched that article, and why 50.192.218.161 just got blocked yesterday. Explaining those will help you put your case across convincingly. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: You clearly do not even know the subject of what you are getting involved in. Binksternet is claiming a consensus on infoboxes applies to succession boxes at the bottom of the page. That is incorrect. There is a current discussion at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, which has not closed. I am only reverting back to the status quo until a decision is reached. It is Binksternet who changed it from the oringinal version. TL565 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very aware of it. Binksternet had made a edit on 2 December[108] and he referred to this discussion, it was closed a few months ago. This new discussion is still running and it is not in your favor. That's why there was no reason to edit war and by misrepresenting the consensus you are just WP:GAMING. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break! Did you even read my above posts? This discussion applies to infoboxes, not the box at the bottom of the page. That's why this discussion was created to have it applied to the succession boxes as well, which seems even to me. Don't make accusations unless you really know what the dispute is about. A third discussion is now taking place to change the infobox yet again. Do not confuse the infoboxes with the succession boxes at bottom of the page. TL565 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a rationale in stating same thing differently? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Succession box are two different templates. To claim that a consensus that applied to one template applies to the other is false. That's why this discussion was created, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in creating it in the first place. I too was confused at first, but I think I explained the difference enough times already. TL565 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Manually it is incorrect to fill 2 different entries in same parameter on a same article, even if the actual template is different, the meaning is still same. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it isn't. As per this discussion:

• Infoboxes are supposed to tell about the history of the subject of the article, in this case, the life of politician.
• Succession boxes are supposed to tell you about the history of the office.

And once again, this discussion would not have been created by the same user who created this discussion for the infobox if they were the same. TL565 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have created this section so that rest could be discussed here, above should be kept only for votes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain what I see happening here. Binksternet appears to be changing the redistricting links in these infoboxes/succession boxes so that rather than going to previous California legislators who held the district in the past, the links saying "redistricted" go to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission page instead.[109][110][111]

In essence what occurs is that the California State Legislature like the Illinois State Legislature and Florida State Legislature has a long history of redrawing district boundaries to give advantage to certain politicians. In essence the politicians conspire to redraw the district boundaries regularly so the more established politicians always have favorable constituencies, even if this means changing the district boundaries every election or every other election.

Binksternet seems to be redefining links which say "redistricting" so that instead of linking to California district legislators they go to the California redistricting commission's page. For example in Barbara Lee's case she represented the 9th congressional district of California while Jerry McNerney now represents the 9th district, Lee now represents the 13th district. McNerney is listed as 9th district now but actually the district had been numbered as the 11th district. Basically the California State Legislature plays fast and loose with district numbers and boundaries which makes it tough to tell which politicians preceded whom, especially since the district boundaries keep changing all over the place.

In looking into this further I found the following policy section on infoboxes:

Template:Infobox_officeholder It was added by CBM in 2007.[112]

“ Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use prior_term to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders. ”

Kraxler on the other hand points to policy on succession boxes, and that the community has not yet decided to adopt the infobox policy language when it comes to succession boxes:

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC

So if I understand all of this correctly, both have policies they can point to, one on infoboxes, the other on succession boxes. Both actually are adhering to the infobox policy by including the word "redistricted" but Binksternet wants that link to go to the California Redistricting Commission's page, while others including Kraxler and TL565 think it should go to an actual politician's page. You can see the discussion going on about this at Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC What really makes this all complicated is that if you check the pages in question, the succession boxes are apparently used WITHIN the infoboxes so both are being used.[113]

Binksternet, apparently unsatisfied with the RFC result on succession boxes, is just edit warring to change pages, including those with succession boxes. Now, why it's so important to Binkster that California Democrat politicians not be shown with past district candidates, and all the redistricted links go to the California Redistricting Commission instead of politican pages, is anyone's guess. Frankly I haven't figured it out. In retrospect maybe he just wants people to know more about the shady gerrymandering process going on in California, and that's why he wants the links to go to a page with info about redistricting?

I do think such a decision should be made by the community, and the RFC vote seems perfectly split right now. I'm not convinced Binksternet should just be edit warring in some of these cases. The whole thing is very complicated though, I'm not sure present policy addresses where the redistricting links should direct to. And the RFC doesn't seem to have reached a consensus yet. I don't think this should be solved by edit warring and pasting edit warring notices everywhere though. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your insinuation is wrong—I'm not a political activist pushing a position. Such conjecture is unhelpful here. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you do seem very interested in having all of these links which say "redistricting" go to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, and I'm not sure why that is. Care to elaborate? Personally I don't care one way or the other where they go, and happen to find the whole redistricting/gerrymandering process interesting just from a political perspective. I don't like it myself so wouldn't really care if the links go to a page critical of redistricting. I just think that change should be based on consensus, and it seems like you are trying to edit war to make the changes rather than communicating with those you disagree with. If I'm wrong about that please show otherwise. --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to differentiate these two parameters that are usually same? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know that also, everyone seems to agree that the word "redistricted" should be used but the controversy is apparently over where the link should go once you click the word "redistricted" on these pages. My guess is there's never been a vote on where the links should go, and I wonder whether there's even been much discussion on the topic. I hadn't looked into the controversy until I noticed it here on the noticeboard. Just from what I'm seeing, I really question whether the issue of where these redistricting links should go has been talked out so consensus could be reached. The infobox policy being referenced by Binksternet did not specify these redistricting links need to go to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission that I saw, so I'm not convinced it justifies the controversial edits he's making. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the vote that Binksternet was referencing on the Barbara Lee revision history again.[114] The vote can be seen here. Doesn't look it identified where the redistricting links should direct to, and never even mentioned the destination of hyperlinks. I don't think it justifies Binksternet redirecting all the links to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission - and I'm still curious why he is doing that. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are going off on a tangent here. Nobody has been arguing about what links may or may not go into the word "redistricted". Please stay on track. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Content issue

Since this is clearly a content issue, and since removing Binksternet's right of reverting is clearly absurd, I propose that the relevant RfC, which intends to resolve the issue, and which has been open since November 26, be given a wider audience to the relevant WikiProject(s) and also to anyone with relevant knowledge and editing history, and after a due amount of time, be carefully supervised and closed by an uninvolved admin. And barring a flaw in the RfC or its wording, the result being held up as the standard for the relevant succession boxes. If anyone has any proposed amendments or changes to this proposal, please voice them. Otherwise, I think this is possibly the only way to solve this issue. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at Template talk:Succession box was inconclusive, and IMO has become moot since a new effort was made to solve the problem, the issue of infoboxes and succession boxes, their similarities and their differences, is now being discussed at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then, try again? Or keep trying? I agree with Softlavender, this is a content issue, not an ANI issue. No admin action is warranted (certainly not your absurd proposal), and if this stays open, it's just going to continue its current course you're on, where you guys argue amongst yourselves with minimal input from others. As its a content issue, you need to discuss somewhere where people are looking to fix content issues. That's not here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You all are invited to comment at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. I agree that content issues should be debated elsewhere, and it's being done. This whole discussion was opened to look into a violation of WP:STATUSQUO which is a behavior issue. Unfortunately, most commenters instantly get sidetracked, and try to analyze the content question. That's not what this thread was about. Just to recapitulate the facts: A certain consensus on infobox usage was established some months ago. On November 26, 2014, an RfC was opened to discuss whether this should, or not, apply to succession boxes. Opinions were divided, and the RfC is still open to date. 6 days later, on December 2, being aware of the open discussion, and trying to make a point, Binksternet changed succession boxes. That is IMO contrary to WP:STATUSQUO: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." It's not "until consensus is reached", it's "until consensus is reached to make a change" While this exact question was being discussed, the status quo should have been maintained. It seems to be clear enough to me. Since almost all commenters did not comment on STATUSQUO, but right away commented on the merits of what was or was not the scope of the established content consensus, I agree that this thread won't go anywhere and it should be archived. I apologize to all those who feel their time was wasted here. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC you started was to establish a new consensus, to change the old one. The old consensus was that listing succession in the case of radical redistricting was not useful. Since this discussion had a bearing on succession boxes inside infoboxes, it was the closest established guideline applicable to succession boxes outside of infoboxes. Wikipedia's normal practice is to see what is the closest applicable guideline, so it was abundantly clear which one that was. It was the working consensus, but you engaged in wiki-lawyering to remove common sense from the equation, to try and convince people that a biography could have conflicting information in its two succession boxes. That's why you got so little traction here with your complaint. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you really still confused by the two templates? Succession boxes are not infoboxes. Nowhere in that consensus did it mention the succession box at the bottom. It specifically said: "Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place." Yes, Kraxler opened a new RfC to establish a new consensus on infoboxes. Besides, if the consensus was so clear and it applies to succession boxes as well, then why did this RfC end up being inconclusive? I seriously don't know if you are still confused at this point or just stubbornly refuse see the difference between infoboxes and succession boxes. TL565 (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe about how that consensus applies to succession boxes as well, it does not give you the right to keep reverting multiple users who disagreed with you. TL565 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, neither Kraxler nor anyone else involved in this dispute should have opened or should be opening a new RfC while this ANI is in progress and while the relevant RfC is still open. Both of these matters need to be cleared up first, by uninvolved admins. Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RfCs may be opened at any time. The "relevant RfC" has become stale, and has a 99% chance of being closed as "no consensus". That alone is a reason to make a new effort to solve the problem by discussion, instead of edit-warring. That's what I do. I discuss, I do not edit-war. This ANI is not about content, it is about behavior. But I agree that uninvolved admins should clear up the RfC at Template talk:Succession box and this ANI. I suppose it's because of the holiday/vacation season that there are not many of them here around. We'll have to be patient. Kraxler (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet again

Come on Binksternet! Now you are edit warring on this very page! How is Kraxler not allowed to withdraw and close his own proposal? You are unnecessarily reopening the proposal when he has clearly withdrawn from it. Who are you to undo his edit? To revert it and say he needs to ask somebody else to close it is completely ridiculous. TL565 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just like existing consensus for how to deal with succession in the case of redistricting, you apparently misunderstand who is allowed to close off a discussion using Template:Archive top. It requires someone who is uninvolved, which rules out Kraxler. Kraxler's sour jabs in his summary cannot be accepted as an uninvolved evaluation. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler is the original proposer and you are reopening the discussion after he withdrew from it and it was closed for a whole day. Now you are edit warring on this very page reverting it twice. You have no authority to make such an edit, so stop the nonsense! Take a look in the mirror before you talk about "sour jabs". TL565 (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not going to address the point of Kraxler not being allowed to use that template when he's involved, then there is no reason for me continuing to debate with you. Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You are full of it! It is not up to you to change his edit. It is ridiculous to reopen the discussion he created and withdrew from in the first place. If the proposer withdraws from their own proposal, the discussion becomes pointless and should be closed immediately. Stop acting like you are some guideline enforcer. I'm starting to think the proposal wasn't so harsh after all. TL565 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think Binksternet has a point. Kraxler withdrew his proposal and then closed it because it started to boomerang on him. I don't think he's allowed to close it. I think an uninvolved admin has to do that. Not to mention the fact that the proposal is a subset of an overarching ANI that he started. It seems like Kraxler is trying to close that part of the ANI so that he can possibly avoid a boomerang. He certainly cannot close it while inserting a snipe at Binksternet and at the !voters. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Then somebody needs to just close it already. Clearly no one wanted to be bothered by it, so why not let it be closed? Binksternet completely went out of his way to create an unnecessary new dispute just when it was dying down. If Kraxler was not allowed to withdraw and close his own proposal, then an uninvolved admin should have reverted it, as Binksternet is involved himself. It is pointless to reopen the discussion when the proposer has already withdrawn and wasn't getting much support. This is wasting everyone's time TL565 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion." So, if Binksternet is asserting that policy prohibits Kraxler from closing his own AN/I report, then they should be expected to cite the relevant policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the instructions at Template:Archive top but here is a quote taken from that page: "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

(Emphasis in the original.) I trust that makes the issue clearer for everybody. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How so? Is AN/I a talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't an article page. Talk page guidelines apply to noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, discussions in general are to be closed by uninvolved parties, regardless of the avenue. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But, if you can end your own RfC, why can't your close your own AN/I thread? Regardless, if this is the accepted norm, this should be written into a page with more clout than a template description, which is neither a guideline or policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines about closing discussions. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Read through WP:CLOSE. It's about discussions in general, it would apply to all venues, especially AN/ANI, which run effectively like a talk page discussion would... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I see that it says, "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins", but again, WP:CLOSE is not a guideline or policy; it's an information page, and it seems to me that if this is in fact an accepted expectation, which I agree that it is, this ought to be spelled out at a policy or guideline page. Don't you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its just uninvolved editors, not admin. That's why I just said "parties". (Though WP:UNINVOLVED outlines what you are asking for in the context of Admin, at least.) Didn't realize CLOSE was not hard policy, I don't usually have to cite it to begin with, it's pretty generally accepted, taught, and followed on the project, as far as I've experienced, and I didn't see the "This is an Essay" tag on it, so I just assumed. Anyways, like I said, it's usually pretty well followed, but if this is a recurring problem, then yeah, I guess it could be stated exactly as a guideline (if its not already). It kinda seems kinda like common sense/good taste sort of thing though, to me, just like one shouldn't try to count their own votes in a popularity contest, you know? Its just asking for trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree in principle, but it's a pet peeve of mine when editors imply that a certain action is forbidden by policy, only to realize that it's in an essay or information page, but not a guideline or policy. Also, I had no idea that once you open an AN/I thread you cannot close it even if you have a change of heart. Maybe that should be stated more clearly as a warning to anyone posting here. I think the whole boomerang thing is overplayed/gamed, and it would be nice if users could learn something here without fear of getting punished for their every mistake. It's like if you called the police in good-faith, then realized that because you were wrong about something you might get arrested instead. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have had no problem with Kraxler simply posting that he withdraws the 0RR proposal, without enclosing the discussion in a box. It's involved violation of his that I acted upon, and the unmerited authority that was given to him to post a summary at the top of the box. That spot is reserved for objective uninvolved analysis, not sniping at his opponents and a restatement of his position. In no way did I wish to reopen the discussion. I expected someone else to close it in short order. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Careful. I'm seeing personal attacks here. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RE Binksternet "I would have had no problem with Kraxler simply posting that he withdraws the 0RR proposal, without enclosing the discussion in a box." Fact is that you first added a comment at my withdarwal rationale, leading to some other editor replying and so on. Later on you removed both the archivetop template and my withdrawal rationale. I re-instated the rationale without archiving, which is the current state of things. The use of the archivetop template in case of withdrawal seems to be controversial, as discussed here above, but I rather lean over backwards than starting a discussion about it. If I made a mistake, I apologize for it, and ask to be excused because of my inexperience. Although I've been around since 2006, this was my first ANI report and, I can only hope, my last also. I'm glad that Binksternet now agrees to leave the 0RR discussion as it is, and that it should be closed. Concerning the Boomerang, I'm not in the least afraid. I came here with clean hands, and made a straightforward report, in good faith. Kraxler (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so this has just devolved into everyone griping about everyone. Nothing is actionable in any of this. Can someone please close all of this? I wish I hadn't gotten involved so I could just do it myself. Please, someone wrap this up... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Something for both sides to keep in mind

Note: In all of the protracted bickering above about whose RfC is going to take precedence, both sides seem to have missed a major policy distinction; a decision made on an RfC for a template cannot override the decisions of an editor on a given article that employs that template. That's just like the mistake that members of certain WikiProjects sometimes commit when they think they can formulate "guidelines" that can then be imposed upon any article they perceive to be in their purview. Just because someone sticks a given template on a given article doesn't make the editors and content decisions made by the editors on that article beholden to some general principle that a group of editors in a different namespace thought made sense and the article in question just happens to be one which that namespace is transcluded into...that's just not in any sense how policy formation works. If you want to make any content approach consistent across namespaces, you need to the relevant policy page (if one exists) propose the change, and then seek broad community consensus, or use a general community forum if there is not a relevant page to house the language of the policy change.

What we don't do is create little content fiefdoms by using a project or a template as a backdoor to impose changes over a broad swath of articles without seeking consensus amongst the editors there as to how content will be handled there. And this case demonstrates one of the many manifest reasons that we don't do that -- because there will be endless bickering when the "common sense" approach of one group clashes with that of another. I'd advise a number of the parties here to retire to their corners and stop trying to RfC their positions to priority over the decisions of huge numbers of editors working within sizeable chunks of the project, as defined by articles which a given template may be transcluded into. Work this out with a straightforward discussion on an article-by-article basis. And yes, the older stable version should prevail in each case until discussion closes. Snow talk 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the initial RfC was suggested by an arbitrator who said that the proper course was to make the change at the template level and not to try arguing each separate page over and over and over and over. Note the Infobox Officeholder documentation allows for discretion - basically saying that if the information is "factually correct and totally useless" that it does not serve the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

For a long time now, the article Christ Myth Theory has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user Renejs is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the WP:TRUTH. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. [123]. Another problem related to the same user concerns WP:COI. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Wikipedia account is an WP:SPA to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring [124], [125] are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Wikipedia rules, ANI would be the only option [126], Bill the Cat 7 agreed [127] while Martijn Meijering proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules [128]. That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the WP:TRUTH, there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually is right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg [129]). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. GoldenRing (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[130]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban of Renejs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed 30 day block of Renejs

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

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

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

Proposed site ban of Renejs

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You were still bullying.

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of two edit summaries

I'm sorry to trouble you with something so silly, but an editor left two uncivil edit summaries here and here. I have no interest in asking this editor to provide evidence of "Wikihounding", I just don't like seeing my good name smeared. Would it be possible to remove these ridiculous edit summaries? Thanks a lot. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What's silly is the edit-warring you two are engaged in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. No, those edit summaries are not disruptive enough to warrant removal. Also, even though Alansohn owns New Jersey, they are not allowed to make spurious charges of wikihounding (ie., harassment): Alansohn, put up or shut up please. If you're being hounded, make the case--and doing it in edit summaries for mainspace article edits is in poor taste. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles so that consensus can be reached, and disputes like these avoided. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Magnolia677

User:Magnolia677 has been belligerently and brazenly trying to create a confrontation with me, running here to WP:ANI for any perceived slight and hoping to exact his pound of flesh. Of late, he has started trying to pick fights over a series of articles I have edited, choosing articles I have edited and then making an edit to the same article over a topic that he has edit warred about before usually related to his misunderstanding of WP:MOSFLAG though any topic will do for a fight. In the edits he complains about above I called him out for Wikihounding, hoping that this would send an effective message, which has apparently failed. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is defined as "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

1) The Wikihounding above relates to Mount Holly, New Jersey where I edited here and he followed here, plus a series of two more tit-for-tat edits. Magnolia677 had never previously edited this article.

2) Tonight he was at it again. at the article for Roosevelt, New Jersey, I edited here and he followed at this edit, over an issue he has previously edit warred about.

3) This is not new. I edited the article for Haddon Heights, New Jersey a month ago at this edit, followed minutes later by this edit four minutes later. Magnolia677 had never edited this article before.

I'd be happy to provide many further such examples. I don't know what Magnolia677 is trying to accomplish through this pattern of abuse, but an interaction ban would be most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a small problem earlier with Magnolia677 involving an edit war. It was an article on a town in NJ and I replaced the older statewide map that showed a pushpin with the location of the city in the state. I replaced it with the newer map showing the town's borders. These newer maps have become the standard for geography articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of User:Magnolia677 and his edit war over the use of pushpin maps for counties. Magnolia677 seems to be trying to right wrongs and avenge grievances related to his past history as User:Richard apple and seems to be WP:NOTHERE too often, choosing to perpetuate a general pattern of disruptive behavior. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies: As requested, you've seen the diffs, and Magnolia677's actions speak for themselves, a pattern of provoking and creating conflict. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Bans - User:Раціональне анархіст

Раціональне анархіст (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Registered 2014-11-03[131] Раціональне анархіст has nominated 33 articles for deletion in 67 days. See here

5 have closed as "Speedy Keep"

7 have closed as "Keep"

1 has closed as "No Consensus"

1 has closed as "Wrong Venue"

1 has closed as "Too Soon to Relist"

1 has closed as "Redirect"

1 has closed as "Speedy Delete"

0 have clased as "Delete"

16 have not closed yet

Раціональне анархіст has received multiple comments/warnings regarding AfDs [132][133][134][135][136][137][138]
List of AfD Nominations

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eco Pickled Surface
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong Kong 1981 riots
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam College of Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) - Note:2nd nomination only 2 weeks after 1st ended with Speedy Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grub Girl Note:Full disclosure - closed by ban nominator
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charmane Star
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teanna Kai (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva Angelina
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talon (pornographic actor)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurt Lockwood
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brittney Skye (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014 ISIL takeover of Derna
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quaid-e-Azam College of Engineering & Technology, Sahiwal
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seattle Post Globe
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra Quinn (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannibalism: The Last Supper
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valentina Nappi - Note:"The result was keep. WP:SNOW"
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justine Joli
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole Aniston
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brea Bennett (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vamsi Paidipally
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Army Public College of Management Sciences
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan Bahu
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan-ul-Arifeen
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarwari Qadiri
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake Mosser
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy Clabots
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gypsy 83 - Note: "The result was Speedy keep and close of an unnecessary AFD."
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Another Gay Movie - Note: Раціональне анархіст edited article from "gay romantic comedy film" to "pornographic film" 1 minute after nominating[139]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I've been participating in AfD discussions and noms for about three weeks, with little if any prior to my Lars Walker article being nominated by someone else (given that Lars is still pending itself, it's not surprising to me that most of my Afds are still unresolved as well). The easiest thing to do for a broad overview would be to start on the [140]1st or the 2nd, and just scan down for "pax" or "анархіст" for a broad sampling. You'll easily see that porn Afds were at most half of those submitted, and considerably less than half of the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support the first, oppose the second (for now) - there is ongoing discussion about the relevance, application and scope of WP:PORNBIO and we have had editors both nominating articles due to particular interpretations of that guideline and opposing nominations for deletion due to particular interpretations of that guideline. It's an area where the editor in question has shown some interest but the list of problematic AFDs provided above demonstrates that the issue with AFDs isn't limited to pornography, nor are his interests in pornography singularly managed by way of AFD. They are not sufficiently connected (in my mind) so that a topic ban from one automatically justifies a topic ban from the other. For the record, he and I seem to strongly disagree on interpretations of PORNBIO but ongoing debate on that subject is important. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support first, neutral on second: I've witnessed the not here-type behavior at AFD. I haven't been involved with the porn stuff and have no interest in delving into it so I'm neutral on the second. Vrac (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has blatantly refused advice, refused to change their disruptive behavior, and evidently sees fit that they continue to be overt that he's nearly 'not here' to build an encylopedia. Tutelary (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support first, no comment on second. I'm not involved in and don't care about porn stuff, but such a bad nomination record at AfD suggests that he doesn't understand how the system works, so taking time off to participate in others' AfDs and learn the policies behind it would be beneficial. ansh666 20:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both Clear time-wasting disruption in AfD. Regarding the porn stuff, I fail to see how it would be a loss to the project if said user steered clear of those articles as well given prior history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support First Way to many bad nominations. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Continual abuse and harassment by John Carter

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

---

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

There has been a certain amount of sniping in the past, but this started in earnest with John posting so-called “circumstantial evidence” on a talk page of a recent Arbitration case on 21st November, purporting to indicate that I have access to non-public information regarding Landmark Worldwide, and therefore that I have some sort of undeclared interest in that organisation. [141]

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

[142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]

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

And recently Legacypac has joined in with the harassment and unsupported allegations. [158] [159]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed sanctions against User:DaveApter

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

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

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

It is also worth noting that DaveApter has himself made unsupported suggestions on talk pages that others have some sort of COI (aimed at myself among others). It is thus very strange that he would characterize this as harassment. DaveApter is also aware that the apparent existence of a COI on his part has been repeatedly noted over the years, including by those called in to comment. John Carter is hardly the first to broach the subject,[160][161][162][163][164][165] and for this reason DaveApter's attempt to make this unresolved issue out to be harassment also seems strange at this point. • Astynax ^talk 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Before we lose sight of the Wood for the Trees

So this thread is apparently not closed after all?

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

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

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

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

"You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization." [166]

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

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

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

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

By way of background, the following points are relevant:

1. The Arbcom case in question wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide was opened in October and closed on 29th December. The case was requested by Astynax, and no findings of fact were made against any of the three parties he named, nor were any sanctions imposed on any of them.
2. In my case specifically, no findings or sanctions were even drafted, and one of the Arbitrators even stated: "I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it." [167].
3. John Carter was not a party in the case, but he did comment extensively on talk pages of the case with a clear thrust of attempting to influence the Arbitrators in the direction of sanctioning the named parties. Clearly they did not find his arguments persuasive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEng of questionable civility

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

---

• EEng (talk · contribs)
• The relevant page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

I am not seeking eradication of point of view or saying it is particularly wrong (we are of opposite opinion). My problem is that EEng seems to be deliberately antagonizing everyone who does not agree with his position and in my opinion engaged in at least one personal attack. I'm not requesting specific action, just some eyes and opinions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your perspective, as he can get to me as well, but I don't see anything actionable here. Of course, if you could show a disturbing pattern across multiple AfD's, you might have something more substantial to work with. Otherwise, this should probably be closed. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment piqued my interest - more below. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My take, after reading all of his contributions to that AfD: EEng has a very edgy and humorous style. Not everyone appreciates humor on Wikipedia; not to mention his particular brand of it. He is not, in my opinion, deliberately antagonizing anyone or engaging in personal attack; just trying to get people to understand and follow Wikipedia notability policies. He certainly hasn't used any foul language. In reality all of his points have merit, and the article is enormously and grossly self-cited, which raises all kinds of red flags. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree, however, in addition to this style, EEng is often very blunt, and yet he can still draw blood, and that can upset users. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON applies at this point. Every response gets its own retort and published interviews in media like American Atheist Magazine get lost in the noise it generates. It is not civil and it is not productive to the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would love to kick EEng who can be unnecessarily aggressive, but given the lack of awareness in the keep votes at that AfD, I would say that EEng is being a model editor, and is patiently trying to explain what AfD is all about, albeit without success. @Zero Serenity: When wanting an article to be kept, the procedure is to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject and which demonstrate notability. The AfD closer should ignore any votes which consist merely of naming another article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the AFD discussion. I opened up with "This isn't my problem." Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Viritidas mentioned that EEng's behaviour on its own wouldn't be a problem, unless there was a pattern of such behaviour. Glancing at the history of this board, I see EEng does seem to have an inherent ability to wind people up at a number of places, leading to reports here in just the last year about his behaviour at an article (twice - the second time leading to a block for name calling), DYK and MOSNUM. Looking at the discussions, I generally get the impression that the community does agree there is an issue with EEng's behaviour, but it hadn't reached the point of any sanction. Looking further at the different underlying disputes, it seems that EEng generally is presenting valid arguments, but the lack of flexibility and the manner that he's presenting them that is leading to the issues.

  We have to remember that we are a community here and that collaboration is an important part of how we build this encyclopedia. EEng's dismissive manner certainly doesn't foster that spirit of collaboration. I'm not suggesting any sanction should be put in place here at the moment, but I do think that EEng should carefully consider how he presents himself in discussions, lest he end up being removed from them. Personally, I'll be putting EEng's talk page on my watchlist. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I removed cruft and some pointy stuff from EEng (talk · contribs). Play nice. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked EEng (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for continued incidents. Past block history led to a longer block than normal. seicer | talk | contribs 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Inappropriate blocking of EEng?

Template:CUE (Non-administrator comment) Okay, I'm looking though all of this, and I don't see anything that warranted a block. Violations of WP:CIVIL do not condone a block. I don't see any WP:NPA violations. Yes, I see the linking to non-existent policy page where the title contains vulgar terms (WP:SHOUTING violation at best, but since policy pages are ALLCAPS, not convinced). EEng only reverted twice, which is not more than three times per WP:3RR. So, can someone please explain why a seasoned editor who has been here almost seven years and has more than 18K edits with almost 7K of them in article space has been blocked? I'm especially concerned by the fact that the block was made despite Viriditas, Softlavender, Johnuniq and Worm That Turned opposing or suggesting no sanctions against the user; not to mention, the fact the blocking admin has labeled themselves as {{Semi-retired}} despite their contributions showing over 100 edits and their logs showing plenty of activity in the last two weeks.

I'm not petitioning for EEng's unblock at this time, as they apparently don't care based on their talk page comments; I'm just requesting some understanding of the reasons that led up to the block so I don't find myself in the same boat at some point and a review of the block to see if it was in fact appropriate and warranted despite seemingly being against what I would assess as consensus in the above discussion to not take an action. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, you seem to be labouring under a number of misapprehensions. For example, edit warring is sufficient for a block and 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Violations of CIVIL can lead to a block, NPA is not "required" - for example if there is a pattern of said incivility. A "Semi-retired" label is down to an individual's personal preference. The block was Not Inappropriate, given the circumstances. I notice you haven't actually started a discussion on the blocking admin's talk page, not made them aware of this thread and ignored a response from an uninvolved admin at EEng's talk page. Colour me unimpressed. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough on point one, I don't see a pattern of a lack of CIVILity to the point of DISRUPTION on point two, point three is your opinion (which I respect), for point four notification was not required considering this a continuation of the discussion they were already involved in. On point five, I didn't ignore the response, I just hadn't seen it until after I had spent half an hour researching and reviewing to see if I could figure it out on my own and avoid this toxic drama board all together, I failed and as such posted my request for clarification and understanding. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Three administrators have reviewed it so far - who found no issue with the block. You and a handful of others are obsessing over the block, which is what, the fourth for the user in a short time period? And then obsessing over my semi-retirement and my lack of experience? (Despite having been an administrator for years.) Just let him serve out his block like everyone else. This is my one and only comment on this. seicer | talk | contribs 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm hardly obsessing with anything (except the fact it is my birthday, the fact I won a T-shirt and I think that is cool, and I'm going to go have some fun tonight). I've never claimed you had a lack of experience, I'm just wondering if coming back full bore and blocking regulars for expressing their opinions (in a not outrageous or disruptive way) was appropriate. Read my comment more carefully please, I am not asking for the block to be lifted, I'm just asking for an improved understanding since my two years active hear have shown me that the way I was brought up, what I see as reasonable, and what I think is logical and should be the general consensus is usually fairly far from what the community agrees upon. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Worm. I probably wouldn't have made the block, but plenty of ANI regulars have accused me of enabling known disruptors, so this is a double-edged sword. But I do not believe the block was inappropriate, and I also believe that there is too much wikilawyering going on on the talk page. I visited that joint because Ritchie suggested that I, a well-known softie, could lift the block and I thought I gave EEng the opportunity to give me a good reason to lift it. Instead, I get some stuff about "I didn't know I had to check a box" or whatever, but no acknowledgment whatsoever of, for instance, the edit warring. Snarkiness never helps, by the way. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• What this says to me is there are multiple admins and editors who would not have made this block. While those same people can understand why the block was made, not everyone can. I'm one of those that can't understand it, and am asking for clarification for my own personal wikigrowth. I agree there is a little too much wikilawyering on the talk page, and I agree that EEng missed the memo. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ha. Yes. Well. Eh... Consider how different this discussion would be if the block were for two weeks, or indefinite. This discussion starts of with "inappropriate" as a key word, and I think you see that no one thinks it inappropriate, though they may think it strict. Again, I would have unblocked as "time served" if EEng had pushed the right buttons--the buttons we want everyone to push in an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia. After noticing his block and looking into its history, these have been my feelings/thoughts/observations about it: Semi-retired admin !votes on an AfD, then deletes 3,170 bytes of discussion by three different editors (using the word "crap" in the edit summary), against policy and without warning and against consensus (see above discussion; the last posts had been Johnuniq's and Zero Serenity's), edit-wars when the deletion is rightfully reverted per policy, then as an involved admin indef blocks the user, without userpage warning, without discussion, and without input or oversight from anyone else. Something is very very wrong with this picture. Is it any wonder that EEng is not bowing and scraping to these unfair punitive actions (is he supposed to perform an act of contrition?), especially when other admins seem so unwilling to break rank and admit this was unfair? Admins are human; like other humans they can make mistakes, act in the heat of the moment, edit war, and retaliate. Let's just admit this is what happened here, and that it was unfair, and that it was an improper and precipitous series of actions that escalated and resulted in a misuse of tools. I'm not necessarily saying that repercussions are due to the admin in question. However the indef block is and was clearly out-of-place (and should be reverted even if EEng is not bowing and scraping). Anyway, these are my opinions. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. That really puts things into rather a different perspective for me. Too bad User:Seicer has already made their "one and only comment on this". I know that it may take a while for other editors, who don't know User:EEng, to get used to his somewhat "in-your-face" style. Perhaps that explains why someone runs out of patience? But I thought the block was marginal at best. And blocks are supposed to be "preventative rather than punitive?" Hmm. I'm a bit uneasy, just like User:Technical 13. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note of clarity for Softlavender, the block wasn't an indef block, it was a 48 hours block. I'm not saying that excuses it, but it's not as severe as you seem to think. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Softlavender, it is a 48-hour block, not an indefinite block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. Neither the block notice nor the edit summary give any sort of timeframe (although there is the word "temporarily"). No offense to the admin in question, but I have personally been wondering all along if semi-retired users should retain their admin status; I don't know the full picture on how prevalent this sort of situation is (semi-retired admins who actively use block tools), but the malformed block notice is another odd "faux pas". The block notice is also not signed. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the block should stand, because EEng needlessly escalated a conflict over the fact that he was needlessly incivil to other editors. EEng was right on the merits of the AfD discussion (now closed as delete), but that is not a good reason to be a wiseguy with other editors, and to insist on a supposed right to be such a wiseguy.

But that doesn't mean that I'm satisfied with the way that Seicer went about it. Given that Seicer and EEng agreed about the AfD, I don't really think that there was a problem with WP:INVOLVED, but there were other problems. Instead of just deleting what EEng had said, Seicer deleted a significant amount of discussion between other editors. It would have been much better to utilize Template:Hat, and that would likely have avoided EEng's concerns with WP:TPO. And Seicer's edit summary called what EEng had written "crap". Does anyone else see a problem with dealing with incivility by calling it "crap"? And that, too, escalated the tension instead of deescalating it. At EEng's talk page, both Drmies and Worm that Turned said that it was bad judgment for EEng to have edit warred with an administrator. I would submit that it is bad judgment to edit war with any other editor, not just with administrators. The problem was edit warring over civility, not with edit warring with an administrator. And Seicer edit warred just as much as EEng had, and did so after the emerging consensus just above was that EEng's actions had been cause for concern, but did not rise to the level of requiring sanctions. None of that made EEng's own conduct alright, but neither side came off looking good here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that hatting would have been a logical choice had action been deemed necessary. EEng did not know that the deleter was an admin; given the against-policy and massive nature of the action, there was no reason to suspect that he was one; and even if he was, a massive deletion against policy needed to be reverted, and at that point it was the admin who edit-warred. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Tryptofish, that very much mirrors my thoughts and concerns on the issue. Now, to move forward, is this enough to discuss whether or not WP:ADMINACCT needs to be addressed? I mean, if EEng and Seicer were both in the wrong, and administrators are expected to be the more experienced editors with the goal of deescalating situations instead of causing additional escalation to give them a reason to block an editor, and EEng ended up being blocked for their wrong-doings (sorry, EEng, after seven years, you should know better anyways), then shouldn't there be an equal or respective preventative action to prevent this sort of issue coming up with Seicer again? On the occasions that I have this page on my watchlist because I'm directly involved in a discussion here (I hate this place usually and don't watch the drama the rest of the time, because that is often all it is), I've seen this kind of thing happen frequently enough to understand why there are a good number of editors who believe that there is a lack of equality and fairness in handing out preventive actions to admins and editors alike. It's why there has been a great number of recent proposals to reform de-sysoping and RfAs and whatnot, I also (yes, I realize it's OR/PO) believe that a reasonable amount of the decline in editors is that non-admins generally feel oppressed by administrators. The best analogy I can come up with to explain my belief is editors feel like WP:RANDY and they believe that admins are WP:EXPERT. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, those are interesting questions. I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, and I see that Seicer has been semi-retired since 2009. When I first began editing, I myself became very concerned about admins acting badly, sufficiently so that I became very much involved with WP:CDARFC. Since that time, I've come to believe that community expectations have become much higher, and that's been a good thing. So, when I saw Seicer's semi-retirement note on his user page, that was exactly what I thought of right away. Anyway, as things stand right now, I would hope that Seicer will look back here and we can have a constructive discussion, and if Seicer takes the feedback here on board, that would fully satisfy me, with no need for anything more drastic. But if there is no such response, I would not rule out an exploration of desysopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, it may surprise you to find that on occasion admins feel harassed by "regular" editors. Personally I am not opposed to reform, but you're an admin hopeful, I believe: get ready to eat shit. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. Let's slow down here. Like everything else wiki, it's not black and white, but gray; I agree the actions here aren't the best ever:

• The "crap" comment, already commented on.
• Rather borderline "incivility" to get blocked on. Unfortunately:

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

• Poor block log entry "see ANI." Finding conflict on ANI is like trying to find water in the ocean -- a permanent link URL was be much better.
• When reviewing admins are "supporting" the block with the "Not how I" weasel phrasing ...

That said, we're a long way off from anything sufficiently egregious to be tossing around the desysop word, and there's certainly no need for Seicer to "admit wrongdoing" or anything. If this becomes part of a pattern repeated in the future, then stronger pushback might be needed, but per WP:AGF I have every confidence they'll take a more de-escalating approach in the future. NE Ent 03:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that out of curiosity I looked at the admin's edit history a bit. He has blocked 7 people in the last two days, and is still blocking more people even after this inopportune block -- after being semi-retired since November 2008 and virtually never using the block tool for years. Also, none of the blocks are signed, and none of the temporary blocks have timeframes on them, so I suppose editors, especially new ones, just have to guess how long they are blocked for. I don't know what is up with this behavior, but I strongly suggest the person lay off the blocks at present, and possibly indefinitely. (Also, I find his userpage has had a strange history from July 2008 to November 2008: an odd removal of the administrator notification from the page, replaced by either a giant face or links to his own websites. All of this seems to indicate a lack of interest in or commitment to Wikipedia, which should be a sign that the mop is perhaps not for this individual at this time.) Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Obsessed over me a bit much? Have fun! seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but when your commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia is being questioned, and you are being asked to respond to and discuss the issues raised here, and your only response is ridicule, then I think administrative review is indeed in order. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to unblock EEng

"You want to hear me say I should have let it drop before reverting the second time? Sure I should have." (EEng on his talk page) NE Ent 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Ent--and I'll just act like that's the only part I read. Anywayz, I see no point in letting this drag on further; I hope that EEng will be more careful when reverting next time: this was an administrative action, and it's always a good idea to check on who is doing what. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Although he did not lack friends, they were weary of coming to his defense, so endless a process it had become.

— Rider, Fremont (1944). Melvil Dewey.

Thanks Drmies, and everyone, and I regret being (even in part) a reason time was wasted here that could have been spent on actual editing (paging Tryptofish, and see right). When I was writing what NE Ent quotes above, I at first added "To show I'm sincere in saying this, I ask that I not be unblocked, should anyone be moved to do so, because I don't want it thought my words are just an empty mea culpa to get the block lifted." But unfortunately I had to think better of that, because as we all know prior blocks become a de facto presumption of guilt used to justify further blocks [168][169] (at least by admins in a hurry to rush on to more blocks [170]). Sad statement but true. And the fact is that a log entry showing the block lifted ameliorates that a bit. So while I wasn't going to demean myself by actually asking for an unblock, I decided not to forego that possibility either.

Shirley you jest: a shocking indictment of WP indeed

I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia.

—Softlavender (above)
♥♥ May we also recommend User_talk:Martinevans123 – "Where all the coolest stalkers hang out" ♥♥

One Two last things: I have to take issue with Drmies' continued statements (at least this seems to be what he's saying...) that editors are supposed to keep in mind who's an admin and who's not. If so, then I suggest that edits by admins get a little red star next to them in revision histories, so we can all know up front when we're dealing with an editor authorized to use a Taser on us.

And finally, to each admin who says, "Well, I wouldn't have blocked, but I don't feel like overturning it": what you're condoning is a situation in which every editor is at the mercy of the least restrained, most trigger-happy admin who happens to stumble into any given situation? Don't you see how corrosive that is? It's like all these recent US police shootings: no matter how blatantly revolting an officer's actions were, the monolithic reply is "It was by the book. Case closed." This character was way out of line from the beginning in deleting multiple editors' posts (as someone suggested, hatting would have made complete sense, and troubled me not at all) and when called on it above, he gives a middle-finger-raised LOL. No wonder why so many see haughty arrogance in much of the admin corps around here.

EEng (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On this note, I would like to say I am not happy about Seicer's actions on Kader Khan, specifically reverting another editor over a birth date cited to IMDB and YouTube, and then blocking them for 24 hours. I have left some advice on the article's talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See, now you are trolling through my edits for any juicy bit even though you have absolutely no clue as to what you are referring to. Specifically, this edit was a result of someone reporting it to the Edit Warring noticeboard. After verifying the age via IMDB, where the source links to, I reverted the user's changes and did a short block based on the number of warnings given (and his lack of response). So, again, stop stalking. No admin agrees with your viewpoints, and no admin is going to "desysop" me for a block that has been justified. seicer | talk | contribs 12:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"No admin agrees with your viewpoints, and no admin is going to 'desysop' me ..." And that's an end to it, because only admins are fit to judge other admins. EEng (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:90.244.95.179

Coventry-based IP address using the Talk:Charlie Hebdo page as a WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, albeit with incoherent rantings which suggest either a machine translation or mental health issues, both of which fail WP:COMPETENT. Has also made a fake talk page archive (Talk:Charlie Hebdo/Archive 2) to fill with verses from the Koran, in a possible tag team with an editor in Algeria.

Possible sock puppetry or meat puppetry too with User:Joseph571. The IP gave a welcome address to the user on his talk page. Look at these diffs which show their material:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=642320277

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo&diff=642290717&oldid=642235439

'''tAD''' (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Should mention that the fake archive was deleted by Anthony Appleyard and is only visible to admins. Blackmane (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject recruitment

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

---

I have just discovered this. I suspect it is not ok, but I would appreciate if other users could have a look and give an opinion. I particularly do not like the fact that confidentiality is guaranteed and that the phone and the e-mail are published. I do not think the general subject recruitment procedures were followed either, but unfortunately they are rarely followed in general.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If they wish to have an interview from Wikipedia editors and be willing to compensate for such, I suspect they might want to do it off site. However I don't think there's a specific rule disallowing it--Maybe WP:PROMO since it's advertising such an interview and offering money to do it. Tutelary (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "projects" of this kind need to be cleared by WMF. Of course, there's nothing to stop any editor from taking them up on their offer, but the lack of privacy protection is concerning. Blackmane (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've contacted Halfak (WMF) vi the wikimedia-research irc channel; he's looking into it. NE Ent 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed. I've reached out to the editor and her collaborator Md_gilbert. If they respond positively, I'll be working with them to get the study documented and discussed before they continue. Please let me know if the researcher continues to post recruitment messages without linking to study documentation. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm Halfak in my staff role at the WMF. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor EpochFail: - I apologize for the misstep. There is a research page which has been created at meta:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects, but this was not communicated in the text. I'll make sure to insert that page and hold back until we can make sure everything is done properly. Apologies again, and thanks for the heads up. Md gilbert (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Blackmane: What "lack of privacy protection"? The fact that they cannot guarantee the security of your email client or the security of email while it is in transit? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW Michael is my academic sibling and sometime research collaborator. He missed a couple of protocol steps this time, but I'll vouch for the fact that he's an actual researcher working on an actual NSF-funded and IRB-vetted research project, and not some nefarious weirdo. I'll work with him and EpochFail to make sure everything gets properly filed, declared, and reviewed. And yes, email is indeed not a secure means of communication ;) Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor CombatWombat42: I'm pretty sure no one guarantees the protection of electronic data in transit, but you've obviously interpreted it in some weird way. The way I saw it was that any information received (not in transit) is not secured or protected in any way, shape or form as one normally expects. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some pedantic asides:

• That just looks like a generic disclaimer on the use of email; which is not really worth worrying about, as the risk of email interception is rather low, and other risks to your information are (relatively) bigger.
• Many organisations do guarantee the protection of electronic data in transit, although not for use-cases like this.
• Without positively identifying the person behind an email address, or making a robust connection between the email address and the wikipedia account, fretting about insecure mail clients is like worrying that when you step out into traffic and get hit by a bus tomorrow, maybe the bus will have rusty bodywork and you'll catch tetanus.

I'm sure there are procedural concerns that need smoothing out, but I'm not going to lose sleep over technical infosec risks here. bobrayner (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved, it is good to hear that the matter is being resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

71.52.147.147

71.52.147.147 (talk · contribs) has been adding incorrect distributors to articles about animated shorts, and is not responding to any talk page comments. They are currently adding RKO as a distributor of Warner Bros. shorts; previously they were doing things like adding Sony (founded 1946) to films distributed by Columbia Pictures in the 1930s, and adding MGM to 1930s films distributed by United Artists (MGM bought UA in 1981, but previously they were unconnected). Trivialist (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet Abuse

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

---

I gave up on Wiki after getting trolled by Binksternet over the Robert Palmer page. Today, out of nowhere, I received a post on my talk page saying that he and someone else had been blocked, blah blah. I responded to the user that posted it and within two hours, Binksternet posted on my talk page accusing me of using a "San Diego IP" to "post to myself". I want this editor to leave me alone. I have not posted anything since being blocked - I no longer have any interest in Wiki because of it, and I'm damned sorry no one, no matter how much discussion, will block him. Please tell him to stop contacting me. This guy is apparently completely insane, and Wiki allows him to be. I choose not to be part of this. [171] [172] [173] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadu (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I find the suspicion that the IP is you not implausible given that both of you have tried to perpetrate the same hoax. Please retract your WP:LEGALTHREAT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IT IS NOT ME! I had no idea there was a "hoax" to begin with. You all stick together tho.Zabadu (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For those just tuning in, the hoax is that Robert Palmer was dating someone named Geraldine Edwards at the time of his death, rather than Mary Ambrose which is what all the newspapers reported. Another story is that Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for the groupie character Penny Lane in Cameron's movie Almost Famous, but that person is actually Pennie Trumbull who lives in Oregon.

Zabadu, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I can imagine a scenario where you have unknowingly perpetrated the hoax but you are not the originator of it. If that's the case, I should not accuse you of being the same person as the San Diego IPs, but you would still be guilty of perpetrating a hoax. The problem with the hoax is that there are no reliable sources to back it up, only extremely poor sources. And the reliable sources contradict the hoax, so the discerning editor would have caught that.

Here's more background, which I have not yet shared with anyone; it provides the possibility that you unknowingly perpetrated the hoax. The San Diego person, whoever it is, has posted extensive hoax material on various online discussion boards, and you might have seen some of these in a search window. For instance there is:

• Oregon Music News which flatly tells the reader that the Penny Lane inspiration is Pennie Trumbull. But if you scroll down to the reader comments, you get somebody named Wheels saying that Geraldine Edwards was also the inspiration. Comment on September 29, 2012. You also get somebody named Julian Wray who says the same thing. Comment on October 24, 2012. There's also Laurie who says the same thing on July 23, 2013.
• Denver Westword Blogs, an article about groupies. Some readers argue about Geraldine Edwards, one named Paul insisting she was the inspiration for Penny Lane while the other named Lacebra cuts holes in the assertion.
• Today I Found Out published a story about Clapton's women. The blog says that Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for the Penny Lane groupie character. Lacebra shows up in the reader comments to debunk the blog.
• Pajiba blog asserts Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for Penny Lane.
• Answers.com hosts a bunch of trolling questions about Geraldine Edwards with regard to the Penny Lane character, Eric Clapton, and Robert Palmer. The unsigned reader answers are the same hoax nonsense scraped from discussion boards.

• A telling question on Answers.com is the following: "Is it true that Geraldine Edwards Robert Palmers partner was the County Psychic working with the San Diego Police Dept in the nineties?" It looks like the question was asked and answered by the same person using two different handles. The same account asked multiple trolling questions about Geraldine Edwards, and putting down Mary Ambrose."Moira Kennedy"

• Ultimate Guitar published a report about Robert Palmer's burial, saying his partner at the time was Mary Ambrose. Down in the reader comments, various people say that the article is wrong, that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend. No references are supplied. The comments are dated November 23, 2010; January 10, 2011; and November 27, 2011. Another nasty commenter pretends to be the brother of Mary Ambrose and pours vinegar on the Palmer/Ambrose relationship: August 16, 2011.
• Margaret Cho's blog has something about Robert Palmer. Down in the reader comments, someone says Geraldine Edwards was his girlfriend: January 5, 2011.
• Contact Music forum discussion about Robert Palmer's money. A reader from "Southern California" says that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Palmer. Comment made roughly November 2010.
• And What's Next blog about meeting Robert Palmer. Three very extensive reader comments, using different names but writing in the same style, assert that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer. The comments were made on February 9, 2011; September 15, 2011; and October 1, 2011.
• Famous Hookups is one of those gossip sites that scrapes the web to come up with uncontrolled nonsense. It says Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer at his death.
• Phillip Rauls' Photolog talks about Palmer. A bunch of reader comments say that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer. They all assert they knew Palmer. One places the connection in Coronado, near San Diego. Another commenter says he's from San Diego, and he diminishes the role of Mary Ambrose in Palmer's life. This page is the mother lode of fool's gold.
• Encyclopedia of World Biography has an article about Palmer. One user comment attempts to correct the encyclopedia by saying that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend. It pooh-poohs the Ambrose/Palmer relationship.
• Bellazon has a biography of Palmer. A reader comment tries to say that Geraldine Edwards was his girlfriend. Wikipedia is said by Bellazon to be their source, then the reader says go look again at Wikipedia as it has been changed. The comment was made on March 12, 2011, in response to the original July 2010 post. In the intervening time, Hhfjbaker made these hoax-powered changes to the biography on February 21, 2011, citing no sources. This was probably an unknowing perpetration of the hoax.
• AOL Answers is similar to Answers.com in that trolling questions can be asked and answered by the same person using a different log in. In this case two different accounts were used to answer the question by a third account. All of the accounts were used just once, for this question.
• Duran Duran wiki scraped Wikipedia for its Robert Palmer biography, and they got the hoax version.
• Last FM also appears to have scraped Wikipedia when the hoax was up.
• Lipstick Alley online forum includes someone going on and on about Geraldine Edwards, dishing Ambrose, writing in the same style as other hoaxer entries. The comment was made on January 6, 2011.
• Topix Orlando announces Palmer's death. Someone from San Diego says on December 23, 2010, that Geraldine Edwards and not Mary Ambrose was Palmer's last girlfriend. Another commenter from San Diego agrees on January 15, 2011. A non-hoaxer pastes a news clip about Mary Ambrose being the final girlfriend. A third account from San Diego follows that on July 1, 2011, by slamming Ambrose and pumping up Geraldine Edwards. On this discussion board, there are multiple editors from various places, but only San Diego ones push the Geraldine hoax.
• Deseret News carried a Robert Palmer obit. A supposed reader from Del Mar (near San Diego) says that Geraldine Edwards was the final girlfriend of Palmer. January 20, 2011.
• The Free Library announces Palmer's death. A reader says on November 3, 2010, that Geraldine Edwards was his final girlfriend, and he puts Ambrose down.
• North Texas Drifter blog talks about Robert Palmer on November 20, 2013. He says Geraldine Edwards was the final girlfriend of Palmer. The Wikipedia article at that time said the same thing, not having been corrected yet by me. You can see the two supporting citations are baloney. I came along a month later to fix the problem.

That's just a taste of the madness. Someone from San Diego is obviously going to great lengths to perpetrate a hoax, using a wide variety of fora to make comments, poisoning the well against the reliable sources. It's astonishing how obsessive this effort is.

If Zabadu is not from San Diego then I apologize. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go out and say it, but Binksternet certainly seems to have researched this matter and found a hoax. The existence of the hoax should be noted on the talk page to assist in removing insertions. If it is particularly persistent, an invisible comment within the article might be warranted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. This hoax is still going on? Maybe the right action is page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, Chris. I put up an informative entry at Talk:Robert Palmer (singer)#San Diego hoaxer problem. Ninja, I don't think we need page protection as I am now alerted to this stuff. I will certainly request protection if needed. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For the very last time, I AM NOT the San Diego IP Binksternet claims I am. Feel free to block me, as I will NEVER edit Wiki again because of the abuse I have received. I DO NOT CARE about Robert Palmer enough to wage all these wars. He was a singer and that's it. If someone wants to bicker about the details of his death, go for it - I don't care! I'm tired of being dragged into the middle of it. I haven't posted since I was blocked last time. I received an email telling me I had a message on my page. I responded to that person asking who they were and that I saw NO evidence of what they said. Next thing I know, Binksternet shows up and it's on and I have warnings all over my page. The warnings are unfounded and unfair, yet Binksternet wins again. Block me. And show me proof that a Sacramento girl is posting from San Diego. I can barely make a diff, yet supposedly I'm posting from different cities. Whatever. I do not want to be involved in this scuffle. Please leave me out of it.Zabadu (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)20mi

50km IP Address: 108.211.81.131 Country: United States City: West Sacramento Latitude: 38.6667 Longitude: -121.6293 Zabadu (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And HERE Binksternet - have MY ip address.

I apologize and I am going to remove my warning from your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if all the other editors would do the same. I am being punished for things I DID NOT DO.Zabadu (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User Bladesmulti

On 13 January, I deleted the sentence "Hinduism is the fast-growing religion in Ghana" from the Growth of religion article because the cited sources did not support it (diff). I immediately started a new discussion on the talk page explaining the rationale for my edit. The next day Bladesmulti (talk · contribs) undid my revision (diff). I have attempted to resolve the conflict with Bladesmulti on the talk page, but to no avail. On multiple occasions ([174][175][176]), Bladesmulti has deleted block quotations from my post, claiming they are "violating copyrights" even after I properly sourced them. I suspect Bladesmulti is trying to edit my posts because he cannot respond to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [177], 96 words and 636 characters. I didn't had to discuss about them as they weren't good enough for including with these information, nor I had shown any support for the previous 2 citations. I had suggested 3 other citations where the pointed information can be found. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The talk page thread is available for everyone to see: [178] You have done nothing but summarily dismiss the quoted sources (which had previously been used as citations for the disputed text, I note), and offer up new sources (including a Wikipedia mirror) which supported your preferred version. You entirely failed to address the issue that the previously cited sources 'had been cited for one thing, when they in fact said something else. All the while throwing threats about supposed 'copyright violations' around, in what I think any reasonable person will see as an attempt at intimidation. Fortunately, the IP has had the guts to face you down, and bring your abusive behaviour to the attention of the rest of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

See also this thread at WP:RSN: [179] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You are actually looking incompetent, you are claiming that my intention was to avoid argument by pointing copyright infringement, when I had actually replied and progressed with the discussion. He hadn't used short sentences nor he was attributing to actual author at first,[180] he had ripped off the paragraphs from the copyrighted content, at this situation a link was enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• More copyright violation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-way edit warring on Charlie Hebdo shooting

There is some heated edit warring going on at Charlie Hebdo shooting. Some are trying to expand the background section despite vocal opposition (e.g. PuffinSoc, Yug); others are trying to remove it entirely despite vocal opposition (e.g. Abductive, MoorNextDoor, and Gamebuster19901‎, who blanked sections immediately after I reported both PuffinSoc and MoorNextDoor for editwarring). I'm one of those stuck in the middle, accused by both sides of pushing an agenda (even of racism).

Very little productive discussion is happening on the talk page—just lots of rehashed accusations and ear-plugging. There has already been at least one block for edit warring, and I suspect there will be more, despite warnings. I have little faith this issue will clear itself up, except through attrition. Any advice? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had very limited involvement on that article so I'll take a look. Earlier there was another post asking for more eyes, still a good idea. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "more eyes" issue, as the editors on both extremes don't appear to be interested in discussion. This is not to say that nobody is discussing—plenty are, but the number of disruptive editors is overwhelming. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Curly, you are also part of the conflict as you keep sensationalist externally-sourced statements, quickly remove summary of well established wikipedia articles and pre-attacks societal facts such suburbs tension (2005, 2007) from where the attackers come from as we know. You thus tie the hands of good will editors. 3 people complained about your hard line reading of WP:SYNTH, and I mainly left for this reason. You are part of the edition war. Now, Curly is also right : we have trouble getting something done on the background section of this article due to edit add/remove. A starting solution suggested was : the ideological background is done; 2. the socio-economical background should focus on the attackers and their livehood, NOT on "Muslims in france" which is an unfair association; 3. may be better to write out of the article space. Note2: I do not wish to get involved with this article page/talk page. Yug (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes

• Who are the "three editors" who complained about my "hard line" on WP:SYNTH? The only one I interacted with was you, after you added paragraph after paragraph of uncited OR that you refused to cite, going as far as to leave hidden comments that citations were not needed.
• No matter how many times I ask, you will not tell us what is supposed to be "sensationalist" about any piece of text I've added.
• I've done nothing to tie your hands—I've informed you that you must add citations to your textual additions, and you've stated that you will do no such thing, because the sources are in the articles linked to. I'm not the only one who's told you that's flagrantly in violation of WP:CITE.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe worth having this page under the 1RR restrictions for the time-being, and alert all the people listed above to this fact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My only concern with that is the number of editors involved—each can make a single revert, and it would still result in toppling dominoes of reverts. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Having just looked at the article, and the disputed 'background' section, I have to agree with the suggestion that there was WP:SYNTHESIS going on - material was being added based on citations to sources saying nothing about the killings (see some of the material removed in these edits [184]). It isn't Wikipedia contributors job to compile such material, we leave that to the sources we cite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump: For clarity, is the paragraph below what you refer to when you say SYNTH is going on? It's been moved in and out of the "Muslims in France" by editors other than myself, and was added independently of the other material. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As I posted to talk page, the background Muslims in France section is not appropriate for this article.Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Involved editor) Not only is the material Curly Turkey wants in the article very obvious original research and inappropriate for the article, but there's also a very clear talkpage consensus to that effect. It's quarter past stick-dropping time. Formerip (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have been reading the discussion) Formerip, please don't call the passage below WP:OR. I have just checked out each fact claimed in the passage and it is all in the sources cited. Prhartcom (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerip is the very involved editor who accuses me of racism, and now of OR: Here's the supposed "obvious" racist OR:

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the Muslim population of France had surpassed 5 million, which was the largest Muslim population in the European Union. While most French Muslims abide by the values of the country, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remain in the memories of many French of Algerian descent, many of whom feel their ethnic background has excluded them from mainstream French society. A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqabs, yarmulkes, and other ostentatious symbols have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and is undergoing court challenges.

All three sources are from major newssources and are specifically about the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

1. Where's the OR?
2. Where's the racism?
3. Assuming I were to "drop the stick", how would that solve the problem between the other two groups (who want either much more or much less)?

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I already answered the first two questions on my talkpage. As to the third, I'm not sure there is a genuine issue, because no other editor seems as attached as you to this specific content (I can't actually identify another editor who is not opposed to it, although maybe I am missing someone). So your dropping the stick would at least allow the other editors to discuss the content that isn't OR. Formerip (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't dodge: demonstrate to the folk at ANI that the above is OR racism. Insinuations don't count. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not dodging anything. Any editors who want to know what I said will easily be able to find my talkpage. Formerip (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you refuse to back up your allegations. For obvious reasons. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, my reasons are on my talkpage. If you wish, we can discuss them further there. But, in the context of this thread, it would be a distraction. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, so a hit & run personal attack. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but if you see it that way then you do. Formerip (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have been reading the discussion) Formerip, please don't don't fail to answer a question like this. I, for one, would like to know your answer. Typing reasons not to provide a brief answer to the reasonable question makes it seem to others that you have no answer. Instead, be helpful; I'm assuming you would prefer to have a resolution to this matter. Prhartcom (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you want a wall-of-text discussion here about whether and why the content in question is OR and "slightly racist"? If you for one would like to know the answer, it is, like I say, on my talkpage. But it's also not very relevant to the resolution of this matter, IMO. I'm perfectly happy, though, to answer any direct question about it. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Upon consideration, I think Curly Turkey needs to let this slide. The comment is in an edit summary and talks about the content. Aside from the involved parties, nobody could reasonable interpret this as a personal attack because they wouldn't know who it was targeting (hence not personal). Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The percentage of Muslims in France is irrelevant, and only bloats the article with useless information. If you want, you can make an article about French Muslims, but it does not belong in the Charlie hebdo article.Gamebuster19901 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This page isn't for discussion of content. If you have a disagreement, (1) stop reverting, (2) start an RFC, (3) abide by the results. It's that simple. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman: per your comment, I collapsed the content in this discussion that wasn't related to solving the three-way editwarring issue. Formerip has now reverted it twice. I've disengaged from the other editwars, and I don't want to get involved in another. At the same time, I want to bring the focus back to the topic issue, which has now been buried (fillibustered?) in content issues. What do you suggest? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, the main thing here is that you've misidentified the central issue, which is that there's an overwhelming consensus against the content you wanted to add, but you won't give up. That's it. Have you noticed how there's been no more edit-warring on the page since you stopped doing it? There's your solution. Formerip (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1. MoorNextDoor, PuffinSoc, and Gamebuster19901‎ continued the editwarring amongst themselves until I reported MoorNextDoor and PuffinSoc, and both I and Vice regent notified Gamebuster19901‎ of the situation.
2. There is nothing resembling a consensus either way: at the very least, Puffinsoc, Yug, Epicgenius, Zup326, Sayerslle, and myself are in favour of some amount of background.
3. The editwarring is over far more text tham mine; the text PuffinSoc and Yug have added, for example, are not mine, and continue to be editwarred over.

Can we drop the fillibuster and editwarring now? You've already gone over Lugnuts' proposed 1RR, and you've made it abundantly clear that you're not here to develop a solution. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Going over a proposed 1RR before it was proposed is not wrong. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac: It was proposed a day before the revert was made. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what edit you are talking about. But, in any case, a proposed 1RR restriction is not a 1RR restriction. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but neither is edit warring defined as 3RR. Your 2RRing is edit warring as defined by WP:EW; 3RR is the bright line under which you would be eligible for a block. As this discussion is about edit warring, it's particularly egregious. The fact that you refuse to stop commenting or to allow these tangents to be collapsed demonstrates you've your own stick you're unwilling to drop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You sure do: 1RR 2RR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake. That's just me reverting your attempt to hide parts of the discussion in the hope that some dozy admin would come along and read half it it. It's not even on the page that the maybe, possibly, suggested by one editor restriction would have applied to if it had been implemented. Shoot me at dawn, if you like. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's clear you're here to sabotage the discussion and bait the submitter. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, you've bustered your own fili. I only intended to make my point and go, but you keep asking me questions and making accusations I feel I need to respond to. I've not edit-warred at all here. I think I've made fewer than five edits to the article in total. And I am here to develop a solution. I'm pointing out that your insistence on content that no-one else wants is at the core of the problem. There can't be a solution without you agreeing to stop editing against consensus. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was not involved any edit war until I removed the two sections. I had no Idea that an edit war was even going on because I was busy bundling sources, and I noticed that those paragraphs were irrelevant, so I removed them. I have not reverted or changed any edits related to Muslims or muslim demographics after that, and I have been discussing the issue. I just made the wrong edit at the wrong time. I honestly made the edit in good faith, and I wouldn't have removed it if I knew it was going on. This also means that the above statement that accuses me of consistantly editwarring is false.Here is the proof. I would undo those edits, but there may be edit conflicts preventing me from doing so, and it might cause the edit war to continue. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been discussion on my talk page, so I have reverted my edits for good faith. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And Abductive immediately reverted it, despite having been blocked once already for removing this material. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have been reading the discussions) It seems to me that the passage in question (provided above) is considered slightly racist and irrelevant by some because of the fact that it discusses "all Muslims" rather than the background of the terrorists. I happen to disagree; it seems relevant to me, but I respect and can understand the opinions of those that feel that way. Therefore, For those that feel this way, do we have background information and is it be possible for these editors to research and write a passage of the background of the terrorists? Then perhaps we could include both. Prhartcom (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor who is on the side of inclusion and I believe the information in question is relevant enough to keep. I'm not warring over it though and have made no attempts to do so. There's maybe 2 or 3 editors as listed above who want to or have nuked the entire section. Another 2 or 3 editors feel that the information is simply irrelevant. 6 editors or so want it, some of which have tried to expand the section in good faith. It's basically a deadlock of editors who feel it's relevant vs those who feel it's irrelevant. Further, it's impossible to engage a few of the editors on the talk page with any type of sensible discussion. They claim that they already have 'consensus' and that we are 'beaten' and then throw in a few personal attacks and allegations of racism when we ask them to legitimately present their argument. PuffinSoc has avoided the talk page entirely and did not partake in the debates likely for this very reason. I don't blame him. Zup326 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Zup326: You're probably not surprised that Abductive has recommence deleting this information with another claim that the "material is against the now well-established talk page consensus" and that "Further discussion must take place without the material disgracing the article." So much for WP:AGF—funny thing is, it was Gamebuster19901 that he reverted, even though Gamebuster19901 is on the side of wanting this stuff gone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well hopefully the RFC on the talkpage Curly Turkey started is helping this issue. Suggest discussion continues there, as I believe the admins are now aware of the over-riding issue of edit warring on the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Akmalzhon

Hi! Akmalzhon has been engaging in disruptive editing for some reason. See his contributions. He's also been deleting material on the Uzbek Wikipedia for no reason. If he continues to engage in disruptive editing, I think he should be blocked. Nataev ^talk 06:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Warned the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Nataev ^talk 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonia Poulton wrongly recreated

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

---

Sonia Poulton was deleted by PROD a few months ago yet it has just been recreated by the same editor as before. The same issues apply to new version - almost identical to old version.--Penbat (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A PROD can be contested by anyone for any reason, I believe, even the original author. So a recreation is really a way of contesting it, and I don't think the author has done anything wrong. I think the appropriate thing to do now is AFD, and if that results in deletion only then can it not be recreated in the same form and would be eligible for speedy deletion G4 if it was. (Can you tell I've been reading all the pages about deletion?) Squinge (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Good reading of the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD is the correct procedure here, I think. The claim in the lead to have worked for the BBC and several national newspapers easily clears it from CSD, and the PROD has been de-facto contested. Let me see if I can salvage it. A quick search online reveals she has clashed swords with Katie Hopkins, so I like her already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after those disgraceful comments about the nurse infected with ebola, anyone who dislikes Katie Hopkins is a friend of mine! Squinge (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD now underway - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton --Penbat (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Complete new articles are fine, reusing old content may not be

I'm reopening this to mention that while the PROD process itself doesn't prevent recreations, if these aren't completely new articles, care needs to be taken. If the editor simply rewrote the content they wrote in the first place that's fine. So too if they used a personal backup of an old version which was solely their own work. However if it's a backup of an old version which was not entirely their own work, then the editor needs to be sure none of the content was eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it was stuff like wikilinking). Ultimately if the content was not entirely their own work, it's probably far better if the editor asks for undeletion rather than simply pasting it again due to the risk that the content may be copyright protected and they are violating the licence attribution terms. Undeletion should be granted without the need for further discussion in most PROD cases. If you come across this and aren't the recreator, it's probably simplest to just ask for undeletion rather than try and work out with the OP whether this could be an issue, I would suggest you do that even if you're planning to AFD. In this particular case, it was already dealt with [185], but I think it's an important reminder since the above discussion seemed to suggest there's nothing to worry about when a PRODed article is recreated (other than whether you may want to submit it to AFD) but this isn't entirely true. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Auto archiving on Talk page

Hello,

I hope I'm on the right spot to requesting administrators help of a issues with the configuration on the auto archiving.

I tried to set up the auto archiving via MiszaBot on this talk page, unfortunately it did not work as assumed. I've had created an Archive_1, but Lowercase sigmabot III used an self-provided Archive12. However, after that abortive attempt of myself, I requested an advanced Wiki-User, namely (Hohum ^@) but he also failed to fix that issues but could move the archived Talk from Archive12 into Archive1. There's now an Archive1 and Archive_1, which is not directly accessible. However, HoHum recommend to request help from an admin. Our conversation can be recognized here with some possible steps of resovling the problem (only feasible as admin). Many thanks in advance. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done: I deleted /Archive_1 and moved /Archive1 to /Archive 1. Keegan (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unequal treatment of some brands articles and harassment

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad Buhari

Hello! I'm a new WP user who already managed to get into a bit of trouble (WP:LEGALACTION). I came across this article on Muhammadu Buhari as I'm currently writing my thesis on democracy in West Africa. So I found the page seriously lacked reliable and neutral information about Nigeria's democratic history. I've tried to improve the page by adding a series of sources meant to balance the overtly positive tone of that page, not in tune with the requirements of Wikipedia. Other pages concerning Nigeria' history (see here) present a more balanced and don't shy away from chronicling certain darker episodes from their past so I thought I could do the same with Buhari's page. Unfortunately, my editing work and the sources added were promptly reversed by an IP address who immediately accused me of working for the opposition and for using libelous and defamatory information. As for my sources, even if they present a more rounded approach to the legacy, life and rule of Buhari, they are by no means libelous. I've used two New York Times articles from the 1980s, 1 source from the BBC from 2014, reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the text of the decrees passed by Buhari and then the 5 biggest Nigerian newspapers. After a brief exchange on the talk page, in which I tried to explain my case and start a constructive debate with the users who had already broken the 3-revert rule, I was told that Buhari's lawyers have mounted legal proceedings against the "libelous edits". After panicking for a bit, I found that any legal threats must be reported on this page (WP:LEGALACTION). So here I am :) Passenger68 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week for legal threats (this is a static IP, and I do not see much sense in a longer block, but everybody is welcome to extend the block), and fully protected the article for three days since I see a full-scale edit warring there. Please continue discussing at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and possible sockpuppetry on Charleston, South Carolina

An edit war between Scsu76 (talk · contribs) and 128.23.195.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have been ongoing for several weeks at Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as in a few related articles. I came across it this week and made some reverts myself, and eventually submitted a report at WP:AN/EW which resulted in a 24 hours block on the named user. As I couldn't get engagement in discussion at the user's talk page, I also started an RfC at Talk:Charleston, South Carolina#Armed Forces listing and notified two related WikiProjects.

Today, a new account Ellis1960 (talk · contribs) and the IP continued their edit war. As a result, I have now semi-protected the three articles:

• Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• North Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goose Creek, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I was involved in a couple reverts myself, I would prefer to get additional eyes on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: All three identified users above have been notified of this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the admin who blocked User:Scsu76 for 3RR violation per the AN3 case. It does appear that User:Ellis1960 has no purpose on Wikipedia except to continue the revert campaign launched by Scsu76. So semiprotection looks to be a reasonable step, though ideally a different admin would have done it. To observe the proprieties I suggest filing this at SPI, even though the result looks obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  I blocked the user for 48h for a clear continuationb of the edit-warring pattern. The protection looks justified to me, though I am not sure I would start outright with 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly an SPI would seem warranted here as well. Snow talk 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scsu76 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptively clueless: 82.131.225.97

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

---

82.131.225.97 (talk · contribs) - Brand new IP. Number of edits: 10. Number of constructive edits: 0. Attempts to communicate via editsums and user talk unsuccessful. I am at 3RR and no one else is around to revert this idiot. Request an admin to put them out of our misery, at least temporarily, and to revert their latest damage. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It will be quicker to request this at WP:AIV. Epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

"Reporting Harassment / Wikihounding" OTRS ticket 2015011510021553

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

---

Per request from a user within the ticket:

Dustin,
I would greatly appreciate if you would be willing to post a thread to be discussed by the community on this matter. One of the contributing editors (@TenPoundHammer:) has admitted on the discussion for deletion page that the “only credible” source to him are The Current sources, and yet he keeps removing these reliable sources himself, along with @Edward321:. He also admitted that a tweet or twitter reference is acceptable in some cases but not to be used excessively. The reference in question was mentioned once and cited properly and directly relates to the article from a verified Twitter account.

User states that this in relation to Band Famous.

User also states that " TenPoundHammer is one user in particular who has been Wikihounding the Band Famous Wikipedia page. " User further alleges that TPH is engaging in tendentious editing, is campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and more.

I have no involvement in this issue other than doing as the user requested and posting this issue here.

Regards, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, but there's very little to discuss here. "Wikihounding" is per definition related to a user, not a page. These allegations of "Wikihounding and disruptive editing" are made in the article history as well, by WeAreAllStars, but I don't see that there is any substance to them. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• In fact, there is no substance to them at all: sour grapes over a deletion. WeAreAllStars, I strongly suggest you stop making these false claims of hounding etc. lest you be blocked for personal attacks and a blatant lack of good faith. I understand that you don't like that this is proposed for deletion, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Dusti: The user claims I am "hounding" them merely because I nominated one of "their" articles for deletion twice, the second time being solely because the first closed as "no consensus". I have never removed any sources from the article, nor do I see how I am "driving editors away". This is just one user who has an article that they want to defend, but they have a bug up their ass about it and are making wild accusations on my part. I strongly suggest that you or some other admin have a chat with this user, as you are bound to be more tactful than I in that regard, and would have a better chance at getting through to them that my actions are in no way "wikihounding". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• I attempted to engage WeAreAllStars on the talk page almost a week ago, explaining that their sources did not meet Wikpedia guidelines for reliable sources.[186] They have made no attempt to reply until a few hours ago. Edward321 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Seems to me User:WeAreAllStars, User:Maxgold70000, and User:Avenueofwarcraft are likely WP:sockpuppets as the first two started editing on the same day and the second to have the exact same comment style. I am not experienced enough with the sock process to know how or if to file a case but someone with more experience might want to take a look. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit-Warring and Unproductive Exchanges at Mexicans of European descent

Editors User:Alon12 and User:Aergas had a content dispute on Mexicans of European descent, which they, reasonably, took to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I agreed to act as the volunteer moderator. After multiple rounds, we identified two issues about whether particular text should be included in the lead section. The editors would not compromise, but would agree to use a Request for Comments, which is in progress. I then tried to identify other issues for resolution, but then had to do a General Close at DRN. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mexicans_of_European_descent

Now the two editors are talking past at each both at the article talk page and at my talk page. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Edit_Warring https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Dispute_Resolution_Noticeboard_Part_2 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Non-Stop_Personal_Attacks_from_Aergas https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Mexicans_of_European_descent#State_of_the_Article

There are allegations of personal attacks, and complaints of original research and synthesis. I don’t see personal attacks, just exchanges that are just barely civil but unproductive. The synthesis issue has been sent to the original research noticeboard.

I don’t think at this point that administrator intervention is necessary, but would appreciate a little administrative attention. If the situation gets any worse, it may be necessary to impose general sanctions. I don’t think that we are there quite yet, only at the point where I am asking for a few uninvolved admins and experienced editors to take a neutral look.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that at this point, the intervention of unninvolved administrators is likely needed, the discussion with Alon12 has become exhausting and is going in circles, if anyone here want to see what kind of discussion we are having (and have some free time) you can read this section of the talk page: [187], here, for hours, I've tried to explain Alon12 on the clearest and most simplified way possible why his claim of OR is wrong, I've even explained it as "little red dots" and "little black dots" but he just goes back and argues the same thing again, then, four hours later he ignores the entire discussion and opens a case in the noticeboard for original research, and we start discussing the same thing again, and he replies as if nothing has happened. In the meantime he accuses me of personal attacks that neither I or other editors can see. Personally speaking, I've found his attitude to be offensive on times, for example, when the discussion was a new thing, he didn't hesitate on making claims on the vein of "racial purity" towards Spaniards [188] and he called Latin Americans "Diluted Spaniards" [189]. Aergas (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You see, this is the issue, the opposing party is applying WP:Synth, and WP:OR, and even making claims for various things which do not exist in the sources he purports to present. He has even been confused by simple abbreviations in genetic studies, which he obviously cannot understand, which I had to explain to him in depth. In fact, he has even admitted to being wrong in interpreting genetic studies in the past for that reason (see my talk page). Now, he is shifting the argument to 'red dots', basically he is showing statistical outliers of some 'white americans', and is comparing those outliers as having various admixture to the general admixture in the Spanish population, yet as I've shown him, there are outliers in the Spanish population as well, who maintain up to 30-40% north african ancestry. This is why you do not compare outliers in generalizations. So, if you compare absolute general admixture in both populations, you will see that Spaniards are less homogeneous, as the studies I cited explicitly state. With regards to comments on 'racial purity', it was the opposing party who first attempted this, by demanding that the 'mexicans of european descent' article claim that they were of FULL-European heritage, while simultaneously calling 'white americans more admixed'. I was merely demonstrating the hypocrisy in that, as various south european groups like Spaniards already maintain historical admixture, and in excess of 'white americans'. The opposing party has been unwilling to make any compromises whatsoever, the only tiny issue that was settled, is when Robert, in a unilateral decision, demanded that it must be mentioned in the article that the historical standards for 'mexicans of european descent' did not require them to be 'full-european', this is explicitly a part of Mexican history, dating back to the casta. This is basic history, Robert accepted this, and so the terminology 'full-european' was removed. This is not a very difficult subject to grasp. And, seeing as how Spaniards make up the bulk of 'mexicans of european descent', it is a pot calling the kettle black analogy to refer to 'white americans', who maintain less admixture than spaniards, as Spaniards make up the bulk of the 'mexicans of european descent' population. With regards to the issues on the talk page. I was just pointing out some hypocrisy, which Robert has not been able to address. For instance, during the DNR, between the oppposing party and I, it was concluded that sourced data cannot be removed from the article, without discussion in the talk page first, yet, my sourced data was removed in an edit war, by the opposing party, this is the sourced data I presented that was removed [190]. I was going to report this, but then Robert intervened, I do not know why this hypocritical position is implemented, I also do not know why he has claimed that I made 'personal attacks' in the past, when now he says that both parties are 'within the lines of civility'. With regards to 'talking past each other', this is not simply about me, the opposing party even talks past other editors as well, for instance, in the talk page on 'mexicans of european descent', a neutral third party made a comment about how a 'person of a self-identified ethnicity cannot be mis-identified as race is a social construct', yet he completely bypassed that remark, and instead directed an attack against me, continuing to talk about 'mis-classified white americans' in accordance with his logic, completely bypassing the point of the neutral third party editor [191], and it is extremely hard for me to not comment, when he continues to make personal attacks against me and nothing is done. This places me in a position where I'm forced to respond, even though I have repeatedly told him many times that I would prefer to keep discussion regarding a specific sub-thread to that thread, he continues to go off and post it in any random other sub-thread I may post in. Alon12 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Robert McClenon's talk looks like he's running a scab ANI over there. He's gonna put the admins outta work. (j/k) BlueSalix (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that the intervention of uninvolved administrators is needed. I requested the attention of uninvolved administrators. It appears that both User:Alon12 and User:Aergas want someone to intervene on their side to resolve what is fundamentally their content dispute. The English Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board to resolve content disputes. It has a Request for Comments process to involve the community. (It also has mediation, but that doesn't work when the parties talk past each other and won't directly engage and expect the mediator to resolve a content dispute.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil, disruptive editing/edit warring

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

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

• First editor — Gloss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)): [192] + [193]

After his second revert of my edit, I placed a "maintenance template removal" template/note on his talk page: [194]. In response, he left an inappropriate "Misidentifying edits as vandalism" template on my page: [195], to which I replied with an "Improper use of warning or blocking template" note on his page ([196]). He responded on my page, telling me to "not template the regulars", it is "rude" to "template a veteran user": [197]. I responded on his page: [198]. He replied uncivilly in a revert edit summary: [199]

• Second editor — All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (After he added 3 Bare URLs, about I'd left a talk message): [200] → [201] → subsequent edit wherein they are referred to the talk page discussion: [202]
• Third editor — Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [203] → subsequent edit, wherin editor is referred to talk page discussion and reminded not to 'discuss' in edit summaries or edit war: [204] → subsequent and latest edit, wherein editor disregards what was stated in previous edit, does not bother with talk page, and condescends to me, leaving an edit warring template on my talk page ([205]), to which I replied on his talk page ([206]). Mind you, editor reverted multiples times in article disregarding advice to refer to and use talk page, and not even addressing the issue at hand but resorting to uncivil remarks. This revert of the last message left on his talk page I consider to be condescending again, given his edit behavior in the article: [207]

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

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

• Executive summary: a single editor has been unable to overcome objections from three good editors, and is hoping ANI will sweep the opposition away. Sorry, but disagreements are the norm at Wikipedia—please calmly discuss the issue without trying to force a really ugly "This biographical article needs additional citations" tag at the top. I see there are several "citation needed" tags in the article, but frankly it is highly unlikely that the BLP for such a prominent person has significant problems. One snippet with a cn tag is "She starred on Broadway in the Brecht/Weill musical Happy End"—yes, there should a citation, but it is hardly something to fight over. Do you doubt the statement? How about finding some references and adding them to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Johnuniq's assessment. If three veteran editors disagree with your edits, your best recourse is to use the talk page to work out a compromise if possible and appropriate. AI is not the venue for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you Johnuniq and Ohnoitsjamie. Some background is needed here. When I saw Lapadite77's days' long edit-warring on Meryl Streep, against multiple editors and for such an issue, become rapid-fire edit-warring yesterday when s/he reverted at :48, :58 past the hour and :12 past the next hour I couldn't believe my eyes. I automatically assumed that the editor must be new and did not understand the 3RR rule and wrote so in my edit-summary. Guess what, Lapadite77 thought I was condescending and uncivil for thinking so and he left a message to that effect on my talkpage. So much for AGF'ing regarding my well-stated rationale for my actions. Going to the issue at hand, I agree with all the other editors, in that Lapadite77 has no grounds for adding that defacing template at the top of a popular article because that article is well-cited and wherever there are no citations there are cn tags. Resorting to longterm and rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors for an issue like defacing an article, for which no good reason exists to be defaced thus, is an overreaction to say the least. I think Lapadite should convert his edit-warring and ANI reporting/editor warning energies into something more positive such as adding references to the article, which btw I did and removed a copyvio in the process. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Following Johnuniq's suggestion about finding a reference for the Broadway play, I found a reference from the American Film Institute which covered the play as well as the rest of the sentence. I added it to the article and also removed yet another copyvio sentence, copied from the 2004 AFI reference. It didn't take me long to do that. Nowadays Google is a very convenient tool for finding references. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I added another twelve references since then. It wasn't that hard to find them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

edit-warring by User:William M. Connolley

User:William M. Connolley has been edit-warring at Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach. His three recent reverts are as follows: first, second, and third. Note that at no point has User:William M. Connolley engaged other editors in a discussion at the talk page, contrary to WP:BRD guidelines. While other editors have made constructive contributions to the page, User:William M. Connolley's contribution is limited to reverts of other editors' work. In his most recent reverts he deleted a reference to a recent article relevant to the subject matter of the page without any explanation at all. His last revert occurred within minutes of my previous edit. I request that User:William M. Connolley be blocked for a suitable period to serve as a warning sign to refrain from edit-warring. Tkuvho (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The last message at the article talk was on 19 December 2011 (three years ago). As you seem to be proposing a change, the correct procedure would be to post a new section on the article talk page and explain why the change is desirable. Then wait for a response. WP:BRD means you made a bold change, then it was reverted, then discussion should occur. If I have misunderstood the sequence of events, please explain. By the way, reports like this should be at WP:ANEW. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Removing excessive words is part of the normal editing process and improves the encyclopedia (see Apoptosis). (Concur with Johnuniq). NE Ent 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Without any explanation at all" is untrue, as he provided meaningful edit summaries. You may want to consider providing edit summaries more routinely in your own contributions, as this is recommended as a way to avoid misunderstandings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and disruptive tagging of Boko Haram

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

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

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

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

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

In a section on the article talk page asking for reasons for the tags [208]. User:Lipsquid replied that the article has "an anti-Muslim and anti-Nigerian government bias". He backs this claim by complaining about a few sourced facts in the article that supposedly are biased, although they are exactly as they appear in the sources. So, I am now accused of having a POV "agenda" which is anti-everything. He also blames me for the existence of a "Name" section (which has nothing to do with me). User:Legacypac added an incoherent comment about the timeline, and states "These tags have brought in many new editors" - still not a reason for tags - he then makes a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the page to be protected. So, while his reason for tagging the article is purportedly to bring in new editors (a totally inadequate reason), he also feels the need to protect the article from new editors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply I'm glad Signedzzz filed this report for context is everything. [209] [210] [211] [212] [213]

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

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

(Revived from Archives) Boko Haram Proposed Topic Ban

Related 3RR reports: [214], [215] and others.

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

Examples:

1. [216] wholesale revert of changes by User:Koyos
2. [217] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Lipsquid and adjusted by User:Charles Essie
3. [218] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Legacypac
4. [219] wholesale revert on changes to Names section by User:Legacypac
5. [220] makes large edit with summary "(many unexplained changes to text)"
6. [221] editwarring over Background section with same revert about 9 times. Results in 4 trips to 3RR board and a comment by User:EdJohnston that he believes Signedzzz will never stop.
7. [222] removed word "men" from types of people (men, women and children) kidnapped in the lead and good source added by User:105.184.160.62
8. [223] [224] [[225]]] reverted additions of ISIL under allies by User:Jurryaany, an IP, and User:Jackninja5. first time it is ref'd, second time he says it needs a ref, third time in breach of his ISIL topic ban, .
9. [226] even undoes minor spelling variation by User:LightandDark2000
10. [227] good addition by User:MelvinToast
11. [228] took out timeline section, left article with only a link under see also
12. [229] reverted the addition of "nearly" by User:Shii in front of an approximation of refugees.

And if you go back further there are more examples.

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

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

That's fine, but I'm not sure how it excuses some of the language that was being thrown around or the insertion of a large quantity of uncited material. Also, having now read the diffs you've posted above, I - in some cases - question the accuracy of the summaries you've offered of these interactions, while - in others - fail to see the problem of the edits. This diff [230] for instance you've characterized as a "wholesale revert" of your edits, but it appears the only substantive edits were to remove those of your insertions that were sourced to non-RS sources like something called "gotdns.com" and a primary source reference to wikileaks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion

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

Update: The OWNership continues as he just made several unconstructive edits that removed good additions made by a variety of editors while he was on the block, which appears to restores the lead and infobox to exactly how he had it before the block. [231] and [232]. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Scalhotrod, with whom I am often in conflict, has repeatedly added an obvious BLP violation back to the Juelz Ventura article after I removed it. The content in question identifies a notable professional basketball player as a porn actor who has "performed" with Ventura. The claim is all but certainly false, and the cited reference provides absolutely no support for the claim. I initially removed the violation here [233]; Scalhotrod restored it (and other claims without any RS) here [234] and here [235] and here [236], with inappropriate, bordering on insulting, edit summaries. (The supposed supporting reference is a promotional page for Penthouse, and is, at best, a primary source that does not reliably identify any individual beyond Ventura, and really is just advertising for a paid-membership website.) The disputed content, rather promotional, is so slipshod that it identifies a male performer as an "actress", and was initially added by . . . Scalhotrod. Scalhotrod refuses to engage in reasonable discussion on porn-related issues -- note, for example, this personal attack in an edit summary [237] restoring demonstrably false claims to another porn bio -- and has just come off a lengthy topic ban for for similarly inappropriate behavior in another area. Some sanction regarding BLP editing is in order. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that "TJ Cummings" is indeed a pornographic actor, however, is not the same TJ Cummings in our article of the same. In other words, there are two different people named TJ Cummings, one who is a pornographic actor and appears to be white, and the other who is a basketball player and appears to be black. I assume, in the case of the former, the surname "Cummings" is a novelty stage name. While giving Scalhotrod the benefit of the doubt that he was confused by the identical names, I agree with The Big Bad Wolfowitz that the wikilink should be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem appears to have rectified itself. I removed the wikilinks to TJ Cummings, after which Scalhotrod deleted the name altogether and replaced it with some other porn actor. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Talk page for Talk:Juelz Ventura is surprisingly absent of HW's efforts to communicate[238]. But if this is just about a Wikilink that's pointed at the wrong place, holy crap HW, why couldn't you just say that and leave out all the puffery and hyperbole? I've gone ahead and removed the link and added 2 other working links that point to the correct actors[239]. I have also started a discussion on the Talk page if you have other concerns that you would like to specifically articulate, rather than bury things an Edit summary when you are blanking a section or sections of an article[240].

For anyone else, this is just a content dispute, these are not the droids you are looking for. "Move along (click) Move along" please... :) (end of Star Wars reference) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Chris, this is not simply a content dispute. This is principally about your irresponsible, at best careless, at worst dishonest, approach to editing BLPs. It's evident you never bothered to check the accuracy of the pages you link to. Itcouldn't be more obvious from the "correction" you just made to the Juelz Ventura page, where you got one of the two links wrong. Only a week or so ago you accused me of BLP zealotry after I [error removed] deleted unsourced claims that an identified living person was involved in the making of human-animal porn, a position no reasonable, honest editor would make. You went out of your way to add the BLP violation back to the Ventura article, and you never checked the article you were intent on adding a link to. Just like you never checked to begin with. Instead, you used snarky, derisive, disruptive edit summaries to divert attention from your misbehaviour. Your carelessness isn't limited to porn BLPs, although that's where your most flagrant misbehaviour occurs. Just a dayor so ago, at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, you rejected an edit as unsourced even though it clearly wasn't -- and you pretty much admitted on my talk page you did so because you hadn't even bothered to check the relevant source. And, as usual, you wouldn't admit your error, you just posted snarky and derisive comments on my talk page, where you've long been unwelcome. You've mad it clear that you don't accept BLP policy calling for dubious content to be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. You plainly don't accept policy and guideline limits on promotional content (which isn't surprising given the amount of COI editing you've done, or the fact that you've dropped your own name into articles.) But that disagreement doesn't allow you to restore BLP violations, which you have done repeatedly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That sounds like exactly how Scalhotrod is behaving with a BLP conflict with me. I sympathize with you User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am having my own difficulties with Scalhotrods "irresponsible, at best careless, at worst dishonest, approach to editing BLPs." [241]

[242][243][244][245]

..."narky and derisive comments". Yep, that about sums it up.🐍 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)

Shark310, you forgot an important one... [246] and please learn to sign your comments, you're going to blowout the SineBot. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

yet another snarky and rude comment. No, I didnt forget it, I thought I'd let you bring it up. Because you seem to think that the result of an SPI allows you to violate BLP policy and consensus multiple times. When all else fails, bring up socking. scalhotrod seems to believe the best defense for violating policy is to attack. It really is a shame. I'm sorry Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, it sucks you have to deal with this ridiculousness. I'm having my own trouble with scalhotrod and his blatant disregard for BLP policy.Shark310(talk)🐍 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a "Snarky" comment... Anyone need a popcorn refill? I'm off to run errands... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are some long-term issues here. But this ANI only addresses an immediate issue of a wikilink that has been completely and totally solved. If there's some other issue it should be saved and brought-up in a separate ANI and this one let die. BlueSalix (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Animal porn, huh? What the heck are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On January 4, in a discussion of Squeakbox, you referred to my reversing edits you made with edit summaries (plural) referring to BLP. In the group of edits you referred to, there were only two with summaries referencing BLP. Since you took credit for the content I removed, I inferred you were responsible for it. If you now would say you were not, I'll accept that unless it's shown otherwise, although I don't understand why you would take creditfor it to begin with. The content at issue was in Pornography in Europe, and given the nature of it I'm not going to link to it directly. When I raised the same point in the January 4 discussion, in responseto your rather gratuitous and inaccurate comments about me, you didn't claim any inaccuracy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific with your allegation, cause I'm just not seeing it. The only edit I made to Pornography in Europe was this[247] on January 1 which involved Wikilinks to several other articles for directors. What does that have to do with animal porn? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Attempt at Outing

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

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has attempted to post information attempting to identify my geographical location with this edit [248] (See edit summary). This information is not available via any available internet tools as they only report which country I am in. I request that this edit be redacted from the edit history.

Further, there is more information at the talk page of User talk:85.255.234.114, the dynamic IP address that I had yesterday. I request that this page along with the edit history be redacted. I also request that appropriate action be taken against this user. 212.183.128.108 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is not outing, as you intentionally chose to edit from your IP. I just looked up your IP address, and it does get down to the specifics of what city you're in. If you do not want your location to be public, you should create an account. --Biblioworm 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

IPs reveal all sort of information about a user. When you edit without an account you are making this information public. I recommend you create a username.

Revealing your IP also opens you up to hackers. Chillum 17:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed no tools on Wikipedia show that this IP is in the geographical location mentioned in the edit summary. It shows Country and some well known big city, even down to a certain building, but definetly not the city that's being claimed. I'd say it's a candidate for Rev Del. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does NOT go down to a specific city. The only location given is "United Kingdom" or "N/A United Kingdom" depending on which tool you use. Any accompanying map shows a pointer or a pin at London, but this is presumably only because it is regarded as the capital city. Indeed, the maps resolve it to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster (just over the road from the Houses of Parliament). This also happens to be the geographical centre of Greater London. 212.183.128.108 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Geolocate function shows a big red dot in the London area, but that might just be a default value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at several geoip websites I got all kinds of answers. Mostly just said UK, but others said a variety of cities including the one in the edit summary. Again, make an account if you don't want the information revealed by your IP to become public. Chillum 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

From WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment" and "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors"(my emphasis). Non-editors will, by definition, be IP address users. The vagueness around the geolocation of the two IP addresses on this page would suggest that the actual location (wherever it is) is not publicly available and that there fore an attempt at harassment is being made.

Admins may wish to note that where dynamic IP addresses are involved a geolocate, where it does resolve to a specific location, does not reveal where the edit was made from but only where the IP address is geolocated at the time of the enquiry. If the IP address is unallocated at the time of the enquiry, then apparently the geolocate will return the location of the IP address server.

I have geolocated the above two IP addresses and both generally locate to the Methodist Hall, Westminster (now a conference centre). Some tools return random locations (in my case not including Guildford, but not centred on anywhere in particular). However, I have tried searching variations to the adresses and all return similar results from those tools (with the same tools returning locations within a few miles of the subject IP addresses). It would seem that the geolocate tools cannot locate the location other than United Kingdom and each has its own way of dealing with the absence of information. From the above, it seems that the IP editor is aware of these limitations and therfore is aware (and has stated) that location information is not publicly available. Therefore Wtshymanski is guilty of publishing information not publicly available.

At the very least the edits should be rev deled. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with User:DieSwartzPunkt. Atleast rev delete it and warn the user about WP:BITE & WP:CIVIL as the edit summary was inflammatory. Avono (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

IP has already said that Guildford is not its location. [249] Jeh (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what is the problem? Certainly not an intention to "out" some IP address as belonging to an identifiable person; I suspect even in Guildford there is more than one person using the Internet. Next time I'll just say "Hello Fellow Terran" - that's not too specific now, is it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• First, when DieSwartzPunkt says above "Non-editors will, by definition, be IP address users", that's a fundamental misunderstanding. IP editors are editors. Non-editors refers to people who are not editing WP. Second, I'm confused by the IP's concern that this is outing, when the same IP editor voluntarily provide information that they are "around 200 miles north of Guildford". Third, per Chillum, we have traditionally said that using WHOIS/Geolocate information on an IP address is not outing; there's a link to these tools on every IP editor's contributions page. Fourth, WHOIS/Geolocate info are not always accurate (my own IP, for example, sometimes geolocates to the correct city, or 20 miles away, or several hundred miles away). Fifth, some people consider linking an account name to an IP address outing, but that's simply not what happened here. So IMHO "not outing, not appropriate for revdel/oversight". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not outing and the IP knows it is not outing. The IP has stated[250] they are not from that area. This seems like a non-issue. Chillum 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest the IP editor stops crying and registers an account. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has been outed. It is a simple fact that an IP address can be used to determine information, including sometimes an approximate location - though in the UK, geolocation seems to be more or less useless in many cases - and that anyone who uses an IP to edit Wikipedia is publishing that information in plain sight. We routinely use IP addresses to determine where posts are coming from - e.g. at the reference desks, where such information can sometime be useful in answering a question without having to ask what country the IP is posting from, where this will affect the answer - and the suggestion that geolocation would contravene our policy on outing would make much common practice on Wikipedia untenable. Contributors have two choices - either edit via IP, and accept the consequences, which include revealing a certain amount of data, or create an account. The choice is theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Admin User:Seicer and WP:ADMINACCT

I wish to raise a concern about an admin who will not explain their actions after three requests. I'm hoping that Seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can be made to understand the importance of responding to such requests, and that not doing so erodes the trust that the community places in admins.

Two days ago, I reported an editor AN/EW (permalink) after they had made a total of six reverts and continued to edit war after being warned. In the ensuing discussion, some claims were made by third parties that the edit warring was justified by WP:3RRBLP. The claims were refuted. A short while later, Seicer ruled that there was no violation. I was surprised by this ruling so I asked how they came to that conclusion. I asked a total of three times.

1. At AN/EW
2. At Seicer's talk page My request was removed, without a response, when it was archived with two other threads the next day. (I'm not sure why three recent threads needed to be archived.)
3. Yesterday, I posted another request for an explanation from Seicer, which more than 24 hours later has not received a response, even though Seicer has been online since then.

I have a great deal of respect for our admins, with very few exceptions, and I acknowledge that they are under-appreciated for their contributions. I understand that they have to make judgements calls that frequently draw criticism. However, I can't abide legitimate questions being ignored or archived. It's not civil, and admins are not supposed to conduct themselves that way.- MrX 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is above the rules. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have gotten explanations from multiple people in the ANEW thread about what the BLP-violating content was, and it's quite clear to me at a glance why that content was not appropriate. While, yes, Seicer probably ought to repeat the explanation you've already had from other people, this does not strike me as a situation in which the admin's action is somehow mysterious or in need of detailed explanation to be comprehensible, so I'm not entirely clear on why you feel more explanation is needed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the situation didn't need explanation, or that the explanation from other people were on point, but feel free to take a stab at answering the questions that I posed to Seicer. Meanwhile, the appropriateness of an admin ignoring questions for some unarticulated reason is what I would prefer this discussion focus on.- MrX 19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, after looking closely, it appears that:

• Seicer believes the question was already answered, and therefore does not feel he needs to comment (most likely);
• This is just an editor refusing to drop the stick after an unfavorable conclusion (doubtful);
• Or, there may be a concern here (I do not know)

I stand by my above comment as a simple reminder, but, it does not really apply. I do not see a problem. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Having spent half the day clearing BLP violating cites out of articles including this behemoth, I had a look at the diffs, and found this revert of an improperly sourced mention of suicide. That's a good edit, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you expect Seicer to say, other than "yup, that's WP:BLP for you". Seriously, folks, for BLPs we've got to err on the side of caution at all times, it just comes back to haunt us. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my only comment on this: no. You didn't like the call I gave, so you began hounding me (and not even informing me of when my comment(s) would be warranted). We've had three administrators review one of the blocks I made, what, two days ago, and it was found to be a solid block on solid basis. We've had discussions archived only to be reopened when someone didn't like an administrator's response, only to have responses ignored when they didn't like what was being said. To be short: I've been accused of dereliction because: a) I'm semi-retired, which can be blamed on my heavy travel and work schedule that precludes regular Wikipedia use currently; b) because I blocked someone they liked (and who didn't choose to use proper channels to debate the block); and c) because I don't immediately reply.

Well, I can't reply to everything when you don't inform me of what's going on. I don't have the time in the day to watch every talk page where I *might* be mentioned, which at one point was spread among three talk pages for something that was all about one user (and much thanks to MrX for the heads up for this one). And I am not going to explain each and every edit when I have one particular user hounding each and every action I make. For instance, this comment is borderline stalking and was brought up initially at another noticeboard which I resolved by blocking an editor for 24 hours for edit warring and failing to respond to comments. Ritchie333 made a mention and then slung some verbiage around without even getting the facts correct about that one minor incident. And yes, Ritchie333, IMDB can be used as a source of information for some instances, but you probably overlooked my comment on that.

I am about to head off for the next 4 days on travel/work, so I will not be able to respond. But I'm pretty sure that my edits and such will be nitpicked anyways, so feel free to explore around. seicer | talk | contribs 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. I think two separate issues are being confused. I'm only referring to you not responding to my question. I certainly don't think I've hounded you at all, so I assume you are referring to Ritchie333. It's not be accurate to say that I didn't like the call you made; it was simply unexpected. I didn't expect, or even want for WWGB to be blocked. I was hoping for a final warning. I know that our BLP-related content should be carefully handled, but it seemed that in this case, it was simple vote counting without examining the merits of the arguments or the underlying content. If you're rushed, then you should let another admin handle it, as another actually was in this case.- MrX 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d disruptive editing

Refuses to follow WP:V even after being alerted to this policy and to how his image contributions violate it (this was originally a content dispute at Talk:MDMA#Image in header/User_talk:Lazord00d#Bad molecular models until his behavior got out of hand). He says he no longer takes WP seriously (or at least other WP editors seriously) and is tired of arguing but has plenty of time and interest to continue trying to re-insert his preferred images that others dispute (WP:IDHT/WP:CIR/etc). Refuses to recognize WP:CONSENSUS, or at best continuing to edit-war while simultaneously discussing something that has strong dissent ([251] and [252] are the same issues of style-choice and disputed-content (unreliability of jmol) raised at the MDMA and user-talk pages). Responds with insults/abuse/personal comments when responding to policy/guideline-based criticism of his ideas and approaches (see User talk:DMacks#Poopy farts, which includes my warning to him about WP:CIVIL). He has asked me not to leave him any further talk messages, so I will let the WP:ECHO of this comment ping him and others can notify explicitly to complete the letter of the process-policy here. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)